C-ir ^2 REESE LIBRARY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, Received. .C^^^te^ ../^A' -^ Acassions No.^Si i../3-J Shelf No e^- -8$ c ^.v > Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2007 with funding from IVIicrosoft Corporation http://www.archive.org/details/doctrineofresurrOOIandrich THE D C T E I N E RESURRECTION OF THE BODY ASSERTED AND DEFENDED ; IN ANSWER TO THE EXCEPTIONS RECENTLY PRESENTED BY REV. GEORGE BUSH, PROFESSOR OF HEBREW, NEW YORK CITY DNIVERSITY. By ROBERT VV. LANDIS, >iv Tin; iTroLyyikko/Atvciij Trt^t tinmjtglj^i^^ff/ig^. Paul. Qiiidoani silil saxa cavatii. ■^^ luid pulchrii vulunt monumenta^V rjst^iiod res credit irr illis \ fonmortua, setl data somno.— Pjiui>»ntius. PHILTdYlThTa: perkins & purves, 142 chestnut street. BOSTOiN:— BENJAMIN PF.RKINS & Co. 1846. /.3 Entered according to the act of Congress, in the year 1846, by PERKINS & PURVES, in the office of the Clerk of the District Court for the Eastern District ^Pa^^ia^_^^ .^■ ADVERTISE3IENT. The work here submitted to the public, was ready for the press in March last. But soon after preparing it, the author learned from Professor Bush that he was about to issue other works in defence of the positions assumed in the Anastasis: and therefore concluded to delay the publication until he should have an opportunity to consider them. In conse- quence, however, of a severe and protracted illness, he could not do this until late in the fall: when, upon perusing the works referred to, he found nothing that required any formal distinct notice whatever. They contain little else than repe- titions of what is asserted in the Anastasis. With regard to the style of the present work, the author would say that he has aimed only at clearness and brevity: for he cannot see that in the estimation of thinking minds, his argument would derive any advantage from being ex- pressed in a strain of fervid declamation, and in beautifully rounded and polished periods. In aiming at clearness, how- ever, he has endeavoured to express himself not only so as to be understood, but so as not to be misunderstood. In doing this, he is aware that he has sometimes repeated the same word or phrase (even in close connexion) rather oflener than either the Roman or Scottish rhetorician would have sanctioned. In consequence of the author's distance from Philadelphia, (and the uncertainty o^ the transmission by mail, especially in the winter,) his friend, Dr. E. S. Ely, kindly consented to assist him in the labour of revising the proofs, for which favour he would take the present opportunity of expressing his obliga- tions and gratitude. And in looking over the sheets (which are printed with singular accuracy), the author has discovered no errata which need be specified, save that on p. 59, in stating a hypothetical case he remarked that «in-» in Gen. i. 2, was used in the hithpael, when he should have said pieZ ; and on p. 184, '^xv ^^ "^^^ ^^^ •^xf'xo? in one instance, and •\'vxt'x6s also for -^vxixov. Other errata will doubtless be dis- covered; but he is assured that those (at least) of his brethren 4 ADVERTISEMENT. who are engaged in the arduous duties of the gospel ministry, will know how to palliate them. The author hopes that the reader will excuse the appear- ance of the Hebrew character, as also the absence of the paints in the quotations from the Old Testament. The He- brew and Greek originals have been also generally excluded, as well as those of the Latin and German, from a desire that the present volume should not in bulk exceed that of Profes- sor Bush. The author, in justice to himself, ought also, perhaps, here to state why he has not noticed more specifically the construc- tion of Job xix. 25-27, which is presented in the late excel- lent work of Mr. Barnes. He had endeavoured, by sending to New York soon after the work was announced, to procure a copy of it, but in vain ; and was therefore compelled to proceed without it. But he finds, however, that he has antici- pated and replied to every thing offered by Mr. Barnes against the ordinary rendering of that celebrated passage. While the Anastasis was passing through the press, Pro- fessor Bush politely transmitted to the author the sheets con- taining the more important branches of the argument. These he perused with deep interest, and with a strong impression that the Professor's book required to be promptly met and answered. And being satisfied that its principles, if received, would be most pernicious in their influence upon American theology, he concluded to put down his thoughts upon the subject while it was fully before his mind ; and if, in the meantime, no reply should appear, to give them to the public. The labour of doing so, taken in connexion with the arduous duties of an extensive pastoral charge, has been greater than he antici- pated; but as no reply to the Professor has appeared, occu- pying the ground herein occupied, he hopes that his labour has not been altogether in vain. Having prepared his little volume in the humble hope that it may tend somewhat to counteract the errors which it con- troverts, the author, in submitting it to the public, earnestly commends it to the blessing of the Great Head of the Church, (without whose favour all our efforts are vain!) with the fer- vent prayer also that both the writer and reader may be guided into the saving knowledge of all essential truth. Sidney, New Jersey, March 13, 1846. CONTENTS. Page Introduction 7 PART I. CONTAINING A STATEMENT OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION, AND OF PROFESSOR BUSH's THEORY ; TOGETHER WITH A CONSIDERATION OF HIS " ARGUMENT FROM REASON." Chapter I. — The doctrine of the Resurrection of the Body stated 13 Chapter II. — A brief view of Professor Bush's theory of the Resurrection, and of its correlative doctrines, as stated by himself. 17 Section ii. — History of Professor Bush's theory 26 Chapter III. — The " Argument from Reason" considered.. . . 36 Section i. — Introduction 36 Section ii. — " Argument from Reason" stated 42 Section hi. — Condition of the " Argument from Reason." 48 Section iv. — The theory of Professor Bush derives little or no support from his " Argument from Reason," even admitting its premises and conclusion 49 Section v. — The " Argument from Reason" cannot be relied on 50 Chapter IV. — A consideration of Chapters II. and III. of the " Anastasis." 61 Chapter V. — Professor Bush's " Objections from Reason" con- sidered 74 Chapter VI. — The true office of reason, in respect to revealed religion 96 PART II. professor bush's remarks on the scriptural argument considered. Chapter I. — The principle of interpretation advocated in the Anastasis 107 Section ii. — The view entertained of it by the evangelical party in Germany 118 Section hi. — A brief history of this principle 120 Section iv. — Objections to the principle 125 Section v. — True principles of interpretation 130 Chapter II. — A consideration of the Old Testament doctrine of the Resurrection, as presented and discussed by Professor Bush 1 32 I. Consideration of Genesis xvii. 7, 8 137 II. " Job xix. 25-27 140 1* 6 . CONTENTS. \ Page III. " Psalmxvi.9, 10 152 IV. « " xvii. 15 152 V. " Isaiah xxv. 7, 8 153 VI. " " xxvi. 19 157 VII. " Ezekiel xxxvii. 1-14 158 VIII. " Hosea vi. 2 161 IX. " « xiii. 14 161 X. " Daniel xii. 2 163 Chapter III. — The New Testament doctrine of the Resurrec- tion 168 Section i. — Preliminary remarks 168 Section ii. — Definition of terms 170 Section hi. — Examination of passages in 1 Corinthians. 188 I. Consideration of 1 Corinthians xv. 12, 13 188 II. " " " 16-18 194 III. " " " 20-23 197 IV. " «' " 35-37 204 V. " " " 38-41 211 VI. « " " 42-44 214 VII. " « " 50-53 225 Section iv. — Examination of passages in Matthew 244 I. Consideration of Matthew v. 29, 30 244 II. " " X. 28 250 III. " " xxii. 31,32 253 IV. " " xxvii. 50— 53 260 Section v. — Passages in John's Gospel 264 I.— Consideration of John v. 28, 29 264 II. " " vi. 39, 40 268 III. « " xi. 21-26 273 Section vi. — Passages in Acts 278 I. — Consideration of Acts ii. 29-35 278 II. " " xxiv. 14, 15 281 Section vii. — Passages in the Epistles 284 I. — Consideration of Rom. viii. 10,11 284 II. " " " 22-23 293 III. " 2Cor. v. 2-4 297 IV. " " "10 300 V. " 1 Thess. iv. 13— 17 303 VI. « Philippians iii. 21 313 VII. " 2 Timothy ii. 16— 18 315 Section viii. — References to a multitude of import- ant passages touching the resurrection, wholly unnoticed by Professor Bush 318 Chapter IV. — The Resurrection of Christ 327 Chapter V. — Scriptural doctrine of the Judgment 345 Section ii. — Direct arguments for a future general Judgment 360 Conclusion 376 INTRODUCTION. The importance of the doctrine discussed in the ensuing work can scarcely be over-estimated ; and in reference to his Anastasis, Profes- sor Bush therefore truly remarks, "that the results which it an. nounces are of very momentous import to the interests of revealed truth." — Preface^ p. v. They are indeed. Nor does this arise alone from the intrinsic importance of the doctrine of the resurrection of the body in itself considered; but also from its relative importance as viewed in connexion with the great system of truth announced in the Word of God. And hence the Professor has correctly observed also, that " a course of reasoning, or a theory of interpretation which goes essentially to change the established view of the doctrine of the re- surrection, must necessarily work a correspondent change in our esti- mate of a whole class of subjects bearing upon the theme of humah destiny in another life."— /6f rf. Such being the fact, it may of course be rationally expected, that when the received doctrine on this subject is assailed from any respectable source, its advocates will either at- tempt to defend it, or, by their silence, leave it to be inferred that they deem it incapable of defence. Such an alternative has been presented by Professor Bush. We cheerfully accept it: and only ask of the Christian public patiently to hear our defence of the doctrine which he has assailed. It is conceded by all that the theme itself is sacred. But the indi- vidual who asserts that because it involves consequences so momen- tous, it should therefore not be subjected to a rigid scrutiny, has alto- gether misapprehended the spirit of the age and country in which we live. Mere human authority is losing its power to lead, and must in turn expect its own claims to be rigidly tested. And while an adven- turer, who, like Professor Bush, boldly assumes to call an established doctrine or usage in question, need have little apprehension of being condemned by intelligent men, merely for thus venturing, he himself has made a wretchedly mistaken calculation if he does not in turn expect to have his own theory or pretensions as rigidly scrutinized. If right, he may therefore reasonably hope to receive the support of the candid and intelligent: but if such an attempt be made on insuf- ficient grounds, or should be based upon crude conceptions, or a total misapprehension of the subject; or should prove to be a mere effort to revive old exploded objections; he will find that the public, to whose verdict he professes to appeal, will not be slow in awarding him the full meed of such ill-timed temerity. 8 INTRODUCTION. In the ensuing pages we have entered into a thorough investigation of the "Theory of the Resurrection" propounded by Professor Sush; and also of the exceptions which he has taken to the doctrine of the Resurrection of the Body. Our views of both are expressed freely and unambiguously. The Professor, in his work, has spoken plainly, and in some parts of it with a good deal of asperity, of the doctrines he impugns, and of those who entertain them. The writer o^ the present work has likewise " used great plainness of speech ;" but he hopes that no unkind expression has escaped him in reference to the Professor personally, for whom he has long entertained, and still does entertain a sincere and affectionate regard. Theological controversy in the time of the Reformation, abounded in the fiercest and most prescriptive denunciations of individuals as well as of opinions; this, to some extent, subsequently gave place to a tone of discussion so ex- cessively mild, even where the most important interests were con- cerned,* that many were strongly inclined to infer that after all nothing of real importance was involved in the controversy : both alike have proved extremely prejudicial to the interests of truth, and both have now in great measure given place to a frank and manly expression of thought, in the interchange of which it is mutually con- ceded that things should be spoken of as they are. Such a course it was the aim of the author to pursue in the work now submitted to the reader. Professor Bush remarks that the doctrine of the resurrection has been but " seldom interrogated f by which he means that it has been but seldom subjected to a close and rigid examination. In this, how- ever, he is mistaken : for not only from the earliest ages until now has it been bitterly opposed by pagans and infidels, but it is this very opposition itself which has from age to age originated the efforts (of which his ov/n work is the latest) that have been made to reconcile it with reason and philosophy. At the commencement of our work, we have given a succinct history of the Professor's theory as respects the development of its more prominent features, which is itself sufficient to evince that the doctrine of the resurrection had in our own day ceased to be a subject of radical investigation simply because all that could be offered against it had been offered in vain. No doctrine of the Christian system has been more thoroughly scrutinized by friend and foe, (from the fact of its plain connexion with the resurrection of our Saviour,) and none more fully established as a clear announce- ment of revelation, than the doctrine of the resurrection of the body. Nothing therefore can be more out of place than an attempt to justify any assumed impeachment of that doctrine by intimating that so far from having been made the subject of profound investigation, the ori- gin of its universal reception in the Jewish and Christian Church is a mere unsupported tradition. And we assert emphatically, that any intimation to this effect, from whatever source it may come, is not only wholly destitute of historical support, but directly contradicted by fact. As to the Anastasis itself of Professor Bush, the reader will doubt- * See, for example, the controversial writings of Dr. John Pye Smith. INTRODUCTION. 9 less make up his own mind respecting it. To us, however, it does appear to present a singularly striking contrast to those expectations which the loud and confident professions of its author at the outset, had led us to entertain. As to arrangement, it is any thing but lucid. The " Argument from Reason" is, throughout, the most singular spe- cimen of repetition of the same idea, and of the intermixture of Scrip- ture and hermeneutics with exploded fancies, and " odds and ends" of pretended scientific principles, with which it has been our fortune to meet for a long time. Such a mass of confusion may astound the un- discriminating reader, and make him believe, perhaps, that there must be some flame where there is so much smoke; but no thinking mind can be at any loss to know what estimate should be put upon an argu- ment of such a character. And as to prefacing his work with an at- tempt to prove that "fAe knowledge of revelation is progressive" and intimating that his theory furnishes an illustration of the truth of this proposition, it has, as we have shown, something of the appear- ance of the ludicrous : for the Professor has not, in his -whole book, advanced a solitary fact which has been developed or established by the modern improvements either in science or biblical hermeneutics. His so-called ''argument from reason," has been for centuries ad- vanced by skeptics and Socinians against the doctrine which he as- sails; his notions of" spiritualized bodies" are wholly visionary, and lack all support from reason or any thing else; and his principles of hermeneutics are the old exploded principles of the neological school of Germany : and in his whole book he has not evinced any acquaint- ance with the really advanced state of criticism, at the head of which school Winer stands confessedly pre-eminent.* On the contrary, the Professor's criticisms are all of the older species, in which the sense of a word is perpetually confounded with its signijication.f If, there- fore, it be a fact, that "the knowledge of revelation is progressive," it is a fact with which his theory has no more to do than with the dis- covery of the North Pole. And this branch of the argument, (upon which he professes to lay very great stress,) is met^ not only by a dis- tinct and direct denial that it has any thing to do w^ith the subject in support of which he has adduced it, but by showing that it is wholly irrelevant. The reader will also perceive that we have very carefully dissected * " Winer is the first who broke up the arbitrary methods of pre- ceding critics. Among the excellencies of this grammarian, is espe- cially to be noticed and extolled his sound judgment and discretion. He has made the following remarkable confession in reference to the new method, as compared to the old, of interpreting the Scriptures : * The controversies among interpreters have ordinarily led back to the admission, that the old Protestant views of the meaning of the sacred text, are the correct views;' see Leips. Litteratur. Zeituns^, 1833, No. 44." Tholuck — see his "Lectures" in Biblioth. Sac. for 1844. And see also the preface to his commentary on John. t "The signification of a term," says Tholuck, "is the meaning which it has in itself originally ; the sense of it is the meaning which it acquires in a certain connexion." 10 INTRODUCTION. " tlie argument from reason," and have demonstrated that even if its premises and conclusions vi^ere all granted, it would support but the merest fraction of the theory which our author professes to have erected upon it : and in addition to this we have shown that both its premises and conclusions are unsound and unphilosophical, and that the argument can by no means be relied on. We have also replied at length to the Professor's " objections from reason" to the doctrine of the resurrection of the body, and have devoted a chapter to a con- sideration of'' the true office of reason in respect to Revelation." The first part of our volume is occupied with the foregoing consi- derations;* and as the second is devoted to an investigation of the scriptural argument, we commence it with a discussion of Professor Bush's principles of interpretation; and have shown them to be neo- logical in their nature, and wholly subversive of Revelation in their tendency. In his development and illustration of these principles, he not only has adopted the theory of hermeneutics which transformed Germany into a nation of infidels, but has actually sought to recom- mend it to our American churches ! The writer has thought it his duty to discuss this principle somewhat thoroughly; for, after all, it is the most dangerous feature of the Professor's performance. If the principle be correct, little can be said against his attempt to make Revelation subservient to reason and philosophy; or, in other words, to show from reason and science what Revelation ought to teach. But at the very outset of our discussion of the Scripture argument, we have affirmed the principle that the announcements of the Word of God are to be fearlessly followed^ lead where they may ; and that in all such discussions as the present, they are to be assumed as first principles, even should reason or science appear to array itself against them. This principle, so happily presented in the following quota- tions, is that by which we are content to abide, and in support of which the great names of Bacon, Ernesti, and Hahn, as well as of Stuart and Hodge, and others in our own country, stand pre-eminent. " All creeds, systems, theories, sciences," says Dr. Skinner,t "are to be tried by the Bible, and to be rejected as falsifying the Divine veracity, if they cannot abide the trial. To a man who understands the literary character of the Bible, and remembers the fallibility of the human mind, and the influence of depravity in obscuring evidence and per- * I have not formally discussed in this work the Professor's doctrine of " natural laws ;" respecting which he says — " The idea maintained throughout" the Anastasis " is that the resurrection is effected by natural laws,^^ Pref p. xi. ; and on p. 35 — " It is by no means impos- sible that the most signal miracles on record may ultimately resolve themselves into the operation of some higher law, which may never have been previously known except to its Author." It would be a reflection upon a Christian community to attempt a serious refiitation of a notion so perfectly extravagant. The miraculous conception of our blessed Redeemer, is one among the *' miracles on record," and what can transcend the perfect atrocity of the principle which would even intimate that it was "effected by natural laws !" t " Aids to Preaching and Hearing," pp. 53 —54. INTRODUCTION. 11 verting reason, this is a motive of resistless power to tiie utmost dili- gence, candor, and seriousness in searching out the real doctrine of the sacred text." In like manner also, says Robert Hall — " In our apprehension, the true way of contemplating the peculiar doctrines of Christianity is to consider them as facts believed on the authority of the Supreme Being, not to be proved by reason ; since their truth does not result from any perceptible relations in our ideas, but they owe their existence entirely to the will and counsel of the Almighty Potentate. On this account we never consider it safe to rest their truth on a philosophical basis, nor imagine it is possible to add to their evidence by an elaborate train of reasoning. Let the fair gram- matical import of Scripture language be investigated ; and whatever propositions are, by an easy and natural interpretation, deducible ti-om thence, let tliem be received as the dictates of Infinite Wisdom, what- ever aspect they bear, or whatever difficulties they present."* These principles liave ever been dear to our American Zion, and long may they continue to be so ! The next topic of the Professor's treatise, is the Old Testament ar- gument. In this we have carefully fidlowed him step by step, and have shown that he has not only failed to find iJicrein any support for his own theory, but has entirely failed to meet the argument from the Old Testament for the resurrection of tiie body. Preparatory also to entering into a discussion of the New Testament argument, we have devoted a section to a definition of the terms avasTTstirjc and (rlfx^ ?rvivfji.a.TiH.-A' ; the latter of which. Professor Bush employs with a lati- tude of signification which is certainly in advance of all preceding lexicography. We have also fi>llowed the Professor patiently through his long ar- ray of New Testament citations, and have, we think, shown the irre- levancy of his every attempt to obviate their overpowering testimony in favour of the doctrine which he assails. The reader may, however, suppose that too much space is occupied in refuting the Professor's criticism on a-Trne^ut in I Cor. xv. 42— 44; but a moment's reflection will evince that if "sow" there refers to burial, the Professor's notion of the resurrection taking place at death is false. He himself felt this, and therefore adopts the Socinian exegcfis. At the close of this examination, we have adduced a large number of passages (entirely unnoticed by Professor Bush,) teaching the re- surrection of the body. This is followed by a chapter exposing our author's statements respecting the resurrection of Christ; and this is likewise followed by amtther on the Judgment, which concludes the argument. When this work was commenced, it was the writer's intention to prepare a third part, in wliich it was designed to present a view of the direct and positive argument in favour of tlie resurrection; con- taining a view also of the doctrine as held by the ancient Jews and the primitive Christian church, as well as an inquiry into the senti- ments entertained by Chrysippus, Demoeritus, and others of the an- cient philosophical heathen, respecting the possibility of a resurrec- tion. But the work has increased to such a bulk that this design » Works, Vol. II. p. 3.9. 12 INTRODUCTION. was abandoned by the author, lest he should incur the censure of the old proverb — juiyct 0i0Kiov fAyA kakov. There are many points which, for the same reason, we have been compelled to omit, but which have no little weight in this discussion : e. g., the very ancient custom of em- balming the body, plainly owes its origin to the expectation of revi- viscence, according to the statement of Democritus, as mentioned by Pliny and Varro. So also, the very design of burial under the cir- cumstances referred to by Prudentius, in a passage which we have placed on our title page,* furnishes of itself a complete off-set to the so-called "argument from reason" against the resurrection of the body. So also, the fact that man was created immortal, is a consider- ation of great weight to prove the same doctrine. We had intended also in a distinct chapter to consider the resur- rection of the wicked, (a point denied by Professor Bush,) and the reason why our Saviour speaks of the righteous as emphatically the "children of the resurrection." But though we have not (for the reason above stated) treated these and several other subjects in the form of distinct topics, we hope that all has been said in relation to them that the discussion itself required. And, finally, as the writer has, in no way, throughout his book, sought to influence the mind of the reader by an appeal to his passions or prejudices, he has said nothing concerning the violence which the theory of Professor Bush does to all tiiose tender and endearing asso- ciations which cluster around the grave of a father or mother, a sister, or child, &c,, and to those hallowed feelings which awaken within the breast as we gaze upon the resting-place of departed piety, genius, worth, or patriotism. These emotions can be neither superstitious nor wrong; (witness the weeping Jesus at the tomb of his friend I) and the man is not to be envied who has, by any means whatever, suc- ceeded in quenching them within his breast. * Why do they wish for the hollowed-out rocks ? Or wherefore the beautiful monuments crave? Unless 'tis beliov'd that the body but slumbers And is not abandoned to death in the grave. THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. PAET I. CONTAINING A STATEMENT OP THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION, AND OF PROFESSOR BUSH's THEORY ; TOGETHER WITH A CONSIDERATION OF HIS ARGUMENT FROM REASON. CHAPTER I. THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY STATED. TSE work of Professor Bush on the Resurrection would have exhibited an appearance of greater candour, if he had, at the outset, presented from some acknowledged symbol, a fair and full statement of the doctrine which he has attempted to refute. Instead of this frank and scholar-like course, he contents himself with some vague references to "the com- mon theoryy^^ and ventures to insinuate repeatedly through his work, that the views entertained on this subject by the Christian church are inconsistent and indeterminate.* That such is their character, he is welcome to prove, if he is able. But alongside of such intimations, it would, doubtless, have been the more candid course to state the doctrine clearly and plainly in the acknowledged terms of those who entertain it. He might then have also spared himself much of the labour which he has put forth in demolishing mere men of straw; * See pp. 36—39, 45, 48, 54, 55, and 187, &c. 2 14 THE RESURRECTION OP THE BODY and in discussing how bodies that were never in graves could come out of them, (see pp. 49, 50,) with a multitude of other, and not less irrelevant matters. There is no doctrine respecting which the views of the church of God have, in every age, been more perfectly har- monious than the doctrine of the resurrection of the body. She has ever regarded it as a doctrine of pure revela- tion, and as fundamental to the Christian system. And the TricTTsyo) ik a-ctgiclc dvAtrTacrtv of the first symbol, has expressed unambiguously the faith of the whole Christian church ever since the hour in which it was penned. Professor Bush had doubtless reasons which were satis- factory to his own mind for the course which he has pur- sued. But, that we may not be like those who " beat the air," it will be proper to present here a view of the doctrine under discussion. The reader will then at once be enabled to judge of the force of the arguments which, in this dis- cussion, are alleged both for and against it : as well as of the relevancy of many things which Professor Bush has offered with the intention of refuting it. Our citations will be somewhat extended ; but not more so, perhaps, than is necessary to show with what little reason the doctrine has been impugned on the score that the views of those who pro- fess to entertain it are vague and indefinite. We shall not here go back to the Jewish or primitive Christian church, for a delineation of the doctrine; as we shall have occasion hereafter to refer to their views. But we shall present a definition of it as entertained by the Pro- testant church at large ; and in contrast thereto, shall, in the following chapter, present the theory of Professor Bush. The Professor has connected with his theory, and has conse- quently discussed, many doctrines which need not be fully discussed in this connexion. And though we shall refer to these in the sequel, the single point which we have now before us, and from which we must not suffer our attention to be diverted, is the Resurrection of the Body. SECTION I. The testimony of the Lutheran Church. The first great division of the Protestant church, whose testimony we shall summon, is the Lutheran church. In her Augsburg symbol, Art. XVII., she thus speaks ; " Our ASSERTED AND DEPENDED. 15 churches teach, that at the end of the world Christ will ap- pear for judgment, and will raise all the dead ; and that he will bestow eternal life and perpetual happiness upon his pious elect ; and condemn wicked men and devils to unend- ing torment. " Our churches also condemn the Anabaptists, who think that the future punishment of men and devils will have an end. They condemn also those who now circulate the Jewish notion, that the pious are to possess the kingdom of the world, and the wicked to be every where put down before the resurrection of the dead."* The Herrnhiitters, or Moravians, adopt also the Augs- ► burg Confession, and may therefore be properly classed with the Lutheran church, at least on this subject. See Span- genberg^s Exposition, Preface, p. vi., and pp. 461 — 470. SECTION II. Testimony of the Calvinistic Church. The Heidelberg Catechism is the first symbol to which itis necessary to refer under this discussion. Its language is very explicit : " How doth the resurrection of the body {Fleisches,) afford thee comfort? Ans. Because not only my soul shall, after this life, be immediately taken up to Christ its head ; but this my body also, (sondern auch, dass diess mein Fleisch,) being raised by the power of Christ, shall be again united with my soul, and be like the glorious body of Christ." See Quest. 57 .f * Item docent, qudd Cfaristus apparebit in consummatione muhdi ad judicandum, et mortuos omnes resuscitabit, piis et electis dabit vitam seternam et perpetua gaudia, impios autem homines ac diabolos condemnabit, ut sine fine crucientur. Damnant Anabaptistas, qui sentiunthominibus damnatis ac diabolis finem poenarum futuruni esse. Damnant et alios, qui nunc spargunt Judaicas opiniones, quod ante resurrectionem mortuorum, pii regnum mundi occupaturi sint, ubique oppressis impiis. + Was trOstet dich die Auferstehung des Fleisches ? Antw. Dass nicht allein meine Seele nach diesem Leben alsbald zu Christo ihrem Haupt genommen wird, sondern auch, dass diess mein Fleisch durch die Kraft Christi auferwecket, wieder mit meiner Seele vereini- get und dem herrlichen Leib Christi gleichfOrmig werden soil. The Latin copy is singularly expressive. Quid te consolatur resur- rectio carnis? Resp. Quod non tantum anima mea, postquam e corpore excesserit, etc., quod hopc quoque caro mea potentia Christi excitata, rursus aninuB mecB unictur^ et glorioso corpori Christi con- ibrmabitur. 16 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY The Reformed Churches at the National Synod of Dort, (anno 1618 and 1619,) adopted the following language as expressive of their views : " Finally, we believe, according to the word of God, when the time appointed by the Lord (which is unknown to all creatures,) is come, and the num- ber of the elect complete, that our Lord Jesus Christ will come from heaven, corporeally and visibly, to declare him- self judge of the quick and the dead ; burning this old world with fire and flame to cleanse it. And then all will per- sonally appear before this great Judge, both men, and women, and children, that have been from the beginning of the world to the end thereof, being summoned by the voice of the archangel, and by the sound of the trumpet of God. For all the dead shall be raised out of the earth, and their souls joined and united with their proper bodies, in which they formerly lived. As for those who shall be then living, they shall not die as the others, but be changed in the twinkhng of an eye, and from corruptible, become incorruptible," &c. Conf. of Faith, Art. 37. The Westminster symbols speak the same unequivocal language. See Larger Catechism, Questions 87 and 88. See also Conf, of Faith, chapter 32. The Baptist Church adopts the language of the West- minster Confession. The English Church bears a like testimony. And in Article 4th, also, she says, "Christ did truly rise again from death, and took again his body, with flesh, bones, and all things appertaining to the perfection of man's nature, wherewith he ascended into heaven, and there sitteth, until he return to judge all men at the last day." The doctrine of this article is alike entertained by every branch of the Christian church. See Westminster Conf., chap. 8, sect. 4, and Larger Catechism, Quest. 52. Heidelberg Cate- chism, Quest. 47, 48, 49 and 52. Dordrecht Confession, Art. 19, and Augsburg Conf, Art. 3. SECTION III. Testimony of the Arminian Church. In Article 19, of the Confession, the Remonstrants say, that " The resuscitation of the dead shall take place when Jesus Christ comes to judge all men at his second and glorious advent; at which time, all. the dead, the just as well ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. 17 as the unjust, being recalled to life, shall, together with those who are alive and remain, be judged at the tribunal of his Father. Then his faithful and holy followers who were dead, shall he raised from the dust of the earth into eternal life and blessedness; and shall be endowed wii.h a glorious and incorruptible body: while those who are then living shall be changed," &c. The Methodist Church, adopts substantially the article of the Church of England, above quoted. Such then is the testimony of the Christian church, re- specting this cardinal doctrine. And I cannot but think that the intellect which can discover any ambiguity in these an- nouncements of a future resurrection of the body, and a judgment to come, must be endowed with a degree of acute- ness to which few can pretend without an equal degree of presumption. And though there have been men who have speculated on the subject, and who have entertained views somewhat diverse from these, yet this no more proves that the views of the Christian church, respecting the resurrec- tion, have been unsettled and indefinite, than the fact that Professor Bush entertains a difl^erent view from his brethren, proves the views to be unsettled of the community to which he belongs; CHAPTER II. A BRIEF VIEW OF PROFESSOR BDSH's THEORY OF THE 'RESURRECTION, AND OF ITS CORRELATIVE DOCTRINES AS STATED BY HIMSELF. In delineating the theory of Professor Bush, it is only fair and proper to let him speak for himself. " After all," says he, " I know not that a mainly deprecatory tone is that which the true character of my work most properly war- rants. If I could deem myself to have come forth as an op- ponent to the great truth involved in the doctrine of the resurrection — if I had invaded in a ruthless way the faith of a future life, of immortality, of retribution — I might have stronger motives for seeking to soften the sentence which I could not hope to avoid. But it is not in this character that I claim to appear before the tribunal of the Christian public. There is nothing destructive in the bearings of the theory 2* 18 THE RESURRECTION QF THE BODY here presented. I have advanced nothing that is intrinsi- cally calculated to weaken the force of the great moral sanctions of the gospel. I leave the sublime announcements of the resurrection — the judgment — heaven — hell — clothed with all their essential practical potency, as doctrines of re- velation, though placed, as I trust, upon their true founda- tion, and eliminated from the mixtures of long-adhering error. I may venture then to say, that whatever sentiments of re- pugnance the views here broached may encounter in limine, it will arise rather from the hearsay results which I have announced, than from a calm and candid scanning of the entire argument. The issue of this I am confident will be a far more elevated and satisfying view of man's ulterior des- tiny, than that which is afforded by the common construc- tion of the subjects I have treated. The theory here an- nounced of the Resurrection, while it perfectly obviates the objections from reason, clothes the Scripture statements with a new interest, from the bare fact that they are seen to be capable of uttering their oracles in harmony with the dicta of science and philosophy." Preface, pp. vii. and viii. Such is the view which he entertains of his theory, and of the results which it announces. Whether his estimate is not a partial one, the reader will have an opportunity to de- ternline from the theory itself, (which is here subjoined,) and the examination which follows. 1. In respect to the resurrection of the body he uses the following language. " The resurrection of the body, if my reasonings and expositions are well founded, is not a doctrine of revelation." Preface, p. v. And on page x., he denies " the reconstruction of the future body out of the dissolved and dissipated remains of the present one," and asserts that " the prevalent views of the resurrection, when once sub- . mitted to the ordeal of the understanding, are seen to in- volve ideas at war with each other, and therefore cannot be intelligently received,''''* Again, " What then becomes of the scriptural evidence of the resurrection of the body 7 Does it not evaporate in * Surely this is highly complimentary language ! And Professor Bush's book contains many such unkind and most unwarrantable in- sinuations. See pp. 62, 117, 152, 153, 155, 162, 263, &c. &c. Pro- fessor Bush surely ought to know that to mingle such expressions in a religious controversy, is calculated only to excite, in minds in- fluenced by them, the embittered feelings of the odium theologicum. ASSERTED AND DEFENDED the crucible of logical and philological induction? 'And is it not inevitable that a great change must come over our estimate of the doctrine, viewed as a disclosure of holy writ? Can it hereafter present the same aspect to the reflecting mind as formerly, when conceived to involve the averment of the requickening of the inhumed relics of the corporeal structure 1 Especially, are we not presented with a new and all important view of the central fact, our Saviour's resurrec- tion? — Can the evidence be resisted?" &c. &c., p. 347. One can hardly read this without being reminded of the language of Milton : " I began," says he, " thus far to assent both to them and divers of my friends here at home, and not less to an inward -prompting which now grew daily upon me, that by labour and intense study, (which I take to be my portion in this Y\^e,) joined by the strong propensity of nature, I might perhaps leave something so written to after-times, as they should not willingly let die."* Surely the self-confi- dence in these two passages is the same; only that Milton employs the word " perhaps''' which Professor Bush does not think it at all necessary to use. And we might say of the Professor what Dr. Johnson says with reference to Mil- ton, " It appears, in all his writings, that he had the usual concomitant of great abilities, a lofty and steady confidence in himself, perhaps not without some contempt of others."")" For he seems to entertain not the shadow of a doubt that his book will evaporate " the doctrine of the resurrection of the body," and inevitably produce " a great change in our esti- mate of the doctrine," so that *' hereafter " it cannot " pre- sent to the reflecting mind the same aspect as formerly, ^^ when Bacon, Boyle, Newton, Calvin, Luther, Augustin, and others examined it and thought it to be true. Professor Bush thus denies and discards the doctrine of the resurrection of the body ; and yet, as we have seen, pro- fesses to believe in " the resurrection of the dead.^^ We shall therefore next proceed to inquire what is the import which he attaches to this expression. 2. Professor Bush's theory of the resurrection does not, therefore, either include or infer the doctrine of the resur- rection of the body : and dvdirrAa-is rZv vatglv does not in his * See " The Reason of Church Government urged against Prelacy." Introduction to Book II. Milton's Prose writings, p. 43. London, 1835. t Lives of the Poets, vol. i. p. 144. London, 1795. . 80 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY view "strictly imply the resurrection of a decomposed bodily fabric, nor the restoration of a suspended bodily life." p. 390. In defining, then, what he means by the " resurrection of the dead," we shall be obliged to specify and illustrate several particulars. (1 .) He asserts that a spiritual body is " eliminated''^* from the corporeal body at death. *' If the fair construction of his (Paul's) language," says Professor Bush, " does not imply that there is something developed out of the dead body, which forms the link of connexion between it and the resurrection body, then it would be hard to show that it teaches any thing on the subject, an alternative to which, with the qualifications and explanations that follow, we readily subscribe. We cannot understand the apostle's reasoning, unless he means to affirm that there is some- thing of the nature of a germ which emanates from the de- fund body, and forms either the substance or the nucleus of the future resurrection body.f But this principle we contend to be what the apostle calls spiritual, that is, invi- sible, impalpable, refined, ethereal — something that is essen- tially connected with vital operations — something that is exhaled with the dying breath, or, in other words, that goes forth from the body before it is consigned to the dust — for after the body has mouldered away in the grave, we per- ceive not how any germ or embryo is ever to emanate from it." p. 178. See also pp. 179, 240, 241, &c. (2.) He asserts also that this elimination of a spiritual body from the corporeal, is by natural laws, and not by the mira- culous operation of almighty power. His language on this subject is peculiar. He pointedly denies that the resurrection is effected by the " purely mira- culous agency of God." Preface, p. xii. And in opposi- tion to this sentiment, maintains continually that it is effected by "natural laws," though he nowhere tells what these laws are : but on the contrary says that we know little or nothing about them. Ibid. See also pp. x. and xi., and 82, 84, 179, 180, 345, 346, 347, 394, &c. * Eliminate, to expel, to throw off, to discharge, &c. It comes from the Latin elimino. t In our discussion of the apostle's language, here referred to, we have shown that this notion of "« germ,'' is neither asserted nor ira- j>lied in any thing which he has said. It is a mere figment of the imagination, which originated in a total misapprehension of the true point of his argument. Vide infra, Part II. chap. iii. § 3. sub-sec- tion iv. ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. 21 (3.) The state of this spiritual body when first eliminated. On this subject the Professor speaks as follows : . " We may perhaps admit, as some are disposed to main- tain, that this spiritual body does not attain to its perfection at once ; that as it enters the spiritual world as a germ, so, as the vital principle, under appropriate laws, forms for it- self — or, as the Germans say, builds up for itself — a mate- rial body, out of material elements ; in like manner it may elaborate for itself a spiritual corporeity, from the spiritual elements by which it is surrounded. This, we say, may pos- sibly be so. We can at present neither gainsay nor affirm it, &c." p. 181. Yet several pages back he seemed to have very little hesitation to affirm it. He says, " We cannot understand the apostle's reasoning, unless he means to affirm that there is something of the nature of a germ which ema- nates from the defunct body, and forms either the substance or the NUCLEUS of the future resurrection body.'''' p. 178. (4.) This spiritual body enters into the composition of man during his present terrene life. On this point the Professor's language cannot be misun- derstood. He says : " Even in the present life, it is the spiritual body which feels the sensations of pleasure or pain. How much more in the life to come." p. 264. See also the foregoing extracts. (5.) Wherein does this spiritual body differ from the soul or spirit of man? On this point I am much in the dark, though I have closely studied the Professor's book in order to obtain light on the subject. His theory sadly labours here from the fact that he both admits the immortality of the wicked and denies their resurrection. See pp. 70, 71, 72, 73, 76, &c. But of this more in the sequel. 3. Professor Bush's theory as to the relative condition of the righteous and the wicked in the resurrection state. (1.) He maintains that the righteous alone enter upon the resurrection ^tate. He plainly and unequivocally asserts that " the resurrec- tion is the same with the future life of the righteous." p. 191. " It is unquestionable that our Lord speaks in this passage, (John V. 28, 29,) in stronger terms than he usually adopts in regard to the resurrection of the dead. However it may be accounted for, the fact is nevertheless certain, that he for the most part speaks of it as the distinguishing privilege and prerogative of the righteous. Thus Luke xx. 35, 36 j * But 22 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, a7id the resurrection from the dead neither marry, nor are given in marriage ; neither can they die any more ; for they are equal unto the angels, and are the children (sons) of* God, being the children (sons) of the resurrection. Here it is clear that the * children of God' are identified as the same with ' the children of the resurrection.' Again, Luke xiv. 12 — 14, when commanding his disciples to call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind, to their feasts, he adds, ' And thou shalt be blessed ; for they cannot recompense thee ; for thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just'^ as if the resurrection belonged emphatically to the just." pp. 234, 5. " The true resurrection takes place at the death of every individual believer, when he emerges from a material into a spiritual body." p. 190. (2.) The slate of the wicked. In regard to this part of the theory, I am likewise not a little puzzled, and am left wholly in the dark. For, First. Professor Bush denies that a purely disembodied spirit is capable of subsisting in another world. " It is com- mon to speak on this subject," says he, " as if the soul were mere abstract thought — pure intellection — capable of sub- sisting in another world in the most absolute and isolated state, without any hind of connexion with any land of body. But is thought substance? In order to thought must there not be something that thinks? — something of which thought is the attribute, and not the essence? Granted it may be, and must be, that we are unable to detect or define this mysterious substance ; but we may still affirm that it must exist, and that no error is greater than to suppose that at death the soul goes forth from the body as a bare poiaer of thought — bodiless and formless mens — which is indeed in our present constitution lodged in a body, but to which a body is not necessary, and to which a body is in fact rather an incumbrance. Now to all this we do not hesitate to reply, that it is nothing more than sheer hypothe- sis." p. 72. Secondly. Then the Professor avers also that the wicked still exist, and are punished in eternity; and Thirdly. That they are in no sense partakers of the re- surrection. The proof of both these propositions is subjoined. His language is as follows : "The idea that the present body must necessarily share in the punishment of the sins which ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. 23 it was instrumental in committing, is one that receives no countenance from the decisions of sound reason." p. 263. " We have already seen that in the former case a resurrec- tion, in the true sense, is not really affirmed of the wicked. They remain unawakened." p. 232. It might be in place here to ask where are the " natural laws" of which we have just heard so much? Do not natural laws concern the wicked 1 Again, he says, " Into this vast assembly, there- fore, of departed spirits, represented as being in hades, or the underworld, his own spirit (Christ's) descended; and though the immense majority of them were spirits of wicked men, &c." p. 220. Of course then the wicked live in a fu- ture state. See also pp. 254, 277, 312, 313, 332, 392—3. Fourthly, Professor Bush teaches, that the wicked are, notwithstanding, to have a spiritual body in their future state. He asserts, as we have seen, that the mortal body does not arise; and also, that our spiritual bodies are in- cluded in our corporeal, and are dismissed therefrom at death ; then that the wicked exist hereafter, and that they are not partakers of a resurrection; and yet, finally, that they have their future bodies eliminated at death, as well as the righteous. " Their bodies," says he, *' may become a perpetual source of corroding pain, and of an anguish that knows no mitigation." — " Entire justice to the subject seems to demand the intimation of the probability, that the spiritual tenements of wicked men will be moulded by their inward character." p. 395. See also p. 393. If any person can reconcile all these statements, he can do what I cannot. 4. Professor Bush's theory as it respects those who died in faith before the time of Christ. From the foregoing considerations, it would appear, that ^'-natural laws,'''* or "the operation of the vital principle," would require that they rise from the dead, and enter upon the resurrection stale immediately at death. If this were not so, then, on Professor Bush's theory, they did not arise till the time of Christ. And if they could lie in the grave till then before they were raised, surely we may, without absurdity, suppose that bodies may be dead till the end of time, and then be raised. (1.) But Professor Bush is not to be found tripping in this way ; and therefore, in respect to those who died before Christ, he speaks as follows: " If there is a palpable, we had almost said unmistakable, averment in the compass of holy writ, 24 . THE RESURRECTION OP THE BODY it isj that the true doctrine of the resurrection is proved from the fact, that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, were living when Christ spake these words, (Matt. xxii. 31, 32,) and, conse- quently, must haxie been raised, and must he living in resur- rection bodies.'''' — " What kind of resurrection is that in which nothing is raised? But their bodies certainly had not been raised, and can the sun in the heavens be more ob- vious to the senses than the conclusion to the mind, that the * resurrection of the dead,' as here affirmed by the Saviour, has no reference whatever to the resuscitation of dead bo- dies? And are we not justified in maintaining, that the only resurrection of the dead ever to he experienced by man, is that of which these patriarchs have long since been the subjects? Is there more than one resurrection?" &c. pp. 207, 208. See also pp. 164, 218, 224, 226, 247. (2.) And yet, though those who died before Christ, arose from the dead also before him, they nevertheless did not rise until after he had arisen. His words are, " Then indeed was the proper hour [when Christ expired on the cross] for the visible effect which was wrought upon their bodies, [those in Matt, xxvii. 50-53,] in connexion with his dying groan, the rending of the rocks, the darkening of the sun, and the throes of nature convulsed; but not then was the time for their true and invisible resurrection, for it was designed that ' in all things he should have the pre-eminence;'' he was to be raised as 'the first fruits of them that slept;' he was to be 'the first-begotten from the dead;' and it BEHOVED NOT THAT THE RESURRECTION OF THE MEMBERS SHOULD PRECEDE THAT OF THE Head. Accordingly, the interval of three days elapsed before they came forth, (the mere bodies were not they,) and went into the holy city and appeared in spiritual vision to many of their brethren." p. 217. " It was, in the main, an invisible resurrection of a multitude of saints." p. 218. On pages 218,219, Professor Bush makes a vain attempt to show that these views are not contradictory to the foregoing ; but to reconcile them is as difficult as to mingle into a mass fire and powder. We shall have occasion to refer to this matter again hereafter. (3.) Hence Christ's precedence as the " first-born from the dead," and " the first fruits of them that slept," is frittered away, and resolved into a comparatively unmeaning cere- mony. The Old Testament saints had arisen before him, but "had not entered into the full fruition of celestial joys, ASSERTED AND DEPENDED. 25 but were held, or, as it were, detained, in a state of ex- pectancy, awaiting the death and resurrection of Christ, as an event which was to usher in to them a signal epoch of enlargement and consummation, while, at the same time, it j secured to him the prerogative of having in all things the Vpre-eminence, and especially of being the ' first-fruits of them ^hat slept.' " pp. 222, 223. See also 218, 219. This, then, IS the pre-eminence of Christ ! thus is he " the first-born from the dead !" and thus is he " the first that should rise from the dead /" Acts xxvi. 22, 23. 5. Professor Bush's theory touching the resurrection of Christ. We have seen that Professor Bush teaches, that, both under the Old Testament dispensation as well as under the New, a spiritual body is eliminated, or separated from the corporeal at death. He appears to make an exception in the case of Christ, but offers no reason for the exception. But I shall endeavour to present an analysis of what he ad- vances on the whole subject, in a chapter by itself here- after. 6. Professor Bush's theory touching the Day of Judgment. As the received doctrine of a judgment to come, plainly infers the simultaneousness of the resurrection. Professor Bush has found it necessary to modify his views of this subject. In the first place he announces, and attempts to establish the position that the apostles were mistaken in their views of "the last day," or "judgment to come," pp. 191-202. 265 and 269. He then enters into a formal discussion of the doctrine on pp. 274 — 344. But we shall consider this also in a chapter by itself. Here, then, is the theory of Professor Bush, touching the resurrection and some of its correlative doctrines. We have endeavoured to present his views fairly, that the reader might have them before him in our subsequent investigation. There are some other topics which the Professor has introduced into the discussion, but not being really cormected with the one before us, we shall omit any reference to them for the pre- sent. The doctrine of the resurrection of the body is the great point to the consideration of which we shall primarily confine ourself in this discussion — though we shall not, with- out remark, pass over the other topics which Professor Bush has involved in the controversy. 3 26 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY We shall close this chapter with a brief history of the theory of the resurrection adopted by Professor Bush. He challenges for it the merit of being new, and that as such, it must modify essentially the common view of this doctrine. And as we dispute and deny this assumption, so far as the novelty of the doctrine is concerned, it is not from a desire to present Professor Bush in an invidious light, that we refer to its history, but merely in order to sustain the position we assume. With respect to this theory, the Professor acknowledges that it is the same substantially as that which was enter- tained by Swedenborg, though he claims to have arrived at his conclusions by an independent process. But the theory is much older than Swedenborg, as the following facts de- monstrate. SECTION II, History of Professor Bush's Theory. (1.) Perhaps as a faithful and impartial historian, we ought to begin with primitive times, and with the record found in 1 Cor. xv. 12, and 2 Tim. ii. 16-19, "of whom is Hymeneus and Philetus. Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already;" as it is evident that they could have predicated this resurrection of those only who had already lived, and not of those who were to live; and that their theory, therefore, must have borne a striking resemblance to that of Professor Bush: but as this might appear invidious, and as we shall have occasion to consider these passages hereafter, we shall pass it by for the present. (2.) The next prominent advocate of this theory is Avicen, the Mohammedan philosopher. In his Almahad he advances the doctrine of Professor Bush precisely, and employs some of his arguments to sustain it. He says that " the meaning of the resurrection of the body is nothing else but this, to persuade vulgar people, that though they seem to perish, when they die, and their bodies rot in the grave; yet, not- withstanding, they shall have a real subsistence after death, by which they shall be made capable either of future happi- ness or misery. But because the apprehensions of the vul- gar are so gross, that the permanency and immortality of the soul is too subtile a notion for them, who commonly ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. 27 count their bodies for themselves, and cannot conceive, how they should have any being after death, unless their very bodies should be raised up again ; therefore, by way of con- descension to vulgar understandings, the future permanency and subsistence of the soul, in prophetical writings, is ex- pressed under this scheme of the resurrection of the body, which yet is meant **Ta 6i^!tv only, and not xat' atx«9g;av." See Cudworth^s Second Sermon^ at the end of his Intellectual System, vol. ii,, p. 605. Now this doctrine of the Mohammedan philosopher Avicen, and which his philosophy tavght him so many centuries ago, is the very doctrine which Professor Bush has, as he professes, by the great advance of scientific investigation in the nineteenth century evolved by his philosophy, and by means of which he would correct the views of the Christian church on the subject of the resurrection. But let us see what Cudworth himself thinks of this theory of Avicen. After making the foregoing quotation from the Almahad, he remarks as follows : " Which conceit, how well soever it may hejit a Mahometan philosopher, lam sure it in no way agrees with the principles of Christianity ; the Scripture here (Rom. viii. 11,) and elsewhere assuring us, that the resurrection of the body is to be understood plainly and without a figure; and that the saints, departed this life in the faith and fear of Christ, shall not be mere souls without bo- dies to all eternity, as Avicen, Maimonides, and other phi- losophers dreamed, but consist of soul and body united to- gether. Which bodies, though, as the doctrine of the church instructeth us, they shall be both specifically and numerically the same, with what they were here; yet, notwithstanding, the Scripture tells us, they shall be so changed and altered, in respect of their qualities and conditions, that in that sense they shall not be the same." Cudworth, ii., p. 605, 606. (3.) Nihusius, who was born in the latter part of the six- teenth century, and was titular bishop of Mysia and suffragan archbishop of Metz, was a zealous Papist; and was very de- sirous to establish the doctrines of the Romish Church on phi- losophical principles. Among others he thus endeavoured to defend the doctrine of the invocation of the Saints; and in doing this he, by an " independent process," arrived at the very theory of Professor Bush. He said that " the Saints who have departed this life, are not dead, but still live in re- spect of their bodies and ought therefore to be adored in their 28 THE RESURRECTION OP THE BODY relics." This thought he called " a divine oracle and a clear light into a profound mystery." And says, " that the fact that the saints in paradise still live in their bodies, de- velopes a sublimer philosophy in respect of sleeping and waking, than that of Aristotle and the other philosophers." And not only so but he charged those with atheism who would not assent to his theory, and pretended that they who deny that the bodies of the saints are living in paradise, destroy at the bottom the doctrine of the resurrection. " Quoniam itaque Sancti suis in corporibus adhuc vivunt, certatim nos illuc agglomeremur, et adoremus amorosissime, spem resurrectionis nostrse simul quasi satiantes, et mortis metum puerilem abjicientes, nequaquam vero superbe quic- quam ejus respuentes; hsereseos ac atheismi pars est, opinio ilia feralis et luctuosa, de mortuis ac non viventibus Sanc- torum corporibus, utpote resurrectionem impie negans in recessu."* Bayle (to whom I am indebted for this quotation,) adds the following remark, with reference to the foregoing senti- ment : " From what I have set forth in this remark, we may conclude, that Nihusius was one of those lively, presump- tuous men, who easily suffer themselves to be dazzled by the false lustre of a paradox, and labour with eagerness to com- municate to all the world their impressions. They magnify the ideas of small things," &c.f (4.) The Anabaptists of the 16th century, also denied, as Professor Bush does, that Christ ascended to heaven with his material body; and, like him, asserted that the New Testament does not teach this doctrine : " Verum quae quan- titate, aut qualitate, et quo modo, in illo corpore sedeat ad dexteram Patris, quandoquidem de eo nobis non liquet testi- monium in scriptura sacra, malumus hie ignorantiam nos- tram profiteri, quam incerta divinatione uti extra Dei ver- bum." Confes. Art. IX. And their philosophy, like that of Professor Bush, led them to confound the abolishing of hunger^ and thirst, and weariness, and sorrow, and sus- ceptibility of suffering, and mortality, with the abolition of corporeal properties, — " proprietatum corporearum." (5.) The Polish Socinians also were advocates of the more prominent parts of Professor Bush's theory. In their * Andreas Carolus, Memor. Ecclesiast. Saeculi XVII. Lib. II. cap. 18, pag. 352. i See Ba,yle, ATt. Nihusius, sub Jine. ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. 29 " Compendiolum Socinianismi" or " Confession of the So- cinian Churches," Amst. 1598, they speak as follows: " Concerning the resurrection of the dead, our churches teach, in the Jirst place, that the faithful, who have died from the beginning of the world, shall be raised from the dead at the last day; but not the wicked. And they prove it from 1 Thess. iv., and 1 Cor. xv., John vi., and Luke xx., where the resurrection is asserted only of Christians or the faithful ; whether they have been just, that is, have lived righteously all their life, as, for example, John the Baptist and his parents : or unjust; that is, have lived wickedly all their life, and were at length converted, as the publican and the thief on the cross. Luke xxiii. Secondly. Then they deny the resurrection of the body, (carnis,) that is, of this body itself which is constituted of flesh and blood. But they admit that bodies will be raised again ; that is, that those faithful men will be raised, and shall then be clothed with new heavenly bodies : which is proved by 1 Cor. xv., where it is said, that it is not the same body which was sown, that is, per seminis traducemgeneratur, which is raised ; but another, to wit, an immortal, glorious, and spiritual body. Such is the antithesis in 2 Cor. v., (in the beginning of the chapter,) be- tween the earthly tabernacle, and the celestial building. For God will make us " like the angels,^'' (Luke xx.,) and will abolish the belly, with all things which appertain to this animal life, (1 Cor. vi.,) for then there shall be no use for them. Thirdly. They teach also that the faithful who are alive, shall then suddenly be changed ; in the twinkling of an eye, (1 Cor. xv.,) lest the changing of their bodies, or the abolishing of the flesh, should give them pain. Then man shall no more be a living soul, (Gen. ii.,) but a quick- ened spirit ; that is, his life thereafter shall not be animal, but spiritual. So that it may be in his power to have eternal life, as Christ himself, who shall conform our bodies to his glorious body." See Compend. Socinianismi, cap. VIIL (6.) The next prominent advocates of a part of this theory were some Arminians of the 17th century. They profess, however, only to entertain doubts, whether the resurrection body was identically the same with the body that died. Their views may be seen in their " Apologia pro Confess. Remon- strantium," cap. XIX., p. 219, or in 0pp. Episcopii, tom. i., part II., pag. 219. Mr. Locke also appears to have en- tertained the same view. He believed in the resurrection 3* 30 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY of a material body, (which, however. Professor Bush denies,) but doubted its identity with the body that had died. The same philosophical notions entertained by Avicen, the Mo- hammedan, on this subject, seem to have been adopted by these writers, though with some modification. (7.) But in Emanuel Swedenborg, we find a strong advo- cate of the theory of Professor Bush in its most important features. In his Treatise Concerning Heaven and Hell, from § 432 to § 461, may be found a pretty full statement and illustration of his theory. See also his " Universal Theology of the New Church," vol. i., p. 238, § 156. But the fact that Professor Bush, since the publication of his " Anastasis,^^ has become an avowed Swedenborgian, renders it unneces- sary for us to confirm this statement by quotations. See also ^^ Anastasisj'' p. 76. (8.) The next conspicuous advocates of Professor Bush's theory are the Shakers. And in their ^^ Summary View of the Millennial Church or United Society of Believers, com- monly called Shakers,^'' Albany, 1823, we have not only the theory of Professor Bush, almost entire, but we have his very arguments, illustrations, and criticisms upon Scrip- ture passages. There is an astonishing resemblance through- out. We can give but an abstract here, and must refer to the book itself for full proof of the truth of this assertion. The following are a few extracts : " The resurrection is a doctrine generally believed by all who profess a belief in the Christian religion. But what constitutes the real nature and substance of the resurrection, seems to be a dispute among many. The most general and popular belief is, that the natural body of man, consisting of flesh, and blood, and bones, after being divested of the spirit or living soul, and consigned to the grave, will, at a certain future period of time, be raised from the dust of the earth, with which it has been blended by dissolution, and be reanimated with the same living spirit, and arraigned before the judgment-seat of Christ, there to be judged and consigned to a state of ever- lasting happiness or misery. This doctrine is generally believed to accord strictly with the testimony of the Scrip- tures, and therefore supposed to be well founded. To eradicate these long established impressions, and convince mankind that they are erroneous and antichristian, and not taught by divine revelation, is a task of no small magnitude." p. 302. Then after quoting John v. 28, 29, it is said ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. 31 " many other passages might be added in proof of the resur- rection of the soul ; but all this has no reference to the na- tural body, except as a figure.'''' p. 303. And after quoting John xi. 25, 26, it is added, " If then, Christ is the resurrec- tion and the life, it necessarily follows, that all who are in Christ, are in the resurrection, whether their bodies be dead or living. And also, if he that believeth in Christ, shall live, though his body be dead ; then it must be the soul to which Christ had reference : for the dead body of a man cannot believe, any more than the dead carcass of any other ani- mal." Ibid, " Hence it is clearly evident that the resurrection of the natural body, after its return to the dust, is not necessary to constitute that kind of resurrection to which Christ alluded." Ibid. " The natural body of man is corruptible. If then, as some say, it is to be so transformed as to become incor- ruptible, then corruption must inherit incorruption ; which is contrary to the apostle's express declaration." pp. 303, 304. Then in respect to the resurrection of Christy they ad- vance precisely the theory of Professor Bush. ♦' The resur- rection of the natural body of man, is strongly argued from the supposed resurrection of the natural body of Jesus Christ, which is thought to be established beyond dispute, by the fact that it was not found in the sepulchre where it was laid, and by several particular circumstances connected with his appearance to his disciples after his resurrection." Then after quoting Matt, xxviii. 9, Luke xxiv. 39, 40, John xx. 26, 27, they add, " These passages have been carefully ex- amined and fully answered by brother John Dunlavy, of Kentucky,* and therefore it is less necessary to enlarge upon the subject here. But it may not be improper to make a ^Qw remarks for the reader's consideration." The conclusion of this chapter is as follows, and one rnight easily take it for an extract from Professor Bush's work : " Thus we may see that the true resurrection con- sists in the rising again of the spiritual part of manyrom the terrestrial elements, into which it has been sown by genera- * This " Examination" and '• answer'''' to the apostles (!) is styled ^^ Dunlavy'' s Manifesto" printed at Pleasant Hill, Kentucky, 1818. A reference to it will show that Professor Bush's late " results'^ of scientific investigation, and his new criticisms, have been anticipated by a Kentuckian, nearly thirty years ago ; to say nothing of Avicen, ^ihusius, &c. 32 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY tion,* to the celestial. By the operalion of the spirit of Christ, in the work of regeneration, it is formed into a celes- tial and heavenly body, endowed with immortality and eter- nal life, and thus it becomes an everlasting inhabitant of the celestial world ; and thus it is that * this corruptible puts on incorruption, and this mortal immortality.' " &c., &c. p. 313. There is the same substantial agreement between their views and those of Professor Bush respecting the judgment. " But what is this day of judgment? and in what manner is it to be brought about ? These are questions of no small concern to mankind, and especially to those who profess the Christian religion. Many who call themselves Christians, are firm and confident in the belief, that the day of judgment is a certain appointed day, yet future, when the Lord Jesus will suddenly descend, and personally appear," &c., &c. " But, we would ask, how these ideas of the day of judg- ment can be reconciled with the opinion generall}' enter- tained by these same sort of Christians, that the final and everlasting fate of the soul is decided at the hour of death ?" " If the day of probation ends at death, and the fate of the soul is then unalterably fixed, according to the opinion of these Christians, what can be the object of a day of judg- ment of the preceding description ?"| — " But we view the * " 'It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.' " Here he refers to the origin of these two bodies.--" The sowing is our birth in Adam, or in the nature of Adam," &c. " So far is the apostle from teaching that the body is ' sown' by being deposited in the grave. It is sown at its birth, and not at its death." AnastasiSy pp. 185, 186. t " No article of any creed in Christendom is more universally or unhesitatingly held, than that each individual enters at death upon an eternal state of retribution. According to the prevailing moral cha- racter in which be makes his exit from the body, he either soars an angel or sinks a fiend. Lazarus died, and was carried by angels to Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died, and in hell he lifted up his eyes, being in torment. This is a virtual judgment." Anastasis, p. 277. And the author proceeds to say, that " an act of the divine adjudication, which seals to the joys of heaven or the woes of hell a departing spirit, is as truly an award of eternal judgment, as if it were pronounced from the great white throne." Ibid. But it seems not to have occurred to these gentlemen, that, unless the soul's existence is suspended between death and the resurrection, it must of necessity be either in happiness or misery. Again: Professor Bush remarks, " the judgment runs parallel with the kingdom" of Christ, p. 280. "The inference is certainly strong from all this," says he, "that the 'sitting at the Father's right hand,' and the 'judgment,' are synchronical, and ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. 33 day of judgment in a very different light from all this. We view it as a work which has already commenced." — " And though gradual and progressive in its operations, it is certain and effectual ; and will continue to increase in power, till a full and final separation shall be made between good and evil." pp. 314, 315. — "The judgment is already set, and the books are opening, and all flesh shall be judged accord- ing to the deeds done in the body." p. 316. Compare also Anastasis, pp. 320-323. (9.) The next leading advocates of Professor Bush's theory, are the Neologists or Rationalists of Germany. One of the. fairest representatives of this school, is Weg- scheider; a man, who, to such a degree entertains the idea that " the knowledge of revelation is progressive" that he has not only arrived at the same conclusions as Professor Bush, with respect to the resurrection, but, as Tholuck re- marks, thinks that " all wisdom has come into the world since 1780."* After presenting a fair statement of the doctrine of the resurrection as advanced in the New Testament, he pro- ceeds with his objections to it. He remarks that there are many very great difficulties in the way of reconciling it with sound reason. He then asserts that the idea of the resurrection owes its origin to the lame and imperfect notions of rude men, who were destitute of any right idea of God, and who imagined that because they exist in this world, they should also exist hereafter. This notion, says he, was held by many barbarous nations, and was taught by Zoroaster, from whom the Jews appear to have obtained it. Then, as the apostles obtained it from the Jews, it is so interwoven with the Jewish opinions respecting the Messiah, and with the narrative concerning Jesus being restored to life, that it can neither be rightly understood nor explained, except from refer to the administration of an earthly kingdom, and that a personal and visible manifestation is not to be understood in regard to either.^* pp. 294, 295. Thus singularly harmonious, even in their minutiae, is the theory of the Shakers and that of Professor Bush, though, no doubt, each ar- rived at it by "a purely independent process.'' See Anastasis, Pre- face, p. viii. * See Am. Biblic. Repository, vol. II., p. 208, for 1832. Professor Stuart speaks of Wegscheider as follows; "Wegscheider and Rohr, each in a different way, may be considered as the present Coryphcei of the Neological party in Germany." Biblic. Repos. I., p. 60. 34 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY an acquaintance with the literature of that age; on which account ihe later defenders of the more ancient formula have hesitated to receive, in their literal or proper sense, all the words of the Scriptures pertaining to the subject. Then, again, it is not possible to understand how the particles of this body can be collected and restored, after having been changed into so many other forms, and scattered into other human bodies," &c., &c. Thus he proceeds with his pre- posterous farrago, and thinks he is writing like Pliny the naturalist. The original in full will be found in the margin.* * Tantum vero abest, ut resurrectio corporum cum sante rationes pra3ceptis bene conciliari possit, ut plurimis gravissimisque impediatur difficultatibus. Primum enim dubitari nequit, quin hsec opinio e no- tionibus mancis et imperfectis hominum incultiorum originemtraxerit, quippe qui, justa numenis divini idea destituti, vitam post mortem fu- turame sola vitae terrestris natura fingere soleant; quo fit, ut apud complures gentes barbaras, itemque in Zoroastrica disciplina, e cujus fonte Judaei ipsi hausisse videntur, eadem ilia deprehendatur. Deinde resurrectio corporum in 11. N. T. tradita, quae inde ab ipsa apostolica ffitate (1 Cor. xv. 12 ; 2 Tim. ii. ] 7,) baud paucis improbata fuit, tam arte conjuncta cernitur cum opinionibus de Messia Judaicis et cum narratione de Jesu in vitam restituto, (1 Cor. xv. 12,) ut nisi ex ingenio seculiillius recte judicari et explicarinon possit; quamobrera ipsi antiquioris formulae defensores recentiores, parum quidem con- stanter, omnium scripturae s. dictorum buc pertinentium, (v. c. 1 Thess. iv. 16, ubi Kikivcr/uct kai or " sensitive principle,'''' or " intermediate something between the cogitative faculty and the gross body." Pro- fessor Bush seems inclined to think that it is material in its essence, though not grossly so ; but as forming the con- necting link between the grosser body, and the pure spirit ; and says that it is "eliminated" from our corporeal struc- ture. This, too, he affirms to be the seat of identity as we have remarked in our former section. Now Professor Bush repeatedly affirms that the human body is entirely re- newed every seven years ; so that a man of seventy years, has had ten entirely distinct bodies. And with much as- ASSERTED AND DEPENDED. 71 su ranee he asks which of these bodies will be raised at the last day 1 intimating that there is as much reason to suppose that any one will be raised as another, pp. 54, 56. This point we need not discuss here ; but it is perfectly proper to in- quire " From which of these ten perfectly distinct bodies, will this tertium quid be eliminated f As it is not pure spirit, it is perfectly plain that the man who has lived seven- ty years has had no less than ten of these " tertium quids^ Which then shall be the "resurrection body?" and if the last, then what has become of the other nine? And is this the theory by which Professor Bush is to obviate all objec- tions to the doctrine of the resurrection, by showing it to be perfectly harmonious with reason 1 It is plain that this *' sensitive principle^^ is either material, or purely spiritual, i. e. " bodiless and formless mensi^^ but that it is not purely spiritual, Professor Bush positively asserts. See p. 72. And if it be material, (no matter how refined and sublimated,) it is of course a part of the material body with which the spirit is clothed. In other words it must be matter. If then it bft matter, and if the material of man's body is perfectly changed, or renewed every seven years, this tertium quid must be also renewed. And if it is renewed, then (not only is its identity gone as we have shown in § 1, but) the man has had as many *' spiritual bodies^'' as he has had grossly material. This is the argument : plain and palpable in its premises, and legitimate in its conclusion. And we repeat the inquiry, which of the ten *' tertium quids" of a man of seventy, does reason teach us, will be the resurrection body 1 Each one was perfect ; and why therefore should " the pre- ference be given to the last of the series?" And where are the nine others ? Have they been " dissolved and lost in the immensity of the atmosphere ?" or are they all assembled at death, and then by " natural laws" enter into the forma- tion of the resurrection body ? Or do they simply form that spiritual substance, or those " spiritual elements'''' from which the resurrection ''^ germ''' will "gradually elaborate for itself a spiritual body?" See p. 181. As Professor Bush has propounded questions similar to these in respect to the resurrection of the body ; and at the same time professes to have shown that his own theory is not liable to the objec- tions which he urges from reason against the received doc- trine, but on the contrary, perfectly harmonizes with reason, we think that he ought by all means, to reply to these inter- 72 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY rogatories. And we think that on this subject we are "at liberty to insist on the most punctilious exactness of dejini- tion^ But how does reason arrive at the conclusion that such is the resurrection body 1 Does Professor Bush mean pure reason? And pray what does reason teach of any resur- rection-state whatever ? Has she uttered an unquestionable and unequivocal dictum that man will live again? If so, where shall we go to learn it? To the French philosophers of the last ceniury, who abolished Christianity, burnt the Bible by the hands of the executioner, and placed at the entrance of their grave yards the inscription that " Death is an eternal sleep ?^^ Or shall we go to Priestley and others who taught that the existence of the soul is suspended be- tween death and the resurrection? Reason, they say, led them to this conclusion. Or shall we go to the fond expec- tation of Cicero, who, after repeating the reasoning of Plato and Socrates, says, "But if I err, in believing the souls of men to be immortal, 1 am willing to err; nor while I live would I wish this delightful error removed. And if I shall feel nothing when dead (as is thought by some minute philoso- phers,) I am not afraid that dead philosophers shall laugh at me for the error."* This certainly is very beautiful: but even in the very expression itself, it is perfectly clear that Cicero did not regard the sentiment as an " irrefraga- ble deduction of reason^ He views it in the light only of a pleasing probability. Where, then, shall we go to find the dictum of reason that man will live again ? Professor Bush has neither told, nor can he tell.f How then can * Quod si in hoc erro, quod animos hominum immortales esse credam : libenter erro : nee niihi hunc errorem, quo delector, dum vivo, extorqueri volo. Sin mortuus (ut quidam rainuti Philosophi censent) nihil scntiam : non vereor ne hunc errorem meura mortui Philosophi irrideant. Cato major suh fine. t Mr. Locke, who is Professor Bush's oracle, asserts that natural reason cannot demonstrate the doctrine of the soul's immortality. The schoolmen also, have investigated this whole subject with won- derful acuteness. Aquinas attempted to demonstrate the doctrine from reason ; but Duns Scotus, (endowed with one of the most pro- found and subtle intellects which ever fell to the lot of humanity,) examined all his arguments, and shows that they utterly fail to prove the point, and can only render it credible, rem non esse demonslratam sed creditam. He himself propounds twenty-one probable reasons for the immortality of the soul, and asserts that reason can prove it to be only probable. The celebrated Cajetan at first indignantly rejected ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. 73 what he announces, be " the true body of the resurrection, as inferred by reason?'*'' Surely there is a singular medley here. Yet perhaps Professor Bush means no more than that as the Bible has revealed the fact of a resurrection, he has taken that point ybr granted in the argument. But he has admitted virtually (as we shall show hereafter,) that he has resolved the doctrine of the resurrection into that of immortality, which Homer, Plato, Cicero, dz;c. entertained, (and which Professor Bush supposes is taught by reason ;) and the Bible announcement of a resurrection, therefore, is with him, nothing more than an announcement of the same doctrine of immortality. Admitting then that he has, on the authority of scripture and reason, taken this first great principle for granted, we conie next to inquire how Professor Bush has arrived at his conclusions respecting this elimination of which he speaks so much? How has he learned the modus eliminandi of which he speaks so largely 1 How does rea- son teach him any thing of the nature of this tertium quid? or of the germ which elaborates for itself a spiritual corporeity from the spiritual elements which surround it? How does the " prosecution exclusively of the rational argument" lead to any such inferences ? And yet he asserts *' that the argument from reason leads by fair and unforced inference to the conclusion i that the true doctrine of the resurrection is the doctrine of the developement of a spiritual body at death from the bodies which we now inhabit." See p. 84. And as it is on these assumptions that Professor Bush has attempted to unsettle the minds of men on the subject of the received doctrine of the resurrection, and arraigns that doctrine itself as irreconcilably inconsistent and absurd, it would be par- donable were we to remark with severity upon such a grave procedure, based upon such shallow and utterly fanciful hypotheses. The " conclusions^^ of his argument are mere baseless assumptions: and reason has never uttered what he has so pompously announced as the dicta of reason. Man is immortal, says Professor Bush ; and therefore he this opinion, but after a thorough examination embraced it, and as- serted that " he believed^ indeed, that the soul is immortal, but did not know that it is so." Credo quidem animam rationalem incor- ruptibilem esse^ at nescio tamen. But Professor Bush appears to have no difficulty whatever in conducting reason to any conclusion which his theory may stand in need of. 7 74 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY does not all die when the body dies. And if so, his spiritual or psychical nature must survive the death of the body. Hence at death, there is a separation of the tertium quid, and of the spirit from the gross corporeal structure. And there- fore the developement of this spiritual body at death, is the true resurrection. Here is the argument and the " infer- ence;^^ and this is the true body of the resurrection inferred by reason ! Never was there a more perfect non sequitur — or a greater hiatus between premises and conclusion. Rea- son knows nothing of this tertium quid; and knows not but that the pure spirit is separated from the body at death; it knows nothing as to the nature of spiritual existence; and it knows nothing as to the time, nature, mode, or any thing else belonging to the resurrection ; much less does it know that this " developement at deatW is " the resurrection.'''' And yet Professor Bush scruples not to aver that reason has conducted him to these inferences. And it is to these " infer- ences''' that he proposes to *' accommodate" the unambiguous declarations of God's word, in order that they may utter a sentiment consonant herewith. It is on the strength of such notions of mere fancy that the doctrine of a judgment to come, must be virtually explained away, and Christ's resur- rection in the flesh utterly discarded ! Other subjects introduced into this chapter, will be at- tended to in their proper order. But before we proceed to the remaining parts of Professor Bush's book, (we have now arrived at the end of Part I.,) we shall proceed to consider the objections to the received doctrine of the resurrection, which he has suggested in the chapters which we have examined ; and which we could not notice as they occurred without deviating too widely from the true issue involved in the discussion of the argument from reason. CHAPTER V. PROFESSOR bush's " OBJECTIONS FROM REASON " TO THE RECEIVED DOC- TRINE OF THE RESURRECTION CONSIDERED. His repeated denial (in the Preface, and throughout the first part of his book,) that the doctrine of the resurrection of the body is taught in the Bible, cannot of course be con- sidered here. The proper place for remarking upon it will ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. 75 be when we discuss the scriptural argument. But we shall now proceed to a consideration of the objections which he professes to found upon reason itself. Objection I. The first objection is in the following lan- guage: " Should it be replied, in general terms, to our question, that the truth claiming credence is, that the body which we consign to the dust is again to be raised and reanimated at some future day; we rejoin at once, that this reply does not cover the ground of the difficulty. The simple assertion that the dead body is to be raised does not constitute an intelligible proposition, for the reason that it leaves it utterly uncertain what body is meant. A resur- rection is indeed predicated of a body, but this is a very different thing from the resurrection of the body, and our inquiry cannot possibly be satisfied without a more minute specification. No fact in physiological science is better ascertained, than that the human body, in regard to its con- stituent particles, is in a state of constant flux." And then after stating thus his argument from reason^ he continues his objection as follows : " The phrase, the body, does not accu- rately represent the object intended, if the idea conveyed by it be restricted to the body as existing at any one moment. The idea of existence in continuity is indispensable to it. The question then again recurs — what body is to be raised? A person who dies at the age of seventy has had ten dif- ferent bodies," &c. &c. See the rest of this objection quoted in our statement of his Argument from Reason. In reply to this objection I remark that " the truth claim- ing credence" is that the body which dies shall be raised from the dead, and re-united to the spirit. And how does the foregoing objection militate against this truth? The objection is, that while a man lives the particles of his body are in a continual flux. But the point is not respecting the body of the living man but of the dead. The attrition and replacement of the particles, to which Professor Bush refers, cease at death, and therefore the reply of the Professor is entirely aside from the question. He will not deny that whatever change may take place in the body after death, its constituent particles remain the same. And then again, as we have remarked a page or two back, by this mode of reasoning Professor Bush has raised a spectre which he cannot lay without abandoning his posi- tion altogether, and admitting the objection to be unsound. 76 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY If the gross material body thus changes, the refined material tertium quid must likewise change. And if the fact of such a change in the gross body, furnishes ground for the question, " which of these bodies shall be the resurrection body?" it furnishes ground also for the question, " which of these tertium quids shall be the tertium quid of the resurrec- tion ?" Nor will it do for Professor Bush to say that the gross body dies, while the tertium quid remains alive ; and that therefore the question does not apply to it, with the same force as to the gross body which actually dies and becomes dissolved : For 1 . We have seen that this tertium quid is material; (Professor Bush admits that it is not pure spirit, and it cannot of course be a mixture of each;) arid if so, it is properly a part of the material body, refined or unrefined. Now how does Professor Bush know that all which is material in man, does not die at death ? If the tertium quid is spirit, then there are two pure spirits in man, the one united to the other, (which the Professor would not believe ;) but if it be material, then it is a part of our material or corporeal structure: and if so, why should it not die? Where is Professor Bush's proof that it does not die? The baseless assumption of such an idea in a discussion where so much depends upon that idea, is rather too grave a procedure to be allowed. We ask for the proof that any part of man except his spirit, (wholly disengaged from matter,) survives the death of the body. But 2. "Why should the preference be given to the last tertium quid in the series " of an old man of seventy or eighty, instead of the full and vigorous one which he possessed at the age of twenty-eight, or thirty-five, or forty-two? for at each of these periods it was entirely renewed according to Professor Bush. And certainly it is as easy for God to give him such an one, as to give him the feeble one of seventy or eighty years. And God who established the laws of nature, could just as easily have ordered that the one which the man had at the age of forty-five, should be " by natural laws elimi- nated," as the one which he has at eighty. Whatever other persons may think of the relevancy of these queries, Professor Bush will see their relevancy, and the necessity of replying to them, inasmuch as he has propounded similar ones respecting the resurrection of the body. Then 3. The fact of this seven year's renewal of the corporeal structure of man, (upon which the Professor has based not only this ASSERTED AND DEFENDED, 77 objection, but his entire argument from reason,) is but a mere hypothesis. It by no means possesses that full amount of demonstrative evidence which Professor Bush claims for it. I have all along consented to take it for granted ; lest I should appear to be captious. But I repeat, that there is no such overvi^ helming evidence of its truth as Professor Bush pretends. It has been taken for granted by great and good men for centuries ; but this, with the Professor, is no evi- dence of its truth. For on such evidence we can soon establish "irrefragably" the doctrine of the resurrection of the body. It is true that this hypothesis of the seven years renewal of our bodies has been " seldom interrogated^'''' and it is not my intention to "interrogate" it now; but I hope Professor Bush will fully establish it before he builds so much upon it as he does. For upon this mere assumed idea the whole received doctrine of the resurrection of the body, and of the resurrection of Christ, &c., must be changed. Then in the next place this hypothesis is uncertain. Pro- fessor Bush knows that physiologists have never been able to ascertain the time of this supposed renewal. It has varied from one year to twenty and upwards. Some contend that the renewal is completed in one year, and others not until twenty times one — some more and others less. Where then is the absurdity of supposing that a little longer time may be requisite, or that an entire change does not take place through life. The assertion of Professor Bush, that an entire change takes place every seven years, he can therefore never prove. The idea is a mere hypothesis; and even admitting that the particles of the body may entirely change, it is not known how long a time is requisite in order to make the change complete. Objection II. On p. 40, the Professor, after quoting Pear- son on the Creed, remarks as follows : " Can any one he- lieve in opposition to his positive knowledge? Now we knoio that the bodies deposited in the graves are not the same bodies with those that previously existed in the order of physical succession. If the language above quoted be construed in the utmost strictness of its import, it forces upon us the conclusion, that the identical body from which the soul took its departure at the hour of death, is the body the particles of which are to be re-collected and re-constructed at the era of the resurrection. But why shall the preference be given to these particular bodies, when, as is well known, 7* 78 THE RESURRECTION OP THE BODY they are often withered and wasted by consumptions, swol- len by dropsies, mangled by wounds, made hideous by de- formities, curtailed of limbs, or become partially putrid by gangrenes? If the material particles of the body are to be reassembled at all, why not rather suppose that it will be those which composed it in the period of its prime, in its utmost vigour and beauty?" To this objection several things may be said. 1. Profes- sor Bush does not possess the knowledge which he here so boldly arrogates to himself. He does not knoiu that the body deposited in the grave is not the body which had pre- viously existed for ten or twenty years. The fact is gene- rally conceded, but Professor Bush does not know it to be as he assumes. 2. As to the question, " Why should the preference be given to the body that died, rather than to that which the man had in his greatest beauty and vigour ?" I remark Jirst, that it proceeds upon the same assumption. Secondly. If the assumption be incorrect and unfounded, the query needs no answer: but if it be well-founded, then let Professor Bush tell us why the preference should be given to the last tertium quid of the series, and we will tell him why the preference is given to the last body of the series. Thirdly. On the supposition that God has announced the resurrection of the body that dies, it is of not the least consequence whether we can or cannot tell why he prefers it. The question therefore presents no true issue, and in- volves no principle that has any bearing on the subject. For suppose we could not tell why he prefers it, would this prove that he did not prefer it ? Fourthly. Why was the preference given to the body of Christ, " which was the last of the series;" or to those of Enoch and Elijah? or those mentioned in Matt, xxvii. 52, 53? In a discussion of so much importance as the present. Professor Bush ought not to endeavour to perplex it by propounding such irrelevant questions. But let us hear his Objection III. The passage quoted above continues thus: " But the truth is, the whole theory proceeds upon a funda- mental fallacy which a single glance of the mental eye detects. The resurrection body is to be a spiritual and not a material body. The reassemblage of material particles can result only in the reconstruction of a material body, and a material body cannot be at the same time spiritual; at least we may confidently affirm that the same material body ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. 79 cannot be at the same time spiritual, although we are aware that Paul's expression, * a spiritual body,' is under- stood by some to denote a body adapted to spiritual uses, instead of implying one that is metaphysically spiritual in contradistinction from material. But, taken in either sense, the assertion above quoted involves contradictory ideas. A material body is a body of flesh and blood ; but ' flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.'" p. 40. It certainly is not usual for controvertists to refute their own objections ; yet such is the fact in the case before us. The " fundamental fallacy which a single glance of the mental eye detects," is that the reconstruction of the body that dies, would necessarily infer that the resurrection body would be a material body, when the word of God declares that it will be a spiritual body — using material as the antithesis of spiritual. And then after pointing out this "fallacy," Professor Bush very obligingly remarks, that *' spiritual body " may mean " a body adapted to spiritual uses;" and of course, therefore, it may be material. Where then is this "fallacy?" Professor Bush has thoroughly neutralized his own objection. And I shall show in its proper place, that the true scriptural import of " spiritual body," is a body adapted to spiritual uses. But again : Professor Bush plainly affirms above that " the resurrection body is to be a spiritual and not a material body." Now light and darkness, cannot be more opposite than spirit and matter. If, therefore, the resurrection body is spirit, then we have a spirit joined to a spirit. And fur- ther — If it be spirit, what has become of Professor Bush's tertium quid ? or something between matter and spirit, so to speak? And further still, what becomes of his definition of " spiritual," on p. 78? " By spiritual, in this connexion, we mean refined, subtle, ethereal, sublimated." If the Professor cannot write without thus contradicting himself, he must not think it strange that others contradict him. And again — He remarks in the concluding part of the foregoing objection that " a material body is a body of flesh and blood : but ' flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.' " But we have proved, on Professor Bush's own principles, that the tertium quid which constitutes his resur- rection body, is itself material: and therefore, if this objec- tion be valid, how can such a body enter the kingdom of God? But the Professor does not here explain what is 80 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY meant by " flesh and blood :" this we shall do when we come to investigate the scriptural argument. Objection IV. The next objection is based upon the alleged difficulty arising from the supposed assimilation of the dead body with other bodies, after it is resolved into its first elements. The inferences from this objection, which Professor Bush so firmly relies on, we have fully considered in a former chapter ; and we shall therefore dismiss it here with but a few remarks. If God has announced that the body which dies shall be raised again, few will doubt that he is fully able to verify his announcement. Hoio he will do it, or can do it, are questions of no importance whatever. The question, there- fore resolves itself into one of pure exegesis — Has he so declared? And the proper place for the discussion of this question is of course not here. It is scarcely a justifiable method for an intelligent Christian to pursue, in explaining the word of God, first to try to prove that a thing cannot be done ; and then to infer that God could not have promised to perform it. And yet this is the course which Professor Bush has not scrupled to adopt throughout the work before us. But no advocate of the doctrine of the resurrection of the body, known to me, has ever supposed that any thing more of the body is preserved than is essential to its substantial integrity ; or than is sufficient to identify substantially the body that is raised with the body that died. But few bodies comparatively have been " devoured by cannibals ;" and of those ^ew^ only a small portion of the devoured body has become incorporated with the bodies of the cannibals. And suppose, for the sake of the argument, that this small por- tion is never restored, it would not affect the integrity of the body so much, perhaps, as the loss of twelve or fifteen ounces of blood, would that of Professor Bush. And it does seem to me utterly unworthy of a- man of Professor Bush's attainments, to dwell upon this point as he does, and to at- tempt to make so much out of a matter so perfectly trivial. Objection V. " What relation exists between the original, putrefied, decomposed, and dissipated body, and the sublima- ted, glorious, incorruptible fabric which is to succeed; — what the relation in virtue of which I can call such a body mine, and say, 'Behold my body raised from the tomb and animated anew.' " p. 44. And the Professor does not ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. 81 hesitate to aver that no such relationship exists. On this score, says he, " the common view of the resurrection la- bours fatally J'^ p. 43. This query also resolves itself into one of exegesis. If God has said that the body which dies shall be raised, it is of but little consequence, whether we can or cannot " con- ceive" how or wherein this relation subsists. But Professor Bush would have done well to have told what he meant pre- cisely by the term relation as thus applied. It is very easy to propound a query and represent it as to the point, and diffi- cult to be answered, by employing an abstract term in an undefined sense. Suppose I should ask Professor Bush what •was the relation that existed between the glorified body of Elias, and the body in which he endured hunger and thirst and suffering on earth? or what was the relation between the glorious transfigured body of Jesus on Tabor, and his poor, suffering, scourged and afflicted body? How can we conceive of human flesh becoming thus glorious? Could Professor Bush explain it? Charcoal is the same as the diamond in substance : and yet one is the hardest and most glittering substance that we know, and the other as black and crumbling also as any thing known to us. And the difference consists simply in a different arrangement of the particles. But suppose that some acute genius should imagine that they are not the same? And suppose he should write a book on the subject against Professor Bush, and in discussing the subject should ask him, by way of justifying the denial of the proposition, " What conceivable relation can exist between charcoal and the diamond ? The theory la- bours fatally here." Would Professor Bush think such a question worthy of a reply? and if he did, what answer would he make to it ? But again. On the principle of the attrition and renewal of the body once a year, or once in seven years, during life, (which Professor Bush asserts is so clearly proved,) the Professor has never had a body which has not been col- lected from the four quarters of the earth. Whence are our rice, sugar, waterfowl, fish, &c. &c.? Vegetation too is fed by the showers, and whence is the rain collected? Now the assimilation of all these diverse particles with our bodies is altogether the work of God. And will Professor Bush say that it is more difficult for God to reconstruct our bodies, than thus to construct them at first ? 82 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY Our body which dies, therefore, was once ours: and by virtue of this relation, it shall, according to the word of God, be ours again. Objection VI. The next objection contains a reference to, and a slight discussion of, our Saviour's remarks in John v. 28, 29. Professor Bush speaks as follows: " In the present instance it is unquestionable, that the words quoted from our Saviour's address to the Jews do encounter a very formida- ble difficulty arising from the indubitable fact, that thousands and millions of human bodies that were once deposited in graves are not there now, and never will be again. Their tombs are cenotaphs, or empty monuments, in every sense of the word. Where now are the tenants of hundreds of the cemeteries of Egypt, whose mummy-remains have been from age to age consumed for fuel, or transferred, in the form of medicine, to the jars upon the apothecaries' shelves ? They certainly are no longer to be found in the rocky repositories in which they were piously bestowed by the hands of survivors. When our Lord's language, therefore, is applied to cases like these, and it is affirmed that these bodies are to be raised out of their graves at the last day, how is it to be reconciled with the fact now adverted to ? Let it not be said that this is an infidel objection, pr. mpted by a proud preference of human reason to the teachings of inspired wisdom. The question is. Is it a valid objection ? If so, it is entitled to regard, by whomsoever proposed. Nothing is gained by blinking or blackening the allegation of real difficulties in any part of the sacred writings." pp. 45, 46. But it is peculiarly unfortunate for this objection, that our Saviour does not use any such words as are here attri- buted to him. How then can his words " encounter a very formidable difficulty?" Jesus does not say that "all are in their graves," as tlie objection throughout represents him as saying; but simply that "all toho are in their graves shall hear his voice and come forth." And if Professor Bush had turned to Rev. xx., he would have found that not only the graves will give up their dead, but "the sea" also, at the great day of account. I doubt whether any one can peruse the foregoing futile objection of Professor Bush, without feeling assured that he must have been hard pressed for something to say against the doctrine which he was opposing. And though it would not be speaking of ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. 83 it at all too severely to call it puerile, the Professor even descends to insist upon it through one or two pages more; and asks again, " How can a body come out of the grave that is not there ?" &c. &.c., pp. 46-48. He then returns to his old objections (which we replied to above,) and clothing them anew, presents them with other illustrations. I will notice one or more of them. He says, " Again then we ask, What is meant by the resurrection of the body, and what the relation which the body that dies bears to the body that is raised? We cannot convict our- selves of irreverence in proposing these questions. They are forced upon us by the very laws of that reason with which the Creator has endowed us, and with which the dicta of revelation, when rightly understood, must, by inevitable necessity, accord. If the announcements of that holy vo- lume can only be received by the surrender of our intelli- gence, and by a violent suppression of the voice which it utters, how is it ever to command the assent of any but minds of the lowest order ? " But suppose that a kernel of corn were planted to-day in the valley of the Mississippi, where it undergoes the usual process of decomposition, and a century hence, without any removal of the dust, a stalk of corn should spring up on the plains of Hindostan, and we should be told that that was the product of the seed dropped in the soil of the Western con- tinent, could we comprehend the possibility of the fact? Could we perceive the relation of the two ? Now this pre- sents very fairly the difficulty in regard to the resurrection of the body. The difficulty arises from the break in the continuity of the vital operations." &c. &c. pp. 50, 51. 1. But once for all, I may be permitted here to remark, that the intimation in the first paragraph of this extract, that the doctrine of the resurrection of the body can only be en- tertained by a surrender of our reason, (an intimation which is repeated perpetually through Professor Bush's whole book,) is as unbecoming in its author, as it is unkind and offensive to the advocates of the doctrine referred to. I meet it with a broad denial, and a challenge of the proof on which it is based. To assume such a proposition, and repeat it as Pro- fessor Bush does, without attempting its proof, is not the way to conduct a discussion in the present age. 2. There is one point, also, which Professor Bush, in this, and in all his objections constantly loses sight of. It 84 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY is referred to in the latter part of the above quotation, and refers to the kernel of corn supposed to be planted in the val- ley of the Mississippi. As presented by Professer Bush, it does not exhibit the true issue. The question is not whether "we could comprehend the possibility of the fact," should we " be told''' that the stalk of corn " springing up on the plains of Hindostan was the product of that seed ;" but whe- ther we should believe it if God were to assure us that such was really the fact ? We might not be able to comprehend the manner of its transfer ; but would Professor Bush refuse to believe the assurance of God that it was really the same 1 If he would not, let him fearlessly assert it: but if he would, where is the propriety or the force of his objection 1 3. But in regard to the relation of the resurrection body to the body that died; it exists in the deathless spirit itself. And why need Professor Bush endeavour to perplex a ques- tion so plain 1 Let him answer this question ; Does the soul or spirit sustain no relation to the constituent particles of the body that dies ] or if he please, to that body itself? Even Professor Bush must admit that it does. We then inquire when can this relation to those particles cease? Suppose the body to be burned to ashes, or dissolved in anyway, and unless the particles themselves are annihilated, how can this relationship be lost ? It is true the particles which constitu- ted the body may have changed while the body lived; but the question now, is not in reference to the body under such circumstances, but in reference to the body when deserted by the spirit. But the Professor presents still another illustration of this imagined difficulty. His words are as follows : — " Let us now turn for a moment from the vegetable to the animal kingdom, and note the organisms in that world of wonders. The result we shall find to be the same. We see the gro- velling and unsightly caterpillar or silkworm cast off its gross exuviae, and forth issues, after certain ordained trans- formations, the brisk and beautiful winged insect, soaring upwards in an element entirely new, and with a body cu- riously adapted to the sphere into which its existence is transferred. Though it has not the same body, yet we have no hesitation in saying it is the same creature which we beheld creeping in peristaltic movement along the ground. And we say it is the same, because we perceive here also the unbroken continuity of the vital principle, the true seat ASSERTED AND DEPENDED. 85 and subject of animal identity. We have no difficulty in recognizing the relation between the primitive and the ulti- mate organism. The one is visibly developed out of the other without one moment's cessation of the functions of life. But let us suppose, for a moment, that the caterpillar should die and moulder to dust before this transformation, according to the laws of nature, had taken place ; should we look for the emergence, at any future time, of the butterfly from the relics of the grub ? Or, if we allow ourselves to imagine that one hundred or five hundred years after the worm had passed away, an insect should appear flapping its gilded wings over the very spot where the preceding structure was decomposed, and we should be told that that butterfly was the same being, transformed, with the caterpillar that had perished there ages before, could we by any possibility grasp the ideas involved in the affirmation ? All the relation that we could discern between the one and the other would be that o^ priority and posteriority of time. " Now this, we contend, is precisely the difficulty that weighs upon the common theory of the resurrection of the body. According to this theory there is just that break — that huge interruption — in the continuous agency of the vital principle which makes it so impossible to discover or define the relation between the buried and the beatified body. The latent link which connects the two entirely escapes de- tection, and yet it is upon the presence of this link alone that we can predicate identity of the two structures." I cheerfully accord to the objection as here presented all that it can logically claim. It certainly does exhibit most clearly and forcibly that there is a difficulty in the way of explaining and proving the doctrine of the resurrection of the body on principles furnished by reason and the light of nature alone. And were it not that I regard the doctrine as a revelation from heaven, I should be tempted to unite with Professor Bush, and the Athenians on Mar's Hill, in the time of Paul, in rejecting it as absolutely impossible. Unassisted reason can teach us but little on the subject, though it is true that some of the ancient philosophers before Christ, believed that the dead might arise. Yet when the fact is once an- nounced by God, it is not difficult to find something like analogies to illustrate and confirm its truth. For philoso- phically speaking, it cannot be more difficult for God to col- lect and reconstruct the constituent particles of our dead 8 86 THE RESURRECTION OP THE BODY bodies, though dispersed into the four quarters of earth, than it is to establish natural laws, by which our present bodies receive their particles now from every part of the world ; as remarked on a former page. This analogy, and others which may be mentioned, can be taken to illustrate the doc- trine after it is announced in the word of God ; but it is very doubtful whether, independent of revelation, they would ever have led to a supposition that the doctrine is true. If, therefore, the foregoing illustration of Professor Bush, is designed to show thaf the modus operandi of God in the resurrection of the body, is incomprehensible on the suppo- sition that the doctrine is true, we cheerfully concede all that it demands. But if its design is to show that because it is incomprehensible, it must therefore be untrue; we must in that case remind Professor Bush that his inference is false and absurd. This is a sufficient answer to the exception ; but there are two or three points referred to therein, by the Professor, which call for a remark or two before dismissing it entirely. The illustration egregiously fails in several of its most important features. 1. Professor Bush asserts that the but- terfly " has not the same body" which it possessed when a crawling caterpillar. But in what respect is it not the same? Are not the particles which compose the body of the butter- fly clearly those which constituted the body of the caterpil- lar? Truly, they are the very same; only they are fewer in number and differently arranged, or have taken another form. So far, therefore, as this illustration applies, it esta- blishes the doctrine of the resurrection of the same body that died : for we have conceded that the arrangement of the par- ticles of the resurrection body, will be different from that of the body which died. But who before has ever imagined that a variation in the arrangement of particles is destruc- tive of their identity? Are not the particles of gold in the bullion the same as they were when it existed in the form of ore? 2. The reason here given by Professor Bush, and upon which he avers that we predicate the declaration that the butterfly is the same creature as the caterpillar, is not the true reason. We do not say that the creature is the same, merely " because we perceive here also the unbroken continuity of the vital principle;^^ but because we see that the body itself is the same, though its configuration has changed. Is a change of configuration destructive of iden- ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. 87 tityl Was our Saviour's body when transfigured not the same in its constituent particles that it was before? And then, — 3. Let us, with Professor Bush, " suppose that the caterpillar should die and moulder to dust before its trans- fornnation," — " and allow ourselves to imagine that one hun- dred or five hundred years after the worm had passed away, an insect should appear flapping its gilded wings over the very spot where the preceding structure was decomposed;" and most assuredly we should never imagine a priori that this insect could be the same that had died, and was decom- posed. But suppose that God should aflrm to us that it was the same, and that he had revived it? I ask Professor Bush whether he would refuse to believe God, merely be- cause he could not perceive how the relation could have been preserved? Most certainly he would believe him. And if so, where is the point of this illustration? or the propriety of Professor Bush arguing as he does? The true question is not what we can comprehend ; but what God has said in reference to the matter. The same fallacy is discoverable likewise in the following exception, which is in fact a part of the foregoing : " Sup- posing that Omnipotence should adjust this difficulty, will the re-construction of the original materials of the fleshly body form the spiritual body which we conceive to be that of the resurrection ? And if a change take place virtually equivalent to a new creation, how can this be termed the resurrection of the same body? On any ground, therefore, we perceive the immense difficulty of establishing a definite or conceivable relation between the body that dies and the body that is raised." p. 52. I reply, 1. That a body adapted to spiritual uses is a "spiritual body." Professor Bush must admit that the ter- tium quid of which he speaks must be material; though it may be matter (if such a thing could possibly exist as he supposes,) highly refined. Where, then, is the difficulty of supposing that the materials which compose the body that dies, may be also thus refined, and adapted to the uses of the spirit? But 2. "If a change take place virtually equivalent to a new creation, how can this be termed the resurrection of the same body?" There is, however, an equivocation here, in the phrase " equivalent to a new creation." I would ask Professor Bush what he means by it? "Virtually equivalent to a new creation" of the par' 88 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY tides which composed the body that died ? Is then a new arrangement of particles " virtually equivalent to a new creation" of those particles? Whenever Professor Bush casts the sand from the sand-box over his paper, he newly arranges the particles of sand. Is this, then, " virtually equivalent to a new creation" of those particles of sand ? But perhaps he merely means " equivalent to a new crea- tion" of the body itself. A new creation of the body, how- ever, out of the particles or relics of the former body, is itself only a new arrangement of the material composing that body, and such is the change for which we contend. But on what principle is it that a new arrangement of the particles of one body into another body of like configu- ration, (only far more glorious,) is destructive of the iden- tity for which we plead ? Professor Bush does not tell us. If the constituent particles of Professor Bush's body to-day were newly arranged, by his body being transformed into a perfect resemblance to the glorious body of Elijah on Tabor, would it be philosophical or reasonable to question the iden- tity of the body merely because of this change? If such a change is destructive of its identity, then I say that we do not plead for any such identity as can be thus destroyed. The identity which the doctrine we contend for demands, is simply this : that the constituent particles of the resurrection body be substantially the same with those of the body that died. But, on the other hand, if such a change as that referred to above, is not destructive of corporeal identity, then the objection of Professor Bush is, confessedly, vain and nugatory. The foregoing objections are followed by a repetition of the objection noticed above, and relating to the " escape and replacement of the particles" of our bodies in this world. This objection the Professor is so pleased with that he re- peats it some three or four times more. See pp. 55, 56, and 68-70, &c. He, also, presents again his ^^ grand objec- tion,^^ " founded upon the lack of a conceivable relation,^^ (see pp. 56, 57,) which " grand objection" we have already had up several times, and think it hardly necessary to refute it again. Such repetition, and re-repetition of these old ob- jections, certainly evinces that the Professor had not at hand a very copious store. Yet as the following professes to be his reply to an argument, it may be proper to refer to it before leaving the subject. After expressing his doubts ASSERTED AND DEPENDED. 89 whether God himself can establish the relation referred to, he remarks : " We are aware it is easily replied, that it is no more difficult to conceive of the future body being built up out of the dispersed particles of the old one, than it is to conceive of the creation of the body in the first instance. But this reply loses sight of one important consideration which destroys the parallelism of the two cases. In the original creation there is the production of something by the simple fiat of Omnipotence that has no relation to any thing going before. But in the case of the resurrection there is the production of something out of a pre-existing substance, and, consequently, involving a relation of the former and the latter fabric to each other, which is of such a nature as utterly to confound and overwhelm our faculties, even when Omnipotence is called in to solve the problem. We may illustrate the difficulty that cleaves to the hypothesis by a fresh supposition." And this " fresh supposition" is simply this : *' A human body, the body of a horse, and the wheel of a war-chariot may have been buried together" beneath the surface of a field of battle. These substances finally " become com- mingled in one indiscriminate mass of dust." And no one can conceive of any essential difference in the material thus reduced to dust, or of one part being better adapted than another for the construction of a glorified body. p. 57. But this objection is likewise based upon the incon- ceivableness of the thing, and, therefore, merits no further notice here. We know that if God has announced the doc- trine of the resurrection of the body, he is well able to take care of our dust, and adapt it to the return of our spirit. Yet the former part of this paragraph calls for a remark. Professor Bush there says, that when we affirm it to be no more difficult to conceive of the re-construction of the resur- rection body out of the dispersed particles of the old one, than it is to conceive of the creation of the body in the first instance, we " lose sight of one important consideration, which destroys the parallelism in the two cases." What, then, is this " important consideration" which is eflfectually to neutralize the force of this replication of ours? Why it is this : that in the first creation something is produced which has " no relation to any thing going before;^^ but in the case supposed there is a thing produced with such a 8* 90 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY relation ! Let the reader refer to the verbiage of Professor Bush on this subject, as quoted above, and see if he can ap- prehend the cogency of this '' important consideration,^^ Is it then more difficult for God to reproduce a body that once existed and has become dissolved, than to create a body entirely new ? Or is it only more difficult for us to conceive of his doing the latter than the former? If Pro- fessor Bush means the latter I cheerfully concede that it may be more difficult to conceive of such a thing, (though in verity the difficulty of conceiving is equally great in both cases,) and yet what does it prove 1 That God cannot do it because we cannot tell hoiv he will do it? Such an objec- tion is puerile. But perhaps the Professor does not mean this ; but that it is really more difficult for God to reproduce such a body than to create a new one. If such be his meaning, however, it would have been well if he had backed the assertion with some little proof: for it is quite as difficult for me to conceive how Professor Bush attained to this extra- ordinary degree of knowledge, as it is to conceive how the dead are to be raised. Until the proof is furnished, there- fore, I meet the assertion with a plain denial of its truth. And with the counter declaration, that the one is no more difficult for God to accomplish than the other. Objection VII. The next objection of Professor Bush is of the cui bono kind. It is presented in the form of an illus- tration and its application. " Look at that gorgeous varie- gated tenant of the air," (says he, pp. 79, 80,) " winging its easy and joyous way over the flowery garden, or the grassy mead, or along the course of the babbling brook. It has left its pristine grovelling body in the dust, into which it is moul- dering away. It can even look down from its serial flight, and see the unsightly tenement which it has forsaken re- solving itself into its original elements. Does it need it any more? Of what conceivable use can that earthly casement be to it now that it has received another body, developed out of the old one, adapted to the sphere in which it moves? Could any thing be gained by attaching the burdensome in- cumbrance of the former structure to the splendid apparatus of the latter? Is not the original fabric turned to much better account by being resolved back into dust, and so going to form the material of other worms, which shall in their turn give rise to other butterflies ? So may we justly propose the question of the cui bono in relation to the resurrection of ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. 91 our former bodies. What purpose can they be supposed to answer^ provided we have, as all reasoning and analogy- tends to establish, spiritual bodies that have emanated from the material — bodies wisely adapted to a spiritual world 1 What desirable accession will they bring to the conditions of that being upon which we enter when mortality is swal- lowed up of life? The elements of our corporeal frames may eventually find their way into the construction of bodies that shall enshrine some of the brightest, purest, noblest spirits that ever adorned the creation of God. Will they not thus be better employed than in being brought into con- junction with spiritual bodies that are as perfect without them as the butterfly is without its caterpillar fabric?" With respect to the butterfly, its "earthly casement" can, in its present state, be of no use to it that we can imagine ; and yet if the word of God expressly affirmed that in some way unknown to us it would again put on its cast offexuvitB, would Professor Bush refuse to believe it, simply because he could not conceive the use of such a procedure? I trow not. Does his illustration, then, present the true issue of the question under discussion? But the butterfly really does not reassume its cast off* caterpillar form. And what then? Are we to infer from this that therefore the body of man is not to be reunited with his spirit? If so, where is the con- nexion between the premises and the conclusion? Professor Bush would certainly confer a favour if he would point it out. As to the cui bono of such a reunion between the body and spirit, I am not aware that our inability to exhibit it, is any proof that it does not exist. Kant, somewhere in his Religionslehre, presents the same objection to the resurrec- tion of the body. " Reason," says he, *' can see no advan- tage in the supposition, that a body, which, however much it may have been purified, is still to be found substantially of the same materials ; a body to which we have never been rightly attached in this life, should be dragged after us through all eternity. Nor can reason comprehend what would be the use of this body, (which consists of earth,) in heaven, i. e., in another part of the universe, in M'hich, pro- bably, other substances than matter are necessary to the existence and preservation of living beings." In reply to which objection, Storr forcibly remarks that " no reason can be assigned why we should have a decided aversion to a 92 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY future union with our bodies ; for it cannot be denied that the body affords the spirit very great advantages ; and we have no reason to expect that the sufferings which result from the structure of our present body will be concomitant on the future renovated body. Nor can it be maintained, as Kant has asserted, that the most minute particles of our bodies, the ultimate elementary principles of which it consists, which no chemical science has ever been able to reach, are of such a nature as to disqualify it for existence in our future residence, the nature of which is totally unknown to us."* But on pp. 81 — 83, Professor Bush does not seem fully satisfied to refer the subject entirely to the decision of the Bible. He says, " If the letter of revelation holds forth a view of the doctrine which arrays itself against the clearest evidence of facts and the soundest process of reasoning, is there no demand, on the other side, for the reconciliation of Scripture with science? Are we required to hoodwink our faculties in order to do honour to inspiration? Now, we do not hesitate to affirm that the human mind is so constituted that it cannot but feel the force of the objections which we have urged against the resurrection of the same body, or in- deed of any body at all, except the spiritual body, which, we are compelled to believe, is eliminated at death, by esta- blished laws, from the clay tabernacles that we here inhabit. But if faith is supposed to be required to reject what reason sanctions, is not this in effect to say that we are called to do homage to God's word at the expense of doing violence to his work? — for the human reason is the noblest product of * In his Dissertatio de Vita Beata, (Opusc. Acad. Vol. II., p. 84, etc.,) Storr beautifully explains 2 Corinthians v. 2, 4. And as it bears upon the point above referred to, we shall quote his remarks. " As it is the natural desire of our spirits, to inhabit a body ; our groanings under the sufferings to which we are exposed in our present frail body, extort from us the wish, not only to be delivered from the present suf- ferings of that body, but to receive a body of a different structure, to receive a heavenly body, (v. 1,) instead of the earthly one; and espe- cially to receive it in such a manner, hS^t/a-sio-Qsii, v. 3, that we might never be without a body; that we might receive it without laying off our earthly body (invS^ua-ctaSAt v. 2, 4,) without dying, (that mortality might be swallowed up of life.) In such a change we should never be divested of body ; and thus the desire of our nature would be fully gratified." (See Biblic. Theol. pp. 371—2.) Such is the desire of the pious soul ; and hence the assurance, that though separated from the body at deuth, it shall resume possession of it in the resurrection of the just. or THE ASSERTED AND DEPENDED. \V 9B S^ ■ : '\ -•, Omnipotence." — "The great question on the'^stiiect is, What is the fact which is asserted, and which we are re- quired to believe? What is the very thin^ which Omnipo- tence is to do in order to do what is usually deemed neces- sary to the resurrection of the body? If we have not mis- conceived the prevalent sentiment of the Christian world, it is, that the same body which lived, and died, and was buried, is again to be raised. Let it be granted that this is the as- serted fact of Scripture : we array against it the counter fact, that, as the raised body is to be a spiritual body, it can* not be the same. Here are two asserted facts in direct con- trariety to each other. Can the one be intelligently held without some attempted explanation of the mode in which it is to be made consistent with the other? Is it an impeach- ment of due religious reverence to inquire if there be any possibility of bringing our faith and our philosophy into ac- cordance on this head?" But, 1. As to the question of " hoodwinking our faculties in order to do honour to revelation," we have already re- marked, that nothing of this kind is necessary in order to receive the doctrine of the resurrection of the body as true. And Professor Bush does neither his cause nor himself any credit by thus perpetually throwing out the contrary intima- tion. This point, however, intimately concerns Professor Bush's principles of interpretation — a subject which will be fully considered hereafter. 2. The hypothetical principle stated by Professor Bush, in these remarks, may be recognized as correct, without a concession of any thing which he demands for it. He asks, " If the letter of revelation holds forth a view of the doctrine which arrays itself against the clearest evidence of facts, and the soundest process of reasoning, is there no demand on the other side for the reconciliation of Scripture with science?" I answer that in such a case there might exist such a demand. But Professor Bush has exhibited none of this " clearest evidence of facts," or this " soundest process of reasoning," in support of his theory, and hence there can be no demand of this kind in his case. His '•'■ facts'^ exhibit any thing but " the clearest evidence" in their favour ; and his " process of reasoning," as we have shown, is any thing but sound. The evidence in verification of this statement has been spread before the reader in the preceding pages. 3. I freely admit that " the only ground on which we 94 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY can recognize the claims to preference of one mode of solving a difficulty of revelatioii above another, is, that it goes further towards satisfying the demands of our intelli- gence, all things considered, than the other." And it is on this principle precisely that I wholly reject the proposed theory of Professor Bush. And it is not overrating the matter to aver, that for every serious difficulty which en- cumbers the doctrine of the resurrection of the body, the theory of Professor Bush is encumbered with a hundred. Evidence of this will be more fully presented when we take up the Scripture argument. 4. In connexion with the foregoing objection the Pro- fessor likewise enters a caveat against " referring" the ac- complishment of the resurrection of the body *' simply to the Divine Omnipotence." But does he mean by this that we are to take for granted, that " the Divine Omnipotence" can accomplish nothing but what we can understand, and the modvs of which we can explain? If this be his mean- ing, surely it calls for no reply from me. But if it be not his meaning, what is the import of his exceptions to the principle referred to? For if Omnipotence can accomplish any thing, the modus of which we are unable either to ex- plain or understand, what hinders but that he should be able also to accomplish the resurrection of the body, if even we cannot comprehend or conceive how he does it? But let us examine, seriatim^ the principles upon which this singular caveat is founded. (1.) *' We may be permitted to suggest," says he, " that a reflecting reason finds it impossible. to contemplate intelli- gently the fact, simply as a fact, without reference to the mode in which it is to be effected." But what does he mean by " contemplating" here? Does he mean " medilating on," or "considering with continued attention?" This is the meaning of contemplating ? Now Professor Bush, in his work, (pp. 75, 76,) speaks with a high degree of eulogy of mesmerism, and he has frequently contemplated the fact of *' clairvoyance ;" and doubtless supposes that he has contem- plated this fact "intelligently." But has he (if there be such a thing,) any adequate conception of " the mode in which it is effected ?" I fearlessly answer. No ! He frequently speaks of the union of matter with spirit, and mce versa. Has he any idea of the mode 1 Has he any adequate conception of the mode in which food becomes a part of the human sys- ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. 95 tern? And does he find it impossible to contemplate, or meditate, on these things as facts because he cannot con- ceive how they are effected 1 Why then will he, in im- pugning the doctrine of the resuiTection of the body, apply a principle as sound, which, if applied to these things, he would reject as unsound? This is but a poor juslificalion of the caveat referred to. (2.) But, again, he asks : " What is the fact which is asserted, and which we are required to believe? What is the very thing which Omnipotence is to do in order to do what is usually deemed necessary to the resurrection of the body?" Ans. The fact to be believed, is that the body which died is to be raised. And this Omnipotence will ac- complish by reconstructing the body, and changing it into a body adapted to the uses of the immortal spirit. There is no difficulty in believing this on the assurance of the Almighty. (3.) Professor Bush proceeds : " Let it be grarited that this is the asserted fact of Scripture : we array against it the counter fact, that, as the raised body is to be a spiritual body, it cannot be the same. Here are two asserted facts in direct contrariety to each other." But the Professor here takes for granted, that by a spiritual body is meant pure spirit: and this is, as we have shown, utterly destructive of his tertium quid hypothesis, as he would have then a pure spirit united to a pure spirit; an idea which he ex- pressly and in so many words rejects on p. 83. But if a spiritual body is a body adapted to spiritual uses, (which is beyond doubt the import of the phrase, as we shall show hereafter,) then why or wherefore can it not be the same substantially as the body which died? There is, therefore, no contradiction here, and no " asserted fact of Scripture arrayed against a counter fact." (4.) The Professor asks further : " Can the one (fact) be intelligently held without some attempted explanation of the mode in which it is to be made consistent with the other?" To this I reply, ^rsf, that Professor Bush here varies his position. For " the mode in which one fact is to be made consistent with another fact," is a very different thing from " the mode in which a fact is to be effected,^^ or performed. A principle involving the former procedure, may, in the case supposed, be sound ; while one involving the latter cannot be sound in the case supposed, as we have shown 96 THE RESURRECTION OP THE BODY above. And, secondly, an attempt to harmonize apparently- discordant statements in the word of God, (and this is what Professor Bush refers to in the sentence last quoted,) is a very different thing from the attempt which the Professor has made in his "Anastasis;" in which, having assumed that his deductions from reason are legitimate, he has at- tempted to show from this assumption that the plain and obvious teaching of the Bible must be wrong on the subject under discussion ; and that, therefore, it ought to be so explained as to harmonize with his view of what reason teaches. These are the fallacious principles upon which he has re- fused to recognize our right to refer to " Divine Omnipo- tence," as being able to accomplish the resurrection of the body! Such are Professor Bush's objections to the doctrine of the resurrection of the body. And his assertion on p. 81, that the intelligent reception of this doctrine is attended " with greater difficulties," than the reception of the theory propounded by himself, will not be considered as. of any great weight, if the foregoing are the difficulties referred to. CHAPTER VI. THE TRUE OFFICE OF REASON IN RESPECT TO REVEALED RELIGION. The appropriate position of reason in religion, is a subject of high importance in this, and in all discussions where the principles of reason and those of true religion are supposed to be brought into conflict. The mere vague and undefined announcement that " reason and religion must be consistent with each other," and similar announcements of which Pro- fessor Bush's work is literally full, can settle nothing ; and serve no purpose other than to perplex the honest and con- scientious inquirer after truth. The statement made by Professor Bush and others who have written as vaguely on the subject, neither makes nor allows any distinction between the principles of reason, (so called,) which any man in par- ticular may adopt, and the principles of right reason, such as God both recognizes and appeals to in his word. And hence every man is left to infer that the deductions of his ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. '97 own philosophy, (however distorted by his education or his prejudices*) are legitimate, and that the announcements of revelation ought to be so explained as to harmonize with them. It makes, therefore, nothing for Professor Bush to insist, as he so constantly does, upon the declaration that the truths of reason or philosophy cannot conflict with revelation : for the declaration rightly vnderstood and explained, affirms nothing but what the church of God has advocated for cen- turies ;t and at this day, also, I am confident that Professor Bush can point out no intelligent man in the Protestant church who has ever questioned it. But it is not to be for- gotten that there is the same distinction to be observed be- tween Professor Bush's view of right reason, and right reason itself; as between a man's view of truth and truth itself. It is true that what he offers on this subject is pre- sented in connexion with his principles of hermeneutics, and it may be thought that we had better defer our remarks upon the matter until we come to consider those. But we think that Professor Bush has grievously perplexed his subject by * The following passage from Lord Bacon, on this subject, cannot be too carefully pondered. '■^Idola specus sunt idola hominis individui. Habet enim unusquisque (prtEter aberrationes naturce humaneB in genere,) specum sive cavernam quandam individuam, qusB lumen naturiB frangit et corrumpit; vel propter naturam cujusque propriam et singularem ; vel propter educationetn et conversationem cum aliis; vel propter lectionem librorum, et auctoritates eorum quos quisque colit et miratur ; vel propter differentias impressionum, prout occur- runt in animo preeoccupato et proedisposito, aut in animo aequo et sedato, vel ejusmodi; ut plane spiritus humanus (prout disponitur in hominibus singulis) sit res varia, et omnino perturbata, et quasi for- tuita." And also, *' Falso enim asseritur, sensum humanum esse mensuram rerum ; quin contra, omnes perceptiones, tam sensus quam mentis, sunt ex analogia hominis, non ex analogia universi. Estque in- tellectus humanus instar speculi insequalis ad radios rerum, qui suam naturam naturce rerum immiscet, eamque distorquet et inficit." Novum Organuirij Lib. I., §§. 41, and 42. Works, Vol. II., p. 435. London 1838. + Nearly three centuries ago, the great Ursinus, speaking of true philosophy, says, " Vera enim philosophia, etsi et ipsa a doctrina Ec- clesiae multum difFert, tamen nee pugnat cum ca, nee est mendacium ut aliarum Sectarum falsse doctrlnse, sed est Veritas; et quidam QUASI RADIUS SAPIENTI^ DeI, MENTIBUS HOMINUM IN CREATIONE IM- PRESSUS." Explic. Cat. Heidelberg. Proleg. p. 4. This fine passage may serve to evince v^ith how little reason or propriety Professor Bush announces with such parade of controversial attitude, his vague and undefined proposition above referred to. 9 98 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODT thus connecting them ; and with such a view of the matter we surely may plead to be excused from following his ex- ample. In discussing the subject, it is perhaps the better plan to begin with a consideration of what the Professor has oifered in view of it, in the attempt to sustain the position which he has assumed. And in doing so, I shall inquire I. What is the office assigned to reason by Professor Bush? We have already remarked that his leading propo- sition (referred to above,) as announced by him, is utterly vague and indefinite; and, as ii stands isolated, is susceptible of either of two diametrically opposite explanations. We must therefore endeavour to ascertain the meaning which he attaches to it, by referring to those portions of his work, where he professes to illustrate its application. In his application of it to his announcement of the results of scientific investigation, he says: "We cannot conceive that the homage due to a revelation from God requires us to forego the inevitable deductions of that reason with which he has endowed us, nor do we think it possible that that word will ever achieve its predicted triumphs over the human mind till its teachings, on all points that come within the sphere of a true philosophy, shall be seen to har- monize with its legitimate deductions." p. 29. What Pro- fessor Bush here means by " a true philosophy" will be seen by referring to his " argument from reason,'''' and his ^^ objections,^'' stated on the preceding pages: and it will be seen also that the import of this phrase, as employed by him, differs toto ccelo from that in which it is used in the last marginal note, and from that in which it is employed by the Protestant church generally. The Professor per- petually confounds his own philosophy with true philosophy; and, of course, leaves the privilege of doing the same to every man who is satisfied with the legitimacy of his own deductions. But, again. Professor Bush's ** true philosophy" leads him, in its application to the doctrine of the resurrection, to say, "As we apprehend the subject before us, the ideas in- volved in the proposition of the resurrection of the same body are incompatible per se. The real question is, how Omnipotence itself can establish the relation of which we are in quest." p. 57. And forgetting also how easy it is to imagine that we have arrived at a certain knowledge of as- ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. 99 serted facts, when in truth we know nothing about them, his philosophy leads him to say of the word of God, *' If in the careful scanning of that word, the letter speaks a language contrary to clearly ascertained facts in nature and science, he will take it as type, figure, allegory, metaphor, symbol, accommodation, anthropomorphism — any thing rather than the declaration of absolute verity," (Pre/ace, p. xi.,)and, in- stead of doubting whether he may not have fallen into some imperceptible error in respect to what he has concluded to be a " positive, fixed, irrefragable truth," he must, if the word of God "clash" with such a " clearly ascertained truth," at once conclude that " the word itself must he a forgery and a lie.^^ Ibid, This is Professor Bushes philosophy. But let the great Verulam (an authority which Professor Bush, on p. 23, has quoted and applauded) define for us true philosophy. "Divine philosophy is that knowledge, or rudiment of know- ledge, concerning God, which may be obtained by the con- templation of his creatures [works] ; which knowledge may be truly termed divine, in respect of the object, and natural in respect of the light. The bounds of this knowledge are, that it sufficeth to convince atheism, but not to inform reli- gion : and, therefore, there was never a miracle wrought by God to convert an atheist, because the light of nature might have led him to confess a God, &c. But on the other side, out of the contemplation of nature or ground of human knowledge, to induce any verity or persuasion concerning the points of faith, is, tn my judgment, not safe. Da fidei, quae fidei sunt. For the heathen themselves conclude as much in that excellent and divine fable of the golden chain: *That men and gods were not able to draw Jupiter down to the earth ; but contrariwise, Jupiter was able to draw them up to heaven.' So as we ought not to attempt to draw down or submit the mysteries of God to our reason; If^t contrariwise, to raise and advance our reason to the divine truth.''''* And, again, in the same book he remarks, that " the prerogative of God extendeth as well to the rea- son as to the will of man ; so that as we are to obey his law, though we find a reluctation in our will ; so we are to believe his word, though we find a reluctation in our rea- son. For if we believe only that which is agreeable to our sense, we give consent to the matter, and not to the author, * Advancement of Learning, Lib. II. Works, VoL I. p. 34. 100 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY which is no more than we would do towards a suspected and discredited witness : but that faith which was * accounted to Abraham for righteousness,' was of such a point, as whereat Sarah laughed, who therein was an image of natural rea- son." This is true philosophy. Here is a contrast indeed. The one clearly and logically elevates reason above revelation, and makes that a judge which ought to be a learner; the other leads reason to listen to the voice of God, and induces it to take the attitude of a meek and humble disciple. The one leads to the prepos- terous absurdity of supposing that even though God has revealed himself to man for the purpose of assisting our reason, that yet after all God may be wrong, and reason be right ; the other remembers that man's reason has been bruised and weakened and defaced, and greatly oblite- rated by the fall, and that it has often concluded and as- serted that to be true which is not true, and is, therefore, willing and desirous to rest implicitly in the plain testimony of God. The philosophy advocated by Professor Bush has made the Christian a Rationalist and Infidel; true philosophy, as here described by Bacon, has made the Infidel and the Rationalist a Christian. The principles of the former phi- losophy never have been settled, and, consequently, its con- clusions have been diametrically opposite to each other in different ages ; nor can its advocates rest until they have explained away every thing which is incomprehensible in the Bible : while " true philosophy and true religion (as Dr. S. S. Smith beautifully remarks,) must ultimately arrive at the same principle." Professor Bush's philosophy scru- ples not to question whether God can perform an action, the modus of which we cannot comprehend ; while true philo- sophy rests fully assured that God can accomplish every thing which he has said he will perform, without troubling itself about the modus. ^, 11. Such then appears to be logically the position assigned to reason by Professor Bush, and upon which he ventures to dogmatize upon the truth or falsehood of the contents of revelation. True philosophy, on the other hand, assigns to reason a very opposite position. It pleads for the strictest scrutiny into the evidences upon which the claims of revela- tion are based ; it collates and compares manuscripts, ver- sions, and readings ; it settles the true principles of herme- neutics ; but when this is accomplished, it receives as true, ASSERTED AND DEPENDED. 101 with childlike docility, whatever communication those records from God may contain. And that this is the true position of reason will appear from the considerations which follow. 1 . The very design of revelation is to teach what reason itself, since the fall, could never have known. To enter into the proof of this, would be absurd ; for all Christians admit that a revelation from heaven was necessary. But it could not have been necessary, if reason could have taught us without it, what it professes to teach. We shall illustrate the proposition however. And first, passing by the still unsettled principles of na- tural and mental science, and upon which reason has been supposed to teach in one age, what it has denied in another, let us consider some of its dicta in matters supposed by the generality of men to be quite obvious. Colonel Ethan Allen's reason taught him the transmigration of souls. Lord Herbert's philosophy taught him that the indulgence of lust and anger is no more to be blamed than the thirst produced by the dropsy, or the drowsiness occasioned by lethargy. Hobbes' philosophy taught that the civil law is the only stan- dard of right and wrong. Tindal asserted that the indulgence of lust is innocent. Bolingbroke's philosophy resolved all morality into self love as its principle. He taught also that the shame of modesty is artificial ; that the chief end of man is to gratify the desires and appetites of his flesh ; that adul- tery is no violation of the law of nature; that this law teaches polygamy, and " does not forbid incest, except it be, perhaps, of the highest kind." Hume's philosophy taught that self-denial and humility are not virtues, but are useless and mischievous, and that adultery is proper and right. Helvetius also taught that it was not good policy to forbid adultery. Robert Owen and Miss Wright taught that chas- tity is a vicious restraint. These are some of the dicta of reason, where she has erected herself into a judge of the doctrines of revelation. But secondly, the absolute weakness and inefficiency of reason in respect of those subjects upon which revelation alone can impart certainty, are equally apparent. Take for example the subject of man's duty to. God. Reason and philosophy leave us on this subject in the most painful sus- pense. Socrates confessed that he had no sufficient ground of assurance that the doctrines were true which he was in- 9* 102 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY clined to believe; or that the worship which he rendered was acceptable to the gods. It is true we may know some- thing of the ground or obligation of duty, but this is very different from knowing what duty God may require of us. Every one who has attempted from philosophy or reason alone to define it, has differed either with himself, or with some other equally gifted of the advocates of the sufficiency of the light of nature. The same degree of uncerlainty pre- vails on the question whether God will be merciful to the sinner upon his repentance and reformation. Reason, on the principle of justice, clearly concludes against the suppo- sition. It can teach man that he does sin, but there it leaves him. And even if he may suppose that God will show mercy upon his repentance, he cannot tell how far this sup- posed mercy will extend — whether to all manner of sin, or to some sins only. And where is the principle in philoso- phy to determine these questions? The same degree of un- certainty attaches itself to the doctrine of the immortality of the soul or spirit of man. Or allowing its immortality, phi- losophy is utterly unable to tell what is necessary on our part in order to secure its everlasting welfare, and escape the future punishment of sin. We might continue these re- marks, but the foregoing are sufficient for our purpose. The design of revelation, therefore, is to instruct us in matters of the most vital importance to us ; and matters, too, which reason of itself is utterly unable to discover, or to know any thing. I am aware that Professor Bush may reply to all this, that he fully admits the necessity of a revelation, and will yield to no man in the profound regard which he entertains for the Scriptures. And I do not question the sincerity of his attachment to them. I believe his errors on the subject before us, are those of the head and not of the heart : but they nevertheless are errors, glaring errors, pernicious and ruinous errors, if followed out to their logical results. He does not doubt the necessity of revelation, nor the inspiration of the Scriptures which profess to be such : he wishes merely to prove reason and revelation to be consistent. But I have no controversy with him as to his aim, but with his pro- cedure in his effort to accomplish it. In this procedure he has asserted and advocated principles which are subver- sive of revelation itself, and are the very foundation of ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. 103 rationalism and scepticism. And we should be recreant to the cause of truth and righteousness if any tenderness to an accomplished and amiable man should influence us to treat with favour the pernicious principles which he advocates. The plea of wishing to gain over well-informed and scep- tical men to Christianity, by showing them that reason and religion are harmonious ; is one which has often been made in order to justify the extremes of Socinian and kindred errors. Priestley also, thus endeavoured to gain over the Jews, but they repelled the attempt with the utmost scorn. The same result has attended the eflibrts of Unitarians and Rationalists universally. They have not hesitated to become infidels in order to gain infidels. But this whole procedure is based upon either the forgetfulness of, or refusal to ac- knowledge the Scripture truth that unbelief is lodged not so much in the head as in the heart. " Men love darkness rather than light." And there is no mere rational explana- tion that can in any wise render " the offence of the cross" less than it is, and ever has been. Now it is perfectly plain that if reason is incompetent to the ascertainment of the truths of revelation, she must also be incompetent to decide that they are inconsistent with true philosophy. For their reconcileableness therewith may still depend upon principles as utterly unknown to reason, as were these truths themselves before they were revealed. Common sense may teach us this. 2. Hence the very idea of such a revelation clearly infers that there is no necessity that every doctrine which it an- nounces should be taught also by reason. I am aware how this proposition will be regarded by such writers as Professor Bush, and reference will be immediately made to the immortal work of Bishop Butler. The Bishop's Analogy is often thus referred to vaguely, as if he had attempted to prove the doctrines of the Bible by reason. But he has attempted to prove no such thing ; and if Pro- fessor Bush in the Anastasis, had followed in his steps, he would have found few opponents among Christians. The aim of Butler's great work is to show that true philoso- phy sanctions no principles which can really conflict with revelation ; and this he does agreably to the suggestion of Lord Bacon above referred to. He does not attempt to draw down or submit the mysteries of God to reason ; but first as 104 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY a little child, learns what God has taught in his word; and then endeavours to raise and advance his reason to the divine truth. But the whole structure of the Professor's argument is the perfect antithesis of all this. For he first consults reason's oracle ; hears its imagined response, and then pro- ceeds to reconcile the mysteries of God therewith. But it is never to be forgotten that the credibility of what the Scriptures teach depends upon their authority. And hence whether " reason reluctates" or willingly assents, we are still acting rationally, when we receive any doctrine or teaching of God upon the mere authority of Scripture, without any confirmatory evidence of reason whatever. And if this be " resigning my reason," or " doing violence" thereto, I can only say that I wish thus to resign, and violate it while I live. Nor let the acute remark of Bacon be forgotten, that if we believe only that which is agreeable to our sense or reason, " we give consent to the matter, and not to the author, which is no more than we would do to a suspected and discredited witness." And Locke (Posthumous Works,) also remarks that " Therefore I gratefully receive, and re- joice in the light of revelation, which sets me at rest in many things, the manner of which my poor reason can by no means make out to me;" a sentiment that infers a clear acknowledgment of the fact that it is a small matter whether reason can or cannot furnish confirmatory evidence of the truth of every thing which God has advanced in his word. And I consider it more than doubtful whether any good has ever resulted from overstrained efforts to harmonize reason and revelation ; especially when the beginning has been made (not at the right end, like that of Bishop Butler, but) at the wrong end like that of Professor Bush. Moreover it ought never to be presumed that true reason or philosophy can really conjiict with revelation: and in cases where they are supposed to do so, it is a fair and rational presumption that the error is in ourselves, and that our argument or deduction is wrong. Pascal has truly re- marked that " the highest attainment of reason, is to know that there is an infinity of knowledge beyond its limits. It must be sadly weak if it has not discovered this."* And the Psalmist referring to the transcendent greatness and glory * Thoughts on Religion, Chap. X. p. 134. ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. 105 of divine things, exclaims, "Such knowledge is too wonder- ful for me: it is high, I cannot attain to it." Psalms cxxxix. 6. Hence, when our puny darkened minds attempt to grasp more of these things than God has seen proper to reveal, it is not to be wondered at that we become entangled in the mazes of inextricable error. In such an attempt, the mightiest intellect can only become bewildered. There is likewise a strong apparent resemblance between truth and error ; and hence the propriety of suspecting our own inferences from mere reason, rather than the plain declarations of the all-wise God. ** There is no truth," says Cicero, " which has not some falsehood connected with it."* And, in fact, it is not strange that error and fasehood are more congenial to the depraved mind of man than truth itself. Such considerations may well induce the theorist to pause in his proud specula- tions upon the character and truth of Almighty God. It is an easy thing in this country and in this age, to scatter " firebrands, arrows, and death," and mean no harm by it. But God will justly hold us responsible for the sentiments which we inculcate. We shall not have to answer it is true, for the weakness of our intellects, but we shall be held guilty if we use them not aright. Their imperfection may be ex- cused, but when through neglect or indifference we wander from the truth, by the adoption of a pernicious principle, and thus abuse the intellect which God has given, we may well expect that such abuse shall be laid to our charge. The conclusion from the foregoing remarks is, that reason is in her appropriate place, in discussing, (however closely,) the question whether God has spoken to man ; and when scrutinizing the evidences by which revealed religion would support its claims. She is in her place in determining the principles upon which that revelation is to be expounded. And, having ascertained its import, she may apropriately also seek in the works of God for analogies and confirma- tory evidence and illustration of the truths announced by God. But she is out of her sphere the moment she com- mences with her own deductions and seeks by "accommoda- tion" or otherwise to harmonize the declarations of God therewith ; or if she fail to do this, she is sadly out of her place to " pronounce the averments of revelation," " a forgery * De Natura Deorum, Lib. I. 106 THE RESURRECTION OP THE BODY, ETC. and a lie." And, in a word, she is out of her place when- ever she ventures to sit as umpire on the contents of revela- tion, and so decide the question whether what God halh said is fasehood or truth.* * Since writing the foregoing, it has occurred to mind that Pre- sident Edwards had written on this subject. Had I thought of this sooner, I should doubtless have made the present chapter much longer. See his most admirable essay in Part I. Chapter VII., of " Miscella- neous Observations," Works, Vol. VII. p. 261. PART 11. PROFESSOR bush's REMARKS ON THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT CONSIDERED. CHAPTER I. THE PRINCIPLE OP INTERPRETATION ADVOCATED BY PROFESSOR BUSH, CONSIDERED As a preliminary to the consideration of the Scripture argu- ment for the resurrection of the body, it is of importance to consider what are the principles upon which Professor Bush and myself have endeavoured to arrive at the import of the Holy Oracles. Speaking of his principles of interpretation, the Professor correctly remarks that " a theory of interpretation which goes essentially to change the established view of this tenet, (the resurrection), must necessarily work a correspondent change in our estimate of a whole class of subjects bearing upon the theme of human destiny in another life. Now it is certain that the conclusions to which I have arrived, and which will be found embodied in the ensuing pages, must, if built upon sound premises, present the grand future under an entirely new aspect." Preface p. v. And again, he says, " We have no fear of being convicted, before an enlightened tribunal, of having periled the weal of the sacred oracles by the advocacy of a false principle of interpretation. We can- not conceive that the homage due to a revelation from God, requires us to forego the inevitable deductions of that reason with which he has endowed us." p. 29. He therefore evi- dently does not consider his theory of interpretation either as new or hazardous. 108 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY But in order then to exhibit a full and fair statement of the Professor's hermeneutics, we shall first present his enuncia- tion of them as principles ; and then his application of them to the doctrines and language of Scripture. 1. We took occasion on a former page to remark that his principles of interpretation, as stated in connexion with his argument from reason, appeared to be irreconcileably incon- sistent. He speaks of revelation, as if it were the duty of reason to bow implicitly to its statements ; and of reason, as if its deductions were equal or paramount to the announce- ments of revelation. But this is not peculiar to Professor Bush; for all the advocates of the accommodation principle, (unless they are like Wegscheider and Ammon, downright infidels,) fall into similar inconsistencies. But both of these principles, cannot, of course, be consistently entertained, by Professor Bush. One or the other must be abandoned. In our delineation of his principles, we begin with the fol- lowing extract from his Preface. " But here I am accosted again by the stern interrogatory, what right has reason to demand satisfaction at all on a point of doctrine addressed solely to faith? To this I reply, that reason certainly has a right to claim to be clearly informed as to what is the doc- trine to be believed ; nor can it possibly be required to forego its prerogatives in dealing with a professed revelation from heaven, containing the points to which our assent is de- manded. While it is the office of reason reverently to re- ceive all that God has clearly and incontrovertibly taught,* reason must still act in determining the true sense of what he has taught. It is human reason that originates the rules of interpretation for the inspired volume, and we claim nothing more for it than its appropriate function, when it is thus called in to decide the meaning of revelation. This meanings when really attained, must always be in harmony with its own oracles. All truth must of necessity be eternally con- sistent with itself. No man is required to hold views of revelation to which a sound and enlightened science or phi- losophy can solidly object. No intelligent believer in the Bible will yield the rationality of his faith to the sceptical assailant. He will give to no one on this score a vantage * But how are we to know when a thing is thus taught? Seeing that the Professor makes it a sufficient reason to deny that any truth is so taught that plainly conflicts with his reason or philosophy? ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. 109 ground on which he can laugh in his sleeve at the weakness or credulity which receives, as points of faith, dogmas at war with known facts or unimpeachable deductions. , If the averments of that word which professes to have emanated from the Omniscient Spirit, clash with any positive, fixed, irrefragable truth in the universe, then the word itself must be a forgery and a lie; for God would never set one truth against another. Panoplied by this principle, which is as firm as the perpetual hills, if, in the careful scanning of that word, the letter speaks a language contrary to clearly ascer- tained facts in nature and science, he will take it as type, figure,, allegory, metaphor, symbol, accommodation, anthro- pomorphism — any thing rather than the declaration of abso- lute verity. His Bible comes from the same source with the philosopher's boasted reason. God is the infinite Reason, and it is impossible that the reception of his word can involve the denial of that lofty prerogative in man." Pp. x. and xi. The suicidal inconsistencies which mark this paragraph, and such a presentation of the subject, have been sufficiently noticed on a former page. With all its saving clauses the passage is sufficiently revolting. And yet it is the most favourable presentation of his principle of interpretation which is to be found in the work of Professor Bush. Other extracts will be furnished presently. But before we proceed to furnish them, I would call attention to the fact that the Rationalists of Germany state their principle of " accom- modation,^^ (which, since the time of Semler, has filled their country with infidelity) in the same language, and charac- terized also by the same inconsistency so glaringly ap- parent in the foregoing extract. How perfectly coincident with the language of Professor Bush are the following pas- sages from Dr. Rohr, (the great champion of Rationalism in the present day:) "Christian Rationalism denies not the fact of an extraordinary revelation from God in the Holy Scriptures, &c. It does not, in respect to finding and pur- suing the way to eternal bliss, refer man to his own reason, as the source of the highest ideas and truths ; but only CLAIMS FOR HIM THE RIGHT, AND IMPOSES ON HIM THE DUTY, OF SIFTING AND PROVING THAT WHICH THE CHRIS- TIAN REVELATION MAKES KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT, BY COMPARISON WITH THE RELIGIOUS IDEAS AND PRINCIPLES OF HUMAN reason; in order that in the concerns of his eternal salvation, he may show himself to be neither blind 10 110 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY nor credulous.'''* Allgem. Kirch. Zeit. for March 8, 1829. And yet in his " Letters on Rationalism," he thus speaks : "With the Rationalist it is reason alone that decides in matters of faith, and in the adoption of religious doctrines. He admits the autharity of the Scriptures only where they coincide with his own convictions ; and that not as the determining ground of those convictions, for these he re- gards as true on their own grounds of reason." Kant, also, taught that " the revelation which has come into our hands, should be explained throughout in a sense which shall co- incide with the general practical rules of a religion of pure reason." See his '■'•Religion within the bounds of Reason,^'' pp. 157-160. Hahn, in his celebrated essay on ^^ The Grammatico-Historical Interpretation of the Scriptures" (in which he gave the ^^accommodation principle'''' its death wound in Germany,) thus speaks of the principle which has been adopted by Professor Bush, and is clearly embodied in the extract above quoted from his work. "This philoso- phical, or, as it is also called, rational interpretation, which was already practised in the schools of the Socinians and Cartesians, has been often termed since the middle of the last century, the liberal interpretation ; because in homage to the philosophy of the time^ it has relaxed so much of the strictness of the biblical doctrines as the spirit of the age demanded. This so-called philosophical exegesis has made its appearance in the greatest variety of shapes and modifi- cations, according to the change of systems and the spirit of the age." And then, after referring to the system advo- cated by Kant, he adds : "And so it is with every so-called philosophical interpretation. They all extract from the Scriptures, or rather they imply in the words of Scripture, those opinions or ideas which the interpreter brings with him to the work." The reader will also compare the foregoing with the sub- joined extracts from the work of Professor Bush, containing further statements of his principles of interpretation. Re- ferring to the expressions of Scripture respecting the resur- rection, he says : " This we concede is Scripture language, and the simple use of the ipsissima verba of the Holy Spirit can never be a ground of censure towards any man who uses it with pure motives. Still we are at full liberty to inquire into its meaning, and to institute the most rigid comparison between the literal averments of holy writ, and ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. Ill the inevitable deductions of our reason founded upon the ascertained results of science ; for it is impossible that the import of the inspired oracles, when rightly understood, should ever he such as to compel us to forego the clear and legitimate conclusions which are forced upon us by the just exercise of our rational faculties. The sense, however, which we are constrained to put upon the letter of the sacred record may be different from that which is most natively obvious, and such as would never have occurred to us, but from an apparent conflict between the literal inter- pretation and the known facts or irresistible inferences de- rived from other, sources — a point upon which we shall have more to say in the sequel. In the present instance it is un- questionable that the words quoted from our Saviour's ad- dress to the Jews do encounter a very formidable difficulty arising from the indubitable fact, that thousands and mil- lions of human bodies that were once deposited in graves are not there now, and never will be again." p. 45.* Again: *' The consequences of truth belong to the God of truth, and to him we may confidently leave them. The reader will judge for himself how far the conceded facts and premises of our argument (from reason) necessitate the conclusions to which we have adverted ; {i. e. that the doctrine of the resurrection resolves itself simply into that of immortality.) If it be inevitable, we abide by it. Although thus far pur- sued merely as an argument from reason irrespective of revelation, yet if it be sound, we not only calmly repose in the conclusion, (and Professor Bush fully regards it as sound,) but are unshaken also in the conviction, that reve- lation rightly interpreted must harmonize with it. It is impossible that any two truths in the universe should clash with each other." p. 71. This is the philosophical inter' prefation with a vengeance. The Professor first becomes satisfied from reason what revelation ought to teach, and then so " modifies" revelation that it must harmonize with it. See also pp. 46, 81, 82 and 84. Again. " What now is the obvious matter of fact as re- gards the particular subject of our present discussion ? (the resurrection.) Are not the Scriptures constructed on this point, as on all others having respect to physical subjects, * The singular mistake of Professor Bush in this reference to the words of our Saviour we have already pointed out in our reply to Objection VI. in Chapter V. above. 112 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY in reference to the then state of knowledge — to the popular impression and belief — among those for whom they were originally designed 1 And did the Jews and early Chris- tians know what we know in relation to our physical or- ganization 1 Was the science of animal chemistry developed in those early ages? Were they skilled in anthropology?" &c. pp. 90,91. This statement embodies the position which is the very corner-stone of German neology. lis originator was John Solomon Semler; and the reader may find an exhibition of it in his Geschicthe der Christlichen Glaubens- lehre, (by far the most important of all Semler's publications,) prefixed to each of the three volumes of Baumgarten's Theo- logischer Streitig'keittn, Halle, 1762. And in reference to this principle, as adopted and taught by him, Tholuck (whose candour will not be suspected) remarks: "The Gospels, in his view, were designed only for the Jews, and are adapted only to them. Here, then, we have the leading principle of Semler's interpretation, viz., that the contents rf the Old and New Testaments are of a local and temporary character. This is the source of the corruption which he introduced into all the departments of theology. It is at once obvious what influence such a principle of inter- pretation must have upon doctrinal theology. A mode of interpretation which finds in the New Testament nothing but what is local and temporary, cuts off the very roots from which all the vitality of theology springs."* The principles advocated by Professor Bush not only logically infer, but he actually announces this very principle of Sem- ler. See pp. 238, 239. But instead of assigning this local and temporary character to revelation, by limiting its import thus in respect to its great doctrines of the resurrection, judg- ment, &c., " to those for whom it was originally designed," how much more noble and truly philosophical would it have been to admit the statement of Bacon on the subject. True philosophy and theology harmonize in attesting its truth. "The Scriptures," says this greatest of men, "being written to the thoughts of men, and to the succession of all ages, with a foresight of all heresies, contradictions, differing estates of the church, yea, and particularly of the elect, are not to be interpreted only according to the latitude of the proper sense of the place, and respectively towards that ♦ See Tholuck's Historical Sketch of the Revolution in Theology, vv'hich commenced in 1750 in Germany. ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. 113 present occasion ^ whereupon the words were uttered, or, in precise congruity or contexture with the words before or after, in contemplation of the principal scope of the place; but have in themselves, not only totally or collectively, but distributively in clauses and words, infinite springs and streams of doctrine to water the church in every part."^ Again, the Professor, on pp. 241, 242, thus repeats the sen- timent : " That the expression (John vi. 39, 40) is conformed to the usual mode in which the resurrection of the righteous was spoken of among the Jews, is unquestionable. Still we cannot deem ourselves precluded from referring again to the principle, somewhat fully developed on a previous page, (p. 238,) on which many things in our Lord's addresses to the Jews are to be interpreted. "f This, surely, is a suffi- ciently broad avowal of Semler's principle of accommoda- tion to justify the severest censure on a scholar who can present it to the churches now as an unquestioned principle of hermeneutics. How exactly does it tally with the doc- trine of Semler's " little local Jewish ideas,^^ let Dr. Tho- luck tell. In his History of Rationalism he says : "All the doctrines taught in the Scriptures, it was maintained, are either accommodations to Jewish prejudices, * little local ideas,' according to his (Semler's) favourite expression, (even the idea of the kingdom of God he did not hesitate to class among these little local ideas,) or they are expressed in such terms, that we cannot, in our times, ascertain their import, &c. &c. On such an hypothesis, it is not easy to see how Christianity can have any positive doctrines. Nothing is more natural or more legitimate, than that the Rationalist theologians, as Henke, VVegscheider, and Bret- schneider should, in carrying out Semler's views, make it * Advancement of Learning, Book II., Works, Vol. I., pp. 78, 79. The same sentiment is thus beautifully, but more emphatically an- nounced in his De Augment. Scient. Lib. IX. c. 1: " Meminisse autem oportet, Deo Scripturarura auctori duo ilia patere, quag humana in- geniafugiunt: secreta nimirum cordis,ei successionestemporis. Quam- obrem, cum Scripturarum dictamina talia sunt, ut ad cor scribanlur, et omnium seculorum vicissitudines complectantur. — Altera, quod non ad eos solum locuius est, qui tunc aderant^ sed ad nos etiam, qui viviMus, et ad omnis avi ac loci homines, quibus evangelium fuerit pradicandumy Works, Vol. II., p. 429. This is true. Away then with the notion of the merely local and temporary character of the revelation of God ! t The same principles are broadly asserted also on pp. 244, 245 269, 273, 278, 279, 345, 389, 390, &c. 10* 114 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY their chief concern to exhibit the subject historically, and notice the various changes which have occurred in views of doctrine ; and, finally, examine the basis of the Jewish no- tions, out of which Christian theology sprung." 2. In the application of this principle to the interpretation of texts and doctrines of Scripture, Professor Bush is very unwilling to. admit that he does any violence to the latter. He utters many disclaimers to this effect, and it would be rather singular if he did not. But who, I would ask, among all the Rationalists of Germany, will admit that they interpret the Bible on this principle in any other than a natural man- ner? Semler himself would have been shocked at the impu- tation against himself of using violence in interpreting it. To the doctrine of the resurrection of Christ, the Professor applies the principle in the following manner. Speaking of the evidence that his body literally arose, derived from the fact that his disciples touched him, and that he ate before them, the Professor remarks, "As to the act of eating — it was doubtless an optical act;" and p. 154, " the phenomena indicating a material body to the senses of the disciples must have been miraculously assumed. In other words, they were appear- ances.^^ p. 162. On page 164, he asserts that Christ's " earthly tenement" was " dispersed;^'* and on page 165, he boldly applies to the great doctrine of the resurrection of our Saviour the Semlerian principle as follows : — " We may admit, indeed, that the disciples supposed that the body which they saw and handled was the veritable body of their cruci- fied Lord, and that in their preaching the resurrection of Jesus they had no other idea than that of the reanimation of, his body of flesh. Under the influence of those carnal apprehensions which they then cherished, it was scarcely to be expected that they should have come to any other conclu- sion." (See also pp. 164, 166, 167, 168.) So also is inspiration virtually disposed of, or at least left so uncertain, that we cannot know when we may safely rely on a declaration of the Bible. Speaking with reference to 1 Corinthians xv. 50 — ^53, he remarks, " He (Paul) un- doubtedly SUPPOSED that this change tvas to occur simul- taneously with that promised advent of the Saviour that was to be ushered in during the lifetime of that generation — a supposition built upon the letter of numerous predictions, but which the event has shown to be, erroneous." p. 200. See also all of pp. 189—202, and 215, 216, 251, 252. ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. 115 The doctrine of the judgment must in like manner be ex- plained away so as to agree with the argument from reason. Speaking in reference to it, the Professor remarks, " The result of his inquiries, if it agrees with ours, will be, that our Saviour and his apostles merely adopted the style of diction which had been immemorial I y prevalent among the Jews on this subject, and which is no doubt built upon the current phraseology of the New Testament." p. 336. " Here then we have the key to those expressions of our Lord in the Gospels, in which he speaks of raising the righteous * at the last day.' He does not deem it expedient to depart from the established formulas of speech with which the Jews were familiar. Time and the course of events would develope the truth, and the subsequent generations of the church would in this respect possess an advantage withheld, for wise rea- sons, from its primitive ages. The intimations respecting the judgment are, as we conceive, to be interpreted on the same principle." p. 337. See also pp. 346, 347, &c. It were easy to fill pages more with similar extracts from the Anastasis, but the foregoing will be deemed sufficient for the full development and illustration of this principle as en- tertained and advocated by Professor Bush. He has thus succeeded in getting rid of the doctrine of the resurrection of the body, of the resurrection of the man Christ Jesus, of the resurrection of the wicked, and of the judgment to come; and on the same principle it is equally easy to get rid of every doctrine of the Scripture that is supposed to conflict with our reason or our philosophy. The Rationalists have only applied the same principle to the investigation of what they supposed conflicted with these things, and by an " un- forced logic" have explained them all away. Like Professor Bush, they began loith reason, and the process in their case was as easy, and the result the same as in his. A few illustrations will not be out of place. Dr. Ammon applies this principle to the fact of Christ's walking on the water. Reason forbids the supposition that such a thing could be, and hence the Gospel must be so ex- plained as to harmonize with reason and philosophy, for " truth cannot be inconsistent with itself." Hence, says he, " 9r«g/;T£tTE?v iTTi rrh 6dKa.Jfl by "jSn, Gen. vii. 18, Ps. civ. 26, quod de navibus usurpatur. Sap. Sal. v. 10. vstvg S'ii^^ojuivit )cv/ActtvojuiVDv LcTa^," Here surely is criticism enough to prove the point, if Professor Bush's principles be correct; and stronger proof too than the Professor has adduced in favour of the distinguish- ing propositions of his theory. See Prefationem Edit. Quint. Instit. Interpret. Ernesti, by C. F. Ammon, Lipsias, 1809. The best edition of the text, (with the most contemptible annotations) that has been issued since the time of Ernesti. ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. 117 eyes of them both were opened," he says, " after they had eaten the fruit they perceived from the pain in their intes- tines that it was of a noxious quality." " Reason" forbade the supposition that the waters of the Red Sea should have divided and become as a wall on either side to let Israel pass through, and therefore he concludes that the waters of the sea were driven by a strong north wind into the ocean. Such is the result of beginning (as Professor Bush does) with the deductions of reason, and ending with revelation. Dr. Ammon, also, being unable to conceive how a few loaves and fishes could supply thousands with food, explains the passage asserting it as follows; "Jesus probably distri- buted some loaves and fishes which he had, to those who were around him ; and others among the multitude, in- fluenced thus by his example, distributed in like manner the provisions which they possessed." Thiess cannot understand how Ananias could have been struck dead, as the letter of Acts V. represents ; and therefore concludes, that when his dishonesty was discovered, " he fell down terrified ; and probably was carried out and buried while still alive." Heinrichs, however, thinks that this is an unnatural supposi- tion ; and explains the passage thus ; *' Peter stabbed Ana- nias ; and this does not at all disagree with the violent and easily exasperated temper of Peter." A thousand such in-, stances can be produced of the application of the principle of interpretation referred to, but these may suffice. On this principle, therefore, Semler explained away the doctrine respecting the demoniacs of the New Testament, the doctrine of the kingdom of God, and of the judgment to come. Other Rationalists, following in his footsteps have explained away inspiration, miracles, and every thing super- natural in the Bible. On the same principle, Unitarians have explained away the atonement. Godhead of Christ, &c. On the same principle, the Universalisls have explained away the doctrine of future punishment. Professor Bush, adopting the principle, now proposes to explain away the resurrection of Christ's body, the resurrec- tion of the bodies of mankind ; and also the doctrine of a judgment to come, to specify no other doctrines. Is the American church then, prepared for the adoption of such a principle? 118 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY SECTION II. The View entertained of this Principle by the Evangelical Party in Germany. A brief notice of this point will not be out of place here, as the Germans have made a fair trial of the principle re- ferred to. I had hoped that their sad experience of the bale- ful effects of its adoption, would have been sufficient for the church of Christ till the end of time; but it seems that this hope was fallacious. The battle must be fought over again in this country; and it well becomes those, to whom under God, the purity and the welfare of Zion are primarily com- mitted, to gird on their harness, and prepare for the conflict. It has been considered perfectly congenial with the princi- ples of Unitarianism, and Universalism ; and its adoption by these sectaries has created no anxiety. But if there must be an attempt made to defend it, and introduce it into American theology, the sooner the conflict comes on, and the ministers of Christ are compelled to lake sides, the better. The views entertained of it by the evangelical party in Germany are soon told. And, 1. They view it as utterly false and fallacious as a principle of interpretation. Ernesti, who was flourishing in Germany when it was introduced, hesitates not to condemn the principle at once. See his Insti- tutio Interpret., Part. I., cap. I., §§. 18-23, and pp. 29-33; Leipsic, 1809, or the excellent translation of the same by Professor Stuart, pp. 16-19. So also Storr and Flatt, in their Biblical Theology, say : " Those who consider the declarations of Christ and his apostles concerning the Old Testament, as also many of their declarations on other sub- jects, as being an ' accommodation,' not only make a very arbitrary supposition, but they violate the fundamental and unexceptionable 'principles of interpretation, and deny the authority and credibility which we are compelled to ascribe to both Jesus and his apostles." B. I. §. 13.* Hahn, (above referred to,) says in reference to it : " When the interpreta- * Their definition of accommodation is " a speaking in accordance with the erroneous opinions of their hearers, who had too exalted ideas of the Scriptures of the Old Testament, and not expressing pre- cisely and truly their own opinions ;" (see uhi supra,) the same prin- ciple precisely that is asserted by Professor Bush. ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. 119 tion of the Holy Scripture takes place in a spirit foreign to them, — a spirit therefore not holy, and consequently pro- fanCf — the Scriptures are not explained nor interpreted, but travestied.'''' Hengstenherg^ in the Prolegomena to his Authentie des Pentateuchs, Erster Band^ does not hesitate to denounce such interpretation as " shallow and skeptical interpretation." Tholuck, speaking of it, says : " This is the source of the corruption which Semler introduced into all the departments of theology." Hist, of Rationalism. Such is their view of it as a principle of interpretation. 2. With respect to the nature and character of the prin- ciple, their views are very decided. Tholuck denounces criticism founded on this principle as " the destructive his- torical criticism." And again : " Only ' Jewish local ideas' were attached to the writings of the apostles, and this con- tracting, shrivelling process was called the purely his- torical method of interpretation :" and he ascribes the tran- sition of the German theologians, from *' Christianity to infidelity,^'' directly to the adoption and carrying out of this principle. Hengstenberg speaks of it and its development as follows : ^^ Naturalism, — that system which seeks to ex- plain all events by the common laws of nature* — and this tendency has its root in the estrangement of the age from God:^^ and he and Hahn both speak of the principle in its results as producing an utter want of interest in the doc- trinal precepts of the Bible. In one word, for it is needless to dwell upon this point, they consider it not only a prepos- terous and unwarrantable, but a perfectly atrocious prin- ciple, and one, which, in its legitimate results, cannot fail to introduce skepticism and an utter subversion of all religion. And with this view the venerable father of our sacred litera- ture in this country entirely coincides. Speaking of the remarks of De Wette and others in open denial of the inspiration of the Scriptures, he says : " Little prepared, as we in general are in this country, for such avowals with regard to the sacred writers, still, I deem thIem far PREFERABLE TO THE FASHIONABLE ' ACCOMMODATION' DOC- TRINE of the generation now passing off the stage in Ger- * Hengstenberg refers to both Naturalism and Rationalism ; and asserts that they are substantially the same thing. The quotation is, therefore, proper here ; for Professor Bush's argument from reason is the great principle of Naturalism ; and his accommodation notion, the great principle of Rationalism. 120 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY many. We know where to meet those who openly make such avowals ; and although we cannot agree with them in opinion, we may commend their frankness and honesty." Professor Stuart, in Biblic. Repos. I., p. 60. This strong language is more than justified by the facts in the case. SECTION III. A brief history of the development and adoption of this Principle. The consideration of this topic here might well be deemed irrelevant, were it not that the principles avowed in the work of Professor Bush are illustrated, and their nature and in- evitable tendencies with singular accuracy established, by a reference to this history. The principle asserted in the '•^Argument from Reason" lies at the foundation of the early Naturalism of the seventeenth century. This will be questioned by no one who will read Lord Herbert's (of Cherbury) writings, or only Tindal's Christianity as Old as the Creation, chapters iv., xi. and xiv. A brief extract or two will establish the truth of this statement. Says he, " The truth of all revelation is to be judged by its agree- ment with the religion of nature." " Whatever is true by reason can never be false by revelation ; and if God cannot be deceived himself, or be willing to deceive men, the light he hath given to distinguish between religious truth and falsehood, cannot, if duly attended to, deceive them in things of so great moment." " To suppose any thing in revelation inconsistent with reason, and at the same time pretend it to be the will of God, is not only to destroy that proof, on which we conclude it to be the will of God, but even the proof of the being of a God." "And to suppose any thing can be true by revelation which is false by reason, is not to support that thing, but to undermine revelation ; because nothing unreasonable, nay, what is not highly reasonable, can come from a God of unlimited, universal, and eternal reason. — / shall not be surprised, (continues this noted in- fidel,) if for so laudable an attempt, as reconciling- reason and revelation, which have been so long set at variance, I should be censured as a freethinker ; a title, that however invidious it may seem, I am far from being ashamed of." And how does he attempt to reconcile reason and revela- tion ? Why precisely as Professor Bush does. He begins ^ ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. 121 with *' the irrefragable deductions of reason," and then en- deavours to explain revelation in accordance therewith ; in- stead of beginning, as Bishop Butler does, with revelation. Again : " The gospel, since it is impossible for men at the same time to be under different obligations, cannot com- mand those things which the law of nature forbids ; or forbid what it commands." AVhy ? Simply because " no two truths in the universe can clash with each other." For like Professor Bush, this infidel made no distinction between truth itself and that which a man thinks is true * These extracts are sufficient. For they express the views also of Herbert, Morgan, Shaf sbury, Bolingbroke, and the whole tribe of the older English infidels. In reference to these principles, and their effect in de- veloping the Rationalistic theory of Germany, and the prin- ciple of accommodation, Professor Tholuck speaks as follows: " The influence, direct and indirect, of English Deism upon Germany was much greater than would at first be supposed, or than has generally been believed. In England, we find what existed neither in France, nor in Holland and Italy. It possessed, as early as the first half of the eighteenth cen- tury, a tolerably complete system of Rationalism. A full view of what the English Deists efl^ected in the departments of criticism, interpretation, theology, ethics and church his- tory, will show how little of the doctrines of the Rationalists belongs exclusively to recent times ; and how unfounded is the assertion of Bretschneider, that Rationalism is the fruit of the unexampled progress of science in the nineteenth century."f It may be remarked, however, that the English deists were not the first to assert this doctrine. On the contrary, they became infidels by following out to its legitimate results, the forementioned principle, which had been incautiously admitted by several divines. Le Clerc and Spencer had asserted it in the time of Lord Herbert ; and even Dr. Til- lotson ; Hoadly also, and Dr. Clarke, subsequently. These men took it for granted without sufficient examination, but did not carry it out to its results. This was, however, done * See ^'Christianity as Old as the Creaiion^^^ Chap. IV. and XL, pp. 62, 63, 154, 155. t This is very like Professor Bush's ''"Knowledse of Revelation Pro- gressive,^'' as applied by him to the illustration of his theory. A His- toria DogmatiSy is sometimes very valuable. 11 122 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY SO effectually by the deists, that Dr. Rohr in his ^^ Letters on Rationalism,''^ (I quote from Professor Hahn,) "declares plainly that, as the advocate of rationalism, he acknowledged Herbert of Cherbury and his friends and followers as his own predecessors." SeeBiblic. Repos. I. Ill — for a transla- tion of the celebrated essay of Hahn, from which the fore- going quotation is made. But let us consider how this principle, first incautiously asserted by several divines, was nurtured until it produced the precious blossom of " accommodation," which so soon ripened into the Sodomatical apple of rationalism. Dr. John Spencer, Dean of Ely, (Nat. 1630, Ob. 1693,) in 1685* published his work De Legihus Hehrceoruin Ritu- alibus; and he has in this day, says Hengstenberg, found a fellow-spirit in Strauss. There is this difference between the two, that Spencer was satisfied with operating against revelation at a single point. This difference, however, is accidental, and is caused only by the difference of the times in which they lived. One cannot free himself from the thought, that were Spencer now living, he would lay aside this modesty ; nay, that he even then thought far more than he said. In fact he almost stumbles upon the full Semlerian accom- modation notion ; he uses the term o-vyKUTdCxa-;?, (which means accommodation,) under which softening term he does not hesitate to charge upon God a fraus pia. Take a passage or two : — " It is probable that God in the law, did deliver some sacred things covered up under the veil of types and symbols, because of a similar custom in use among the wise men of other nations, and especially the Egyptians." And by adopting these heathenish usages, God designed to amuse his people, (like a parent when he hands his children a par- cel of play-things to occupy their attention and prevent their running into mischief,) so that they would not hanker after the amusements of the heathen worship. Hear his own * Such is the date of my copy; thoug^h it has lately gone the rounds on very high authority, that the first complete edition was not issued till 1727. This work, (a good many copies of which I have seen in this country,) is, according to Professor Tholuck, calculated in the highest degree to prepare the mind for Rationalism. In proof of which, see but the third paragraph of the " JLr. ">'?nj >nyn^ -"JNi " I know that my Redeemer (is) living, : Dip** nDj7"?;; And that .-it the last {c/a?j) nHDQfH mj; "inN^ He will SiTise {in judgment) upon dust (7nan- . ' mSx ninx ntraci kind.) INI ">J'';ti iS-ntnN -"JN "itTN And after my skin be mangled thus, '• ""pn^ ■'IT'Sj "iSd ni'x'?! Yet even from my flesh shall I see God • Whom 1 shall see for me (on my side,) And my eyes shall behold him not estranged; ( Though) my reins be {now) consumed with- in me."* With the single exception to the paraphrastic rendering of the third clause, and the fanciful construction of ney'?? this translation in substance receives the sanction of many of the most learned critics. There may be shades of difference in their rendering of a word; but they understand Job here to declare his faith in the Redeemer, and his expectation of a resurrection. Witsivs (CEcon. Feed. Lib. III. c. 11.) has ably discussed it and maintains the common construction. So Calvin also, whose merits as an interpreter few will ven- ture to question. (See Instit. lib. 11. cap. 10, § 19. and lib. III. cap. 25, § 4.) Lightfoot also is very positive as to its import. (Works, Vol. II. 791. Folio.) Parevs (a learned commentator appealed to sometimes by Professor Bush,) after remarking that interpreters vary in their version of some of the words of the passage, observes, that " neverthe- less in this sentiment they all agree, that here is a very- clear confession of a sure and firm expectation of future de- livercince from all sorrow in another life after the resurrec- tion of the dead: and concerning Christ, by whose power the dead should arise." (Comment, in loco}) So also Pis- cator in loco; and Junius and Tremellivs in their excellent notes in loco. The same view is taken also by the cele- brated Pfeiffer (0pp. Tom. I. p. 169 — ) and by the elder Schultens, and by the older critics without number ; so much so that Poole (Annot. in loco) who had closely examined the subject, remarks, that most of the interpreters, " both ancient and modern understand it of Christ and of his resurrection, and of Job's resurrection to life by his power and favour." Since the time of Poole also, the argument from authority is equally strong. Michaelis and Ramhach with Velthusen, advocate it strenuously. And Dr. Priestly, notwithstanding the criticism of G'rotius (who is the father of the new inter- * Hales' Analysis, Vol. II. pp. 83—86. 142 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY pretation,) hesitates not to remark that " Christians in general, from the earliest times, maintain that Job (here) declares his faith in a happy resurrection at the last day; and this, 1 have no doubt, is the right constrvction." " His wishing so often for death as the end of all his troubles, shoivs that he had no expectation of a temporal deliverance.^'' Rosen- mneller likewise, (who will not be accused of any partiality for the orthodox system,) remarks, that it refers to the resur- rection of the body and the last judgment. " Earn oportet de venturo Judicio, corporum resurrectione idtima, et rerum omnium instauratione cogitasse." Dr. Good also sustains the view of Dr. Hales. Dr. John Pye Smith in his " Scrip- ture Testimony to the Messiah," (Vol. I. pp. 191 — 211,) presents the same view, and translates the passage as fol- lows : " I hereby do know my Redeemer, the Living One ; And He, the last, will arise over the dust. And, after the disease has cut down my skin, Even from my flesh sliall I see God, Whom I shall see on my behalf; And mine eyes shall behold him, and not estranged.* Home, also takes this view of it, and asserts that it is the one which " i^ now generally received.'''' See Crit. Introd. Vol. II. p. 237; see also, Carpzov's Critica Sacra, p. 744. If there is any weight therefore, in the argument from authority, it is plain that Professor Bush should at once give up the controversy. But if there is not, why does he try to * In order to show how little those who dissent from the common view of this passage, have ventured to depart from the rendering given it in the text, we shall quote one or two of their translations. Grotius thus renders it : " Scio ego Redemtorem meura vivere, et ilium postrem6 staturum in campo. Etiamsi non pellem tantum raeam, sed et hoc (nenipe arvinam quse sub pelle est) consumerent (morbi scilicet), in carne tamen mea Deum videbo (id est, propitiuni experiar) ; ego, inquara, hisce meis oculis ; ego non autem alius pro me." See his Comment in loco. The venerable Dr. Knapp, who also departed from the common view, thus renders it : "I know that my Redeemer lives. And ere long, he, who now lies in the dust, will arise, {he who is deeply bowed down by sickness and pain tcill recover;) although my skin is consumed, I shall yet in this body see God, (i. e., have in him a irracious God, be blessed and restored by him ;) as a friend shall I see him, and no more as an adversary." Christian Theology, Section 141, p. 465. But is " ere long'' an wn- /orcec? rendering of |nn«? ASSERTED AND DEPENDED. 143 make the impression that authority is against the commcn rendering ? 2. But secondly^ the objections against the common ren- dering, seem to me to be based substantially on the fact that the passage may be explained differently from what it has been. Such is the foundation at least, of the presumption that it ought to be differently rendered ; for the arguments offered to establish the statement, have no very great weight. We shall first attend to the exceptions of Professor Bush. He narrows down the controversy to a single point. The propriety of referring this passage to the resurrection, says he, " obviously depends upon the soundness of the interpre- tation, which makes the language of Job a prediction of the Messiah." p^ 100. Hence, therefore, if it be a prediction of the Saviour, according to this view, it must also assert the doctrine of the resurrection. The connexion here, between the premises and conclusion is not very obvious, and there- fore, I could wish the Professor had presented us with his own translation of the passage. But let us see his reasons for refusing to recognize it as a prophecy of the Redeemer. They are as follows ; (1.) " The book of Job was not written by a Jew nor in the country of the Jews, and therefore not by one who was among the inheritors of the promise of the Messiah, or who is to be supposed a priori to have had any knowledge of a Messiah. Nor is there any other passage in the whole book importing that Job knew any thing of such a promised per- sonage as the Jews understood by their Messiah. The book is not in its genius a Messianic book, but one purely theistic; and we are not at liberty, from the simple occurrence of the title ' Redeemer,' which we shall soon show to be more cor- rectly translated by another term, to assign to the book a character which it has no adequate evidence of possessing." p. 100. There is something here very much like an equivocation on the name Messiah. If the Professor means that Job did not know the promised Redeemer of men by the name Mes- siah, I admit it. But what then? Did Abraham, or Jacob, or Moses know him by this name ? And did they, therefore, know nothing of such a Deliverer as was promised to the Jews 1 But this, surely, is not Professor Bush's meaning. Yet there is but one thing more that his language can mean, to wit: that Job had no knowledge of man's pro- 144 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY mised Redeemer. And, hence, in the second objection, he denies (as we shall see,) that he had any faith in the expected Saviour. If this be the meaning of Professor Bush, 1 scruple not to say, that it is one of the most groundless and unwarrantable assertions that he ever uttered. Does he think, then, that there can be true " righteousness" (such as Job is said to have possessed ; see chap. i. 1 ; and ii. 3,) without true faith ? This is a theological point, and not to be discussed here, but if it be ihe view of Professor Bush, it should be seriously reconsidered. Compare also the strong declarations in Ezek. xiv. 14, 20, respecting the righteous- ness of Job, where it is represented to be the same as that of Noah and Daniel, and let Professor Bush say whether he considers it a " righteousness by works." And again. Job constantly offered sacrifice, (see chap. i. and ii. and xlii.) Is it credible, then, that he, living in an early age of the world, and possessing all the knowledge of God which his conver- sation and actions exhibit, knew not the design of sacrifice ? If he did know this, (and I think that Professor Bush will hardly maintain that his sacrifices, acceptable as they evi- dently were, were offered in ignorance,) then he kneio of man^s promised Deliverer. And then, further, had not all nations preserved some tradition of a promised Saviour ? Upon what principle, therefore, are we to deny this know- ledge to Job 7 Why should he not have heard of the promise made to our first parents after the fall, living, as he evi- dently did, in the time of the patriarchs? How vain, there- fore, is the assertion of Professor Bush in the above extract, that there is no other passage in the whole book, importing that Job knew any thing of such a personage I His cha- racter for " righteousness" refutes the assertion ; it is refuted by its sheer improbability, when viewed in connexion with the traditionary knowledge of this truth, and the time in which he must have lived ; and it is refuted by every sacri- fice that Job ever offered. Such is the preponderanceof presumptive argument, which arrays itself against the very point on which Professor Bush admits that the whole controversy turns. His second ex- ception is as follows : " (2.) Had the present passage really contained such an explicit declaration of Job's faith in a coming Messiah as is generally supposed, it is certain that he would have been entitled to a conspicuous place in that roll of ancient wor- ASSERTED AND DEPENDED. 145 thies, recited in the eleventh of Hebrews, who " have by faith obtained an excellent report." But no mention of him occurs in that catalogue, nor is he ever cited in the New Tes- tament as an example o^ faith ^ but simply as a pattern of patience,'''' The Professor, doubtless, intended this for argument ; and if the principle be sound, it is certainly susceptible of a more extensive application than that which he has here given. Suppose we apply it therefore to Daniel, who expressed a strong faith in the expected Shiloh, or to Zechariah, or Isaiah, and infer that they had no failh in the Redeemer, because they are not enumerated in Hebrews xi., and what would he think of the conclusion? But we have shown it to be absolutely incredible that Job had no failh in the coming Saviour ; and the fact that he has no " conspicuous place in that roll of ancient worthies" proves nothing at all. The Professor's last exception is as follows : " (3.) Were the words before us to be justly regarded as expressive of his belief in the promised Redeemer of the Jewish Scriptures, it would have given him a just claim to the character of a prophet, as well as a believer; yet we find no intimation of his ever being deemed to possess that character, nor is this passage ever once alluded to by the apostles in their controversies with the Jews in regard to the Old Testament predictions of Christ." This canon is as unfounded as the preceding. Where is the remarkable prophecy of Jacob, in Genesis xlix. men- tioned by the apostles, and employed in their controversies with the Jews ? But in what way could the apostles have applied this pas- sage of Job, " in their controversies with the Jews in regard to the Old Testament predictions of Christ?" I wish Pro- fessor Bush had told us, for it is very hard even to imagine how it could have been thus used. What did the Jews deny in the time of Christ, that could possibly come into conflict with the common version of this passage ? Did they deny a future judgment, or the resurrection, or the coming of a Redeemer? If not, how could the apostles have used it in their controversies? Such are the ** reasons^'' which constrain Professor Bush ** to dissent from any view which recognizes these words of Job as referring to the Messiah ;" and by consequence, (as he views the argument,) to the doctrine of the resurrection : 13 146 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY and I am perfectly willing that the reader should judge for himself of their conclusiveness. " But," says the Professor, " we have more positive proof from exegetical sources that no such allusion is contained in the language." p. 101. And this proof is simply that the word Vmj answering to the term Redeemer, " is variously rendered by interpreters vindicator^ avenger, deliverer.'''' And he '^supposes it to be applied to God considered in the character of a vindicating or avenging patron of Job, who would appear as the asserter and defender of his injured in- nocence — innocence, that is, so far as the unjust charges and accusations of his professed friends were concerned." And as the fulfilment of this expectation, the passage in Job xlii. 5, is quoted ; " I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear, but now mine eye seeth thee.'''' This, the Professor considers as " a fair and unforced interpretation of this re- markable passage," and here ends his " more positive proof from exegetical sources." To this I reply, 1. that this construction is, as before re- marked, based merely upon its being an admissible gram- matical explanation. As to its reasonableness, every one must judge for himself. 2. It is hot only destitute o? proof, but the evidence is directly against it. We have shown that Job must have had faith in the Redeemer ; but there is no where in the book any proof that he had the least expecta- tion of a temporal deliverance. And his wishing so often for death, as the end of all his sufferings, clearly shows that he in fact had no such expectation. See chap. vi. 8-11, and vii. 7, 8, and xvii. 11-16. Here then is proof against mere presumption. .Tob knew his Redeemer, as all the other righteous patriarchs did, and expected salvation through him; but he did not know that he should obtain temporal deliverance, but rather did he think the contrary. To which of these facts, then, ought the passage in question to be re- ferred? 3. Hence also, though Job expressly declares that he has no hope as to the present life, yet he had a hope be- yond death. See e. g., chap. xiii. 15. " Though he slay me yet will I trust in him." And hence he so vehemently desired death, that he might rest with God. The passage under consideration cannot therefore refer to a temporal re- storation. 4. The term Goel 'js^ most properly agrees to the description which we have of the character and offices of Christ. And an examination of the places in the Old Testa- ASSERTED AND DEPENDED. 147 ment in which God is called by this name, will show that most, if not all of them may be, and not a hsv of them must be referred to God the Son, the Malak Jehovah. See among others, Genesis xlviii. 16, Isaiah lix. 20, and Hi. 3, Ixiii. 16, and xii. 14, and xliv. 6, and xlix. 7, Psalm Ixxiv. 2, &c., &;c. The term, as Professor Bush confesses, is primarily used to designate the next, or near kinsman, p. 103. How then can it be, in any sense, applied with propriety, or with- out violence, to God, when not viewed as sustaining the offices of Jesus Christ? But as applied to the Redeemer, it is singularly appropriate. The Goel or next of kin, was to redeem the sold or mortgaged estate of his deceased kins- man, Leviticus xxv. 25 ; and was appointed to avenge his death. Numbers xxxv. 12 ; and to maintain his name and honour by raising up seed to him. Deuteronomy xxv. 5. And thus Christ is our nearest kinsman and brother, Mark iii. 35, and Hebrews ii. 11; " We are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones," Ephesians v. 30, and he has recovered by the price of his own blood our once happy in- heritance forfeited by sin ; he has avenged the death of man- kind by destroying the kingdom of him who is the " mur- derer from the beginning ;" and will for ever preserve the names and honour and persons of his chosen. Thus strikingly does the name i^seZ/" apply to the Redeemer. And what then becomes of Professor Bush's *' more positive proof from exegetical sources "? The Professor also quotes Menasseh Ben Israel, as say- ing, that there is nothing in the passage relating to the re- surrection ; and as asserting, also, that it does refer to " the Redeemer of the soul, who translates it to a seat of happi- ness.". Considering the view which Professor Bush takes of the passage, this is a singular authority which he has produced. He admits, that if Goel refers here to the ex- pected Redeemer of the Old Testament saints, the passage must, by consequence, refer to the resurrection. But Me- nasseh Ben Israel says, that it does refer to the Redeemer. In support of this declaration, also, the whole of the primi- tive Christian fathers may be adduced. Htec (i. e., that Goel here refers to Christ,) communis est Patrum sententia, says Sanctius : " It is the common sentiment of the fathers." And ah vno disce omnes. Jerome Epist. ad Pammachium re- marks : " What is more evident than this prophecy? None, even since Christ, hath spoken so plainly of the resurrection 148 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY as he before Christ." Not only asserting that Goel refers here to the Redeemer, but that the passage announces the doctrine of the resurrection. Jerome's authority as a He- braist is not to be despised ; and it is, at any rate, in the matter before us, quite as good as that of Rabbi Menasseh Ben Israel, whom the Professor has so strangely adduced in support of his own position. So far as Professor Bush's criticisms and objections are concerned, therefore, the passage has lost none of its claims to be regarded as referring to the Redeemer, and to the doc- trine of the resurrection. There are other objections, which Professor Bush has not noticed, and which may be briefly referred to. " 1. The ancient Jews appear to have known nothing of the explana- tion of the passage which is now commonly received : nor are there any traces of it in the LXX." But it must be re- membered, that the Jewish commentators referred to, all lived and wrote since the time of Christ, and after the judi- cial sentence mentioned in Isa. vi. 10, had been inflicted upon their nation. Compare Matt. xiii. 15, Mark iv. 12, Luke viii. 10, John xii. 40, Acts xxviii. 27, and Rom. xi. 8. This objection is, therefore, of no weight, especially when it is considered that the primitive Christians did so explain it. And then as to the Septuagint version, it must be borne in mind that the Jews, from time immemorial, entertained the false notion, that Job in his sufferings denied the providence of God. Hence they would avoid giving his language any construction that might seem to recognize the doctrine of the resurrection, as the common version makes him do. 2. It is objected that it is contrary to all analogy that such a clear statement of these doctrines, (asserted by the common version to be contained in this passage,) should be found in so ancient a writing. But analogical arguments ought to be sustained by proof: for it is easy to imagine them to be real when they exist only in fancy. Enoch ut- tered one of the clearest prophecies of the second coming of Christ that is contained in the Bible — and he was only ^Hhe seventh from Adam.'''' Jude 14, 15. On this prophecy it may be also in place to quote a passage from the able ^^Notes on Genesis,''^ by Professor Bush, in reply to this objection from analogy: — "A brief but impressive specifnen of his (Enoch's) preaching," says this forcible annotator, ''is preserved by the apostle Jude, from which iT ap- OF THE ASSERTED AND DEFENDEM ^ 14(1 fears, that the boctrine of the second^ aljyent of Christ, the resurrection of the dead, and a judg- ment TO come, were taught, though obscurely, in THE very earliest AGES OF THE WORLD." FrOHl the ascension of Enoch, (Heb. xi. 5, and Gen. v. 22,) also, the resurrection of the body might well be inferred ; especially when taken in connexion with the well known fact, that man was not created mortal, but became so by sin, from which he was to be redeemed. And that the ancient prophets and. patriarchs were generally acquainted with these doctrines, seems to be clear from Heb. xi. and 1 Pet. i. 9-12. Abra- ham had the promise made to him, that Christ should come out of his loins; Gen. xii. 3; and he is said by Christ to have "seew his day^^^ and rejoiced. John viii. 56. When he left Ur, also, it was a heavenly city which he sought, whose builder and maker is God, Heb. xi. 10, 16; which infers a very clear conception of the doctrine of immor- tality. The laws of Moses, also, against necromancy y Deut. xviii. 9-12, (compare also 1 Sam. xxviii.,) infer a knowledge of the same truth. So, also, the Hebrew name for the king- dom of the dead, '7wa'> (acT^?,) which often occurs in the Pen- tateuch and in other books of the Old Testament, infers the same knowledge. See Gen. xxxvii. 35, &c. And the same may be said with respect to the often occurring phrase, " " impious and hypocritical wretch," verse 5, could be properly applied to him. But this could hardly be done if he merely expressed a hope of speedy temporal deliverance. The avowal of such a hope might prove that he was simply labouring under a mistake ; but could afford no ground for accusing him of impiety and hypocrisy, however his charac- ter in other respects might have been regarded. 5. Dr. Knapp again objects, " From many passages in the book of Job, it is clear that he was indeed acquainted with a life after death (he speaks of '?^i^); but there is no satisfactory evidence that he believed in a state of retribu- tion beyond the grave; vide chap. xiv. 7-12; vii. 6; ix. 25; xvii. 11-16; xvi. 22, seq." But this appears to be a refinement of theological dialectics rarely indulged in by Dr. Knapp. Is it conceivable that Job should have separated the doctrine of a future life from that of a state of future retribution ? But even supposing that he did, it would make nothing to prove that he did not believe the doctrine of the resurrection. For with precisely the same propriety that he may be supposed to make this distinction, it may also be supposed that he distinguished between the doctrine of a future resurrection and that of future retribution. If immor- tality does not infer future retribution, neither does the re- surrection necessarily infer it. The objection therefore amounts to nothing; and the texts quoted by Dr. Knapp, make no more against a supposed resurrection than against a supposed immortality. 6. The last objection of Dr. Knapp, is, that the common translation of this passage " does violence to the words of the original, and is contrarj'' to the whole iisus loquendi of the Bible." The strength of this objection depends upon the weight of Dr. Knapp's authority. Let it have all that it is entitled to, but let not the opposing authorities be overlooked. The point cannot be discussed here, but Michaelis, Rosen- miiller. Hales, Pfeiffer, Schultens, J. Pye Smith, &c., may be consulted respecting it. When Grotius and Mercier started the new interpretation, the violation of the Hebrew idiom was declared to be all on their side. And so far as the recognition of the Redeemer by Job is concerned, (and 152 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY on this point Professor Bush declares that the whole contro- versy turns,) Mercier himself, the very Coryphaeus of the interpreters of Job, is compelled to admit it substantially. Mr. Barnes also frankly admits that no violence is done to the vsus loqueiidi by the common rendering. III. The Professor next quotes and comments on Psalm xvi. 9, 10. "Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory rejoiceth : my flesh also shall rest in hope. For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell ; nei- ther wilt thou suffer thy Holy One to see corruption." And on this text he remarl3, and o-at§^) ; which can refer to nothing but to his " identical material body.^^ IV. The next passage to which he refers, is Psalm xvii. 15. "As for me, I will behold thy face in righteousness; I shall be satisfied when I awake with thy likeness." The Professor enters into a lengthened criticism of this passage, into which we shall not follow him ; for he admits what renders such a course unnecessary. He supposes that Paul, in 1 Corinthians xv. 49, may have " a latent allusion to the passage," and consequently, that it may teach the doc- trine of the resurrection ; though he denies that it teaches the resurrection of the body. He also quotes the version of the Jewish commentator, Sol. Jarchi, (" I shall be satisfied when the dead shall awake from their sleep,") and observes, " This preserves the general sentiment of the text, but leaves it doubtful at what period this ' awaking of the dead' is to take place." p. 107. And he himself proposes to translate the passage and explain it as follows : " guided by them, (the accents,) we would translate, ' I shall be satisfied, in the awaking, with thy likeness,' understanding it of the beatific vision to be enjoyed at the illustrious period of the ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. 153 * awaking' so often spoken of in the prophets as identical with the great consummation, when the righteous dead are to be gloriously manifested as risen from the dead ;" deny- ing at the same time, however, that this is to be understood *' in a sense to include a resurrection of their bodies.''^ These admissions that the " resurrection'^ is taught thus clearly in the Old Testament Scriptures, are gratifying. What the term signifies in its biblical acceptation, will be considered hereafter. Professor Bush, himself, will admit, (as he thus concedes that these passages do teach the doc- trine of the resurrection,) that if the Scriptures make known the resurrection of the hody^ clearly and unequivocally, that doctrine must likewise be announced in Psalm xvii. 15. He next quotes Psalm xlix. 14, 15, which, as I do not believe that it refers to the resurrection, I shall dismiss with- out remark. V. His next quotation is from Isaiah xxv. 7, 8. "And he will destroy in this mountain the face of the covering cast over all people, and the veil that is spread over all nations. He will swallow up death in victory; and the Lord God will wipe away tears from off ail faces; and the rebuke of his people shall be taken away from off ail the earth : for the Lord hath spoken it." This passage has caused the Professor much difficulty ; his exposition of it is laboured, and has every appearance of being altogether unsatisfactory to himself. The following is the analysis of it. He says that the period spoken of, is plainly that particular era under Messiah's reign when the mystical Babylon shall be destroyed ; " at which time the Lord God will abolish death for ever, and all sorrow." Death, he explains to be '* another term for all manner of grievous pestilences, &c. — every thing which causes grief, mourning, and tribulation." — Such death as is spoken of Psalm xliv. 22; and as he thinks is referred to in Rev. xxi. 4, *' There shall be no more death; i. e. (says the Professor,) no more premature death by disease, pestilence, casualty, the sword of war, broken hearts, or any form of wasting judgments. This is the kind of death that shall be swallowed up in victory, or, as the term is otherwise rendered, ' for ever,' at the time to which the oracle points forward." pp. Ill, 112. He denies also that this time "is the end of the world;" and endeavours to explain Paul's words in 1 Corinthians xv. 54, so that they may not appear to contradict his construe* tion of the text. 154 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY We utterly dissent from this view of the text. Professor Bush has failed to support his exposition of the word ^'- death''' DID, and has left the subject of the period referred to utterly undefined. But we shall remark upon each of these particu- lars ; for the latter is one of much interest to the general subject under discussion. As to the import of the word translated death, in verse 8, while Professor Bush would not change the translation of it, he would explain it so as to make it mean not death in the natural acceptation of the word, but suffering, misery, &c., &;c. But for such an exposition he gives us no reason what- ever. But the objections to this view are, 1. It is wholly unsupported by reason or authority. Suffering and misery, and all the procuring causes of death itself, may be properly considered as included in death : and the abolishing of death, may, and doubtless must include, the abolishing of all its procuring causes ; so far as they are concerned, from whom it is abolished. But for what reason, or on what principle can it be imagined that " every thing which causes grief, mourning, and tribulation," i. e., sin and all its evils — all that really procures death, are here said by the prophet to be abolished, and death itself to remain? Revelation xxi. 4, which Professor Bush brings in to illustrate and confirm his view, is directly against it ; for this passage speaks of death proper. And at least until Professor Bush had explained it, so as to show that QavstTo? is not here used in its ordinary sense, it was premature for him to refer to it as illustrating and corroborating his view of mn in Isaiah xxv. 7. Then again, 2. His view is directly contrary to the teaching of Paul in 1 Corinthians xv. 54: *' So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, (IvS'iKryitttt ap^ae^o-icm'^^ and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall he brought to pass the saying which is written, (roTi yma-tTctt o x6yoc yrygAfAy.ivoi,) death is swallowed up in victory." In this passage, Paul unequivocally applies the phrase under dis- cussion to the great era of the resurrection of the dead. But to this. Professor Bush replies, that " such cannot be the meaning of Paul, provided it be not the meaning of Isaiah." p. 112. This is truly a singular canon of criticism; and is a method of expounding the clear and unambiguous declara- tion of an apostle, without a precedent, even in the Anastasis itself. It needs no response other than to say that the Pro- fessor has not correctly expounded the passage of Isaiah, if ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. 155 his exposition is contrary to (hat of Paul: a declaration that requires no proof to sustain it. Horsley in his commentary on Hosea xiii. 14, refers to the text under discussion, and exhibits the futility of such a criticism as that of Professor Bush in the following forcible remarks : " The prophecy which the Apostle cites (in 1 Co- rinthians XV. 54,) as one which would receive its completion in the general resurrection at the last day, is a saying * that is written,' which shall then be brought to pass ; this pro- phecy is written in Isaiah xxv. 8, and no where else. And this prophecy which he cites, he cites with precision. And it may be useful to observe, that he cites it not according to the version of the LXX. He translates the Hebrew text verbatim, in contradiction to the version of the LXX. ; for the version of the LXX., in this place, is so wretchedly and abominably erroneous, that the sense it gives is exactly the reverse of the Hebrew text."* Here, then, Paul quotes and literally translates a passage from Isaiah, and unambiguously expounds it by showing when and how it will be fulfilled ; and Professor Bush rejects the exposition of the apostle, and justifies himself in so doing, by the remark that " such can- not be the meaning of Paul, provided it be not the meaning of Isaiah :" and then attempts to show that the meaning which Paul has given it, is not the meaning of Isaiah. The mere statement of such a procedure is abundantly sufficient to expose it to reprobation. It would be difficult to find among orthodox expositors, a parallel case in the whole annals of Scripture criticism. But let us advert to his attempt to prove that Isaiah does not mean what Paul understood him to mean. " To this we reply, that such cannot be the meaning of Paul, provided it be not the meaning of Isaiah. The Spirit that presided over both cannot utter oracles at variance with themselves. But nothing can be more obvious, from the whole drift of the prophet's strain, than that he is not speaking of the end of the world. He is merely setting before us one of the links in the great chain of events which are to distinguish the latter days of Zion's welfare. How then is the Apostle^s * The Hebrew is nxjS niDn^jVa. The LXX. (according to Reineccius) translate it xaTe;r*sv o QavsLrog io-^vo-ac'^ and Paul renders it x«t«tc6» o SdvstTOf lie vIkoc Lowth renders it, " He shall utterly destroy death for ever"; and Barnes gives it substantially the same translation, " He will abolish death for ever." 156 THE RESURRECTION OP THE BODY quotation to be understood? An alternative of construe- tions is presented. He either cites the language of Isaiah as containing an announcement, the words — the letter — of which are strikingly applicable to the state of things which he is describing, without assuming that they were originally intended to refer to it ; or, acting the part of an inspired ex- positor of Isaiah, he applies his language to the period of time which the Holy Ghost had in view in inditing it through the prophet ; and this brings us irresistibly to the conclusion, that the epoch of the resurrection described by Paul is not to be placed at the end of the world, which Isaiah's abolition of death certainly is not/' pp. 112, 113. Such is the proof that Paul cannot mean in 1 Corinthians xv. 54, to refer " to the grand era of the resurrection of the dead." I pass for the present what is here said concerning " the end of the world," in order to canvass this *' alternative of constructions." 1. Paul either cited the mere words or let- ter as applicable to what he is speaking of, without assuming that they were originally intended to apply as he applies them. This is " alternative" first. Now place along side of it the passage above quoted, from 1 Corinthians xv. *' Then shall be brought to pass the saying which WAS WRITTEN*. " (See the Greek on a preceding page^) " written'^ in Isaiah xxv. 8. At the time referred to by Paul, " the saying^'' (not the letter or woi'ds merely, as sus- ceptible of an accommodation to that event, but " the saying which was written,") is to receive its fulfilment. And the principle which would explain this away as a mere accom- modation of the letter, to the thing predicted, would explain away every prophecy, the fulfilment of which is recorded in the New Testament.* Let the reader try it upon any other one found recorded there. Try it on Matt. i. 23, or ii. 6, or iii. 3, or viii. 17, or xiii. 14, 15, 35, or xxi. 5, or xxvii. 9, 10, or Luke iv. 18, 19, or John xii. 38, 40, or xix. 24, 36, or any other, and there is not one but may be explained away on this principle. * In his Preface, p. vi., Professor Bush says, " I have profoundly weighed all the considerations which naturally urge themselves upon one who ventures to such a length of rational and exegetical hardi- hood as he (the reader) will probably find evinced in the work before him." The above-mentioned instance is, I presume, one of the speci- mens of this '* length of rational and exegetical hardihood" to which the Professor refers. He certainly has characterized it appropriately. ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. 157 The other of this "alternative of constructions," is, that Paul acts " the part of an inspired expositor of Isaiah," and applies his language to the time referred to by Isaiah ; and this, says the Professor, " brings us irresistibly to the con= elusion, that the epoch of the resurrection described by Paul is not to be placed at the end of the world, which Isaiah's abolition of death certainly is not." That is, in other words, (and we may safely defy the Professor himself to get any other meaning out of his language,) Paul acts as " an in- spired expositor of Isaiah," and therefore his language in 1 Cor. XV., must " irresistibly^^ mean just what Professor Bush understands Isaiah to mean. Isaiah xxv. 8, has therefore lost none of its force as a proof-text of the doctrine of the resurrection, by the criticism of Professor Bush. As expounded by Paul, it unequivocally asserts the doctrine of the resurrection of the body. It is the body alone which falls under the power of death. And death being conquered therefore, his prey is restored, and the body raised again. VI. The next passage referred to by. Professor Bush is found in Isaiah xxvi. 19. «* Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body fehall Ihcy arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust : for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead." It would be useless to follow our author through his la- boured exposition of this passage; for his hypothesis is only- one of an indefinite number, which have been resorted to for the purpose of explaining the prophet's meaning; and then we cheerfully concede that the terms "dead men," "dead body," " arise," &;c., are to be taken metaphorically ; and refer in their primary application here to the circumstances connected with the restoration of the Jews from the Baby Ionian captivity. These circumstances it is needless to nar- rate, for, so far as our argument is concerned, we are not called upon to enter into a formal exposition of the terms re- ferred to. We admit, and Professor Bush admits, that they do not primarily refer to the future resurrection of mankind. The captives in Babylon were dead in a metaphorical or civil sen^^e ; and they shall again live, says the prophet. We are willing, even, for the sake of the argument, to adopt the language of our author, on the subject ; " On the whole," 14 158 THE RESURRECTION OP THE BODY says he, " we think it must be evident that the passage from Isaiah now under consideration cannot b6 appealed to as teaching, upon a fair construction, the resurrection of the body, (that is, directly, and primarily.) At any rate, if it conveys such an implication, it is only in an indirect and typical way, by which a national resuscitation — the primary sense — dimly shadows forth the re-erection of the defunct body from its mouldering elements.'''' p. 121. Now it is our own belief that the passage in its primary sense does not announce the doctrine of the resurrection of the body, for the body, and the dead referred to were only metaphorically dead : we therefore think that " in an indi- rect and typical way it shadows forth the re-erection of the defunct body from its mouldering elements." But the ques- tion is. Upon what is this metaphor founded 1 Is it a mere inane expression, alluding to nothing at all ? The Jews un- derstood the meaning of dead, and dead body; and of a dead body arising. The language must be understood in its literal use, before it can be employed in metaphor. How then could the prophet refer to a metaphorical death and resurrection, if the doctrine of a resurrection were unknown to them ? How could he use it as a figure to convey to his countrymen a sweet and precious truth, if the doctrine from which the metaphor was taken, was not believed by them 1 If they were acquainted with the sentiment, but regarded it only as fable, is it not clear that the prophet would have avoided selecting such a figure, lest his people might suppose that what he asserted was equally fabulous? There is /therefore no possible way in which to avoid the conclusion to which Lowth comes ; who, in referring to this passage, says, " It appears from hence that the doctrine of the resur- rection of the dead was at thai time a ^popular and common doctrine: for an image which is assumed in order to express or represent any thing in the way of allegory or metaphor, whether poetical, or prophetical, must be an image commonly known and understood ; otherwise it will not answer the pur- pose for which it is assumed." Notes in loco, Mr. Barnes presents also the same view. This passage, therefore, by the plainest implication, teaches the doctrine of the resurrection of the body. VII. The next passage referred to by Professor Bush, is Ezekiel xxxvii. 1-14. ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. 159 " The hand of the Lord was upon me, and carried me out in the Spirit of the Lord, and set me down in the midst of the valley which was full of bones, and caused me to pass by them round about :" &c. Speaking of this vision of the dry bones, Jerome remarks, " Shall we not immediately give an advantage to heretics, if we should deny that this (representation,) ought to be under- stood of the general resurrection ? For never would a simili- tude of the resurrection be employed for illustrating the restoration of the people of Israel unless a future resurrection itself was also believed : because no one confirms things that are uncertain, by things that have no existence."* And this also appears to be the general sentiment of the Christian Church. Tertullian and Augustine say, " From this pas- sage the future resurrection of the body is assuredly to be inferred ; for otherwise a similitude would not have been taken from thence for confirming the restoration of Israel." The Jews entertain the same view of the subject. Professor Bush offers but few remarks upon this passage; but he refers us to his recent work, " The Valley of Vision" in which he has shown that Ezekiel xxxvii. 1 — 14, does not speak of the general resurrection, but " is merely a symboli- cal fore-shadowing of the still futvre restoration and con- version of the Jews;" a view, which seems to us, undoubt- edly correct. In discussing the passage, therefore, the question is not whether it speaks directly of the general resurrection — for it is conceded that it does ijot : but whether this employment of such a figure does not clearly infer that the doctrine on which it is based, or grounded, was known and believed by the Jews in Ezekiel's time? In accordance with the asserted views of the whole Jewish and Christian Church, (on the chapter before us,) we affirm that it does ; and our reasons * Nee statim hsereticis occasionem dabimus, si heec de resurrec- tione communi intelligi denegemus? Nunquam enim poneretur simil- itudo resurrectionis ad restitulionem Israelitici populi significandam, nisi esset resurrectio ipsa et futura trederetur; quia nemo de rebus non extantibns incerta confirmat." Professor Bush quotes this same passage ; and in order to avoid the keen point of old father Hierome in the first sentence, he translates nee by nor, " nor shall we at once give advantage to heretics if we deny that this is to be understood of the general resurrection." p. 116— thus making Jerome not only talk nonsense, (a thing he very seldom does, if compared with his cotem- poraries,) but deny the very thing that he pointedly affirms. 160 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY for thinking so are briefly stated in our examination of the passage last quoted. Professor Bush, however, demurs as follows : " We are aware it is contended here also, as in the case of the preceding passage from Isaiah, that the announce- ment of a spiritual or figurative resurrection necessarily supposes a literal. But to this we reply by demanding the scriptural evidence that such a resurrection was taught or believed in Ezekiel's times. The fact is, it will be found, if we mistake not, that the usual argumentation on this head is mere reasoning in a circle. Certain passages, like those now adverted to, are brought forward, elaborately com- mented on, and conclusively shown to refer to a symbolical resurrection. (!) But from the force of established belief it is strenuously contended, that all these images are founded upon the doctrine of a literal corporeal resurrection; and when we call for the proof of this doctrine, lo and behold, we are referred to the very passages which are previously de- monstrated to have another meaning!" p. 123. What Professor Bush means by " the usual argumentation on this head," when he is perfectly aware that both Chris- tians and Jews have always with one voice explained the passage before us to refer to a figurative resurrection, is hard to tell : but if our reasoning in this matter be a circle, it is one that can be very easily squared. To the " anounce- ment that a spiritual or figurative resurrection necessarily supposes a literal,'''' (is literal the antithesis of spiritual?) he replies " by demanding the scriptural evidence that such a resurrection was taught or believed in Ezekiel's times :" for if it were then known and believed, the Professor will admit that the passage in question certainly refers to that doctrine. Is there any proof therefore ? Let us see. We begin with our author's " Notes on Genesis,^'' v. 22. " A brief but impressive specimen of his (Enoch's) preaching is pre- served by the apostle Jude, from which it appears that the doctrine of the second advent of Christ, the resurrection of the dead, and a judgment to come, were taught, though somewhat obscurely, in the very earliest ages of the world. Wonderful as was the translation of a living man to the world of glory, we know nothing in the revealed purposes of God to forbid the occurrence of other instances of the like kind even in this or any other ages of the world, provided they were instances of equal eminence in piety. The same distinction was subsequently conferred on Elijah," &c. If, ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. 161 then, the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead was known before the times of Ezekiei,, how will Professor Bush under- take to prove that it was not known in Ezekiel's time? The next argument that proves it is also referred to in this extract. The Jews inferred that the righteous were to live again in their bodies, because Enoch and Elijah lived in theirs. The Professor also, on page 104, of his Anastasis, admits that Psalm xvi. 9, 10, announces the resurrection "of the body of Christ." Evidence might be multiplied ; but surely these admissions, and affirmations of his own, must fully satisfy him that the doctrine was known and believed in Ezekiel's time : and that this imacrined " reasonino- in a cir- cle," has no existence but in the imagination. Ezekiei xxxvii., therefore, contains a clear implication of the doctrine of the resurrection of the body. VIII. The next passage quoted by Professor Bush, is Hosea vi. 2. "After two days will he revive us; in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight." We shall dismiss this text without remark, as it is not a passage of primary importance in the controversy. IX. The Professor's next citation is Hosea xiii. 14. " I will ransom them from the power of the grave ; I will redeem them from death : O death, I will be thy plagues; O grave, 1 will be thy destruction : repentance shall be hid from mine eyes." Were I called upon to specify a passage in which the doc- trine of the resurrection of the body is unambiguously taught, in the Old Testament, and on the interpretation of which I should be willing to rest the controversy, it would be this : for even Daniel xii. 2, is not clearer in its testimony ; nor are we favoured in respect to it, as we are in respect to the passage in Hosea, with a lucid and unmistakable commen- tary of an inspired apostle. Such being the high (and uni- versally acknowledged) claims of this passage to be prima- rily regarded in any attempted discussion of this doctrine, we should of course expect a priori that Professor Bush would have laid out his strength here, if any where, and not have laid aside his exegetical and critical apparatus, until there had been some plausible construction put upon the pas- sage, which would neither assert nor clearly imply the doc- trine which he opposes. But this the Professor has neither 14* 162 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY done nor attempted to do. There is no exegesis of the pas- sage, no criticism of the Hebrew, no reference even to Fiabbi Menasseh Ben Israel ! but the subject is coolly passed over with a reference to 1 Corinthians xv. 55, and a promise here- after to discuss what Paul there says ; followed by a remark upon ^^i<'^ and a quotation from Horsley " on the general subject of the apostolic quotations from the Old Testament." p. 127. And here ends the chapter. This may have been all that Professor Bush supposed to be necessary; but it is not a rash assertion to say, that from the high-sounding pre- tensions of his work, it was not all that his readers had a right to expect. And irhy, in the name of candour and of all consistency, should he dwell so extensively as he has done, on passages which it is cheerfully conceded do not positively and directly ajfirm the doctrine under discussion, and then pass over, almost without remark, one which has ever been understood as clearly and fully asserting it? Literally the passage reads thus : "From the hand of Sheol* I will redeem them; From Death I will deliver them : I will be thy death (or plagues,) O Death ! I will be thy destroyer, O Sheol!" The idea in the last two clauses is, that Messiah will visit upon death and Sheol, in retribution, what they had inflicted upon his chosen. The passage is highly poetic, and its im- port very easily perceived. Death has conquered the body ; Sheol, or the invisible world retains the spirit. But Sheol must render up the spirit ; Death also must resign the body. When he resigns it, he in turn is for ever conquered ; and Sheol is now in turn taken possession of by those who were, so to speak, detained by it as captives. Hence it is also represented as wholly destroyed, for this separate state will then exist no more. See 1 Corinthians xv. 26, 55, and Revelation xx. 13, 14. As to =n: in the last clause of the verse, it seems there to mean properly repentance, as it is translated. The idea is, " I shall never repent of this decla- ration — I shall not fail to accomplish it fully." In Hosea * Modern languages (European at least,) furnish no term by which to translate SiXtt' or aS'nc adequately. It refers to the state of the dead without distinction as to condition. The reader will find a very good exposition of it in Campbell's Prelim. Dis. VI. Part II. and some excellent remarks in a note bv Howe, in his splendid sermon on Rev. i. 18. See Works, p. 309 seq." ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. 163 xiii. 14, therefore, we have a full and clear and positive an- nouncement of the doctrine of the resurrection of the body ; — the deliverance of the spirit from Sheol, and of the body from the power of death. X. The last passage adduced from the Old Testament by Professor Bush, is Daniel xii. 2. "And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake: some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting- eon- tempt." The remarks of our author on this text are first in re- ference to the proper translation of it; and secondly in refer- ence to the " kind of resurrection here announced." In respect to the first of these he proposes to translate the pas- sage literally as follows: " And many of the sleepers of the dust of the ground shall awake — these to everlasting life, and those to shame and everlasting contempt :" which he paraphrases thus. " ' These,'' i. e., the awakened, awake to everlasting life ; ' and tJiose,^ i. e., the other class, who abide in the dust, who do not awake at all, remain subject to the shame and ignominy of that death, whatever it was, which marked their previous condition." pp. 131, 132. On page 120, he likewise refers to the passage, and gives it a similar explanation. In his " Valley of Vision" pp. 48 — 52, also, he gives it the same exposition; and remarks, "We should not be surprised if the progress of biblical investigation should yet establish the most intimate relation between these texts, (Isaiah xxvi. 19, and Daniel xii. 2,) and that intensely mysterious portion of the Apocalypse, (chap. 20,) which announces the spiritual quickening, in the first resurrection, of those saints who lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years^ and of * the rest of the dead who lived not, [c>Ox. 'i^noAv — erroneously rendered ' lived not again,') until the thousand years were finished ;' or, rather, perhaps ' as long as the thousand years were finishing,' i. e., during the whole course of the millennium, without any implication that they should live when that period had expired." p. 51. This criticism of the Professor's is, however, not new. Old Rabbi Saadias Gaon in his commentary, long ago took the same view of it substantially. " This," says he, " is the resur- rection of the dead of Israel, whose lot is to eternal life; but those who do not awake, they are the destroyed of the Lord, who go down to the habitation beneath, that is Gehenna, and 164 THE RESURRECTION OE THE BODY shall be an abhorrence to all flesh." The Rabbi, in this last clause, refers to Isaiah Ixvi. 24, in which place also 1^'*2? (translated contempt in Daniel xii. 2,) occurs, with the slight change of the : into a •• — these being the only places where it is used in the Bible. The same exposition is likewise given by some of the English literal school. The reasons given by Professor Bush to sustain this trans- lation are, I think, satisfactory.* But his paraphrase of it is not sustained by the translation itself. I have no doubt that the time referred to in Dan. xii. 1,2, is synchronical with that mentioned in Rev. xx. 1-6; and fully believe that the events there spoken of are the same. The inference of Professor Bush, that the " many" who do not at that time arise, or " the rest of the dead" who then arise not, will never arise, is wholly unsupported by Dan. xii. 2, and di- rectly contradictory to Rev. xx. 7-13. 2. But "what Ixind of a resurrection is that here an- nounced, and to what time is it to be referred ?" asks Pro- fessor Bush in the next place: and we shall proceed to consider his answer to these important queries. He remarks that the context" indicates pretty clearly that the period re- ferred to, can scarcely be that of ' the end of the world,' as that phrase is usually apprehended, for the sequel obviously announces an extended order of events stretching onwards through a long lapse of centuries to the time, whatever that be, when Daniel himself is to ' stand in his lot at the end of the days.' " With the exception of his error in referring " days," in this last clause, to this " long lapse of centuries," and making Daniel thus to stand in his lot at the end of them, instead of at the end of the days referred to, when it is said that Michael shall stand up, and the " many" arise, I entirely accord with this view of Professor Bush. So that, thus far, we are agreed, pp. 135, 136. The Professor then expresses his conviction, " that this prediction of Daniel (chap. xii. 2) ushers in that new dis- pensation which was to be opened by the Messiah, at his death and resurrection, and which began more signally to verify itself at the destruction of Jerusalem." p. 135. And hence he recognizes an incipient fulfilment of" this oracle," * In his exegesis of the passage he has drawn very freely, as he acknowledges, from the " Princeton Biblical Repertory" for July, 1844, which contains a very able review of his " Valley of Vision." ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. 165 in the dead raised by Christ during his ministry, " but more especially in that display of resurrection-power which was put forth upon" those mentioned in Matt, xxvii. 50-53, Thus far he supposes that the words " may be construed as having r,espect to a literal resurrection." But this he re- gards " as, in the main, a mere outward and sensible ad- umbration of a far more glorious work of moral quickening, which was to be the result of Christ's accomplished redemp- tion in behalf of his people, and in which this prediction was to receive its more complete and signal fulfilment. From age to age this spiritual vivification was to proceed in connexion with the 'judgment of the great day,' the peridd of the wn Dh)y, the world to come^^^ &c. p. 136. And to illustrate this view he presents some striking passages from the Zohar, Midrash Mishle, Torafh Adam, R. Saadias, 4 Esdras ii. 10, &c. We need not here examine these au- thorities, for they are adduced by Professor Bush only to show that his view of the circumstances connected with the period referred to, was held also by the Jews. After these references our author explains what he means by the " moral quickening" mentioned in the foregoing ex- tract. He says, " From the teachings of our Lord and his apostles we learn that all men are by nature dead in tres- passes and in sins ; and that the effect of the gospel, attended by the energetic influence of the Holy Spirit, is to quicken its recipients into a new and divine life, which, as it is a virtual resurrection while they are yet in the body, issues by neces- sary consequence in" that consummated resurrection which accrues to them upon their leaving the body." p. 138. And after referring to some texts in the New Testament, and to the innport oi^ o-vda-TAo-i; m vai^Zv, (all of which will be attended to in its proper place, but by which the Professor here de- signs to show that Daniel xii. 2, must refer to the " moral regeneration" of which he speaks,) he concludes that the pas- sage under consideration does not teach " the resurrection of the body. If the prediction," continues he, " really finds its fulfilment in the resurrection taught in the New Testament, and if it can be shown, as we shall hope shortly to do, that this is a resurrection which is gradually taking place from age to age, and one in which the spiritual body developed at death is intimately related to the spiritual life implanted in regeneration, then we see not how to resist the conclusion that this 'awaking from the dead,' announced by Daniel, 166 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY points mainly to a spiritual and not a corporeal resurrec- tion." p. 140. Thus closes his criticism, and his attempt to get rid of the testimony of this plain-speaking text. But let us now review this laboured exposition. The time referred to by Daniel, says the Professor, begun at the death and resurrection of Christ, and more formally at the destruction of Jerusalem; and is to extend throughout the gospel dispensation : and the resurrection is the spiritual re- surrection of believers under the gospel. But 1. If Daniel xii. refer to the same period and events mentioned in Rev. XX. (which our author admits in his " Valley of Vision," no less than in his Anastasis,) how can that period refer to the time of Christ's resurrection, or to that of the destruction of Jerusalem? When the Apocalypse was written these events were surely past,* and that speaks of the period as still future. This would make the thousand years also com- mence about A. D. 33, or 70 ; while Professor Bush in his "Millennium of the Apocalypse," p. 101, assigns their commencement to be " somewhere between A. D. 395, and A. D. 450." The Professor's connecting link, therefore, be- tween Daniel xii. and Rev. xx. must either break, or his exposition of the text under consideration must be abandoned. The same argument will prove that Daniel xii. 2, cannot refer to the resurrections recorded in the Gospels. 2. But there is another objection which is utterly sub- versive of that part of his exposition which makes the "awa- king" spoken of in Daniel, to be the moral regeneration of men under the gospel, which Professor Bush regards as a resurrection that is completed when the spiritual body is developed at death. Were not men " dead in sin" be- fore Christ? and were they not spiritually regenerated then? See Genesis vi. 3, Isaiah Ixiii. 10, &c., &c. And were not all the pious that then died, raised from the dead at death, " by natural law," according to Professor Bush's theory ? The following extract will answer this query.. Speaking in reference to Matthew xxii. 31, 32, he says, " If there is a * The best chronologers place the date of the writing of the Apoca- lypse after the destruction of Jerusalem. Baronius places it in A. D. 97. Alsted and Pearson, and Mill, and Fabricius, and Zeibichius, Klemmius, and Reineccius in 96. So also Le Clerc, Dr. Lardner, Bas- nage, Bishop Tomline, Dr. Woodhouse, &c. And all antiquity attests that John was banished to Patmos by the order pf Domitian whose death occurred in Septenober, A. D. 96. ASSERTED AND DEPENDED. 167 palpable, we had almost said an unmistakable, averment in the compass of holy writ, it is that the true doctrine of the resurrection is proved from the fact, that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, were living when Christ spake these words, and consequently must have been raised and must be living in resurrection bodies." pp. 207, 208. If then the moral re- surrection (or regeneration) of man had been going on ever since the promise of a Saviour in Genesis iii., and if the pious entered the resurrection-state so soon as they died, then what has become of Professor Bush's magnificent exposition of Daniel xii. 2? He makes the prophet say that a great event is to transpire at a certain time — Behold! there will take place a wonderful event; to wit : — things will go on just as they have been going on ever since the creation I Who can help thinking of Parturiunt monies, &c.? Yet such is the absurdity to which Professor Bush is driven in order to carry out his theory. There are twenty other objections against the exposition of our author, all equally fatal to it, such as, for example, the impossibility of explaining '■^sleeping in the dust of the earth," (without doing the utmost violence to the whole nsus loquendi of the Scrptures,) to refer to death in sin: but the foregoing will suffice. And the Professor's expo- sition being thus proved to be false, the text must still stand, as it ever has stood — an unimpeached and unimpeachable witness of the truth of the great Scripture doctrine of the resurrection of the body. So far, therefore, as the Old Testament Scriptures are concerned, Professor Bush has done nothing to invalidate their testimony to the doctrine of the resurrection of the body: nor has he succeeded in even the shadow of an argu- ment in favour of the theory which he advocates. 168 THE RESUilRECTION OF THE BODY CHAPTER III. A CONSIDERATION OF PROFESSOR BUSH S REMARKS ON THE NEW TESTA- MENT DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. SECTION I. Preliminary Remarks. The Professor cornmences his remarks on this branch of the argument with the observation, that "the train of inves- tigation thus far pursued has, if we mistake not, conducted us to one important conclusion, viz : that the teachings of the Old Testament, so far as they throw Hght at all on the theme of human destiny in the world to come, do not go beyond the announcement of the simple fact of a future lift:^^ (p. 141:) a conclusion which we regard as wholly un- supported by his " train of argumentation," and the cor- rectness of which we are entirely willing to leave to the reader to determine. Yet, notwithstanding, he candidly con- cedes that "it still must be admitted, as natural to suppose, that the doctrine declared by Christ on this subject (the re- surrection) would be in the main a fuller and clearer enun- ciation of the very doctrine so darkly (!) intimated in the Jewish Scriptures;" {ibid.) an admission which is based upon truth, and which Professor Bush has beautifully illus- trated in his ingenious and excellent criticism on <^a)ri^iiv, (p. ^2,) to which we have referred on a preceding page. In Chap. V. Part. II., (containing these preliminary re- marks to the New Testament argument,) he likewise pro- ceeds to re-afRrm his canons of criticism, (to which we have so fully adverted in Chap. I. above,) and admits that we are not at liberty " to array any hypothetical assump- tions against the clear evidence o^ facts, ^^ as asserted in the teaching of Christ : " Yet," says he, " we are at liberty to have recourse to a priori considerations in fixing the principles on which language that is intrinsically doubtful is to be interpreted." p. 142. Few, I suppose, would ques- ASSERTED AND DEPENDED. 169 tion the propriety of such a procedure; but the difficulty with Professor Bush is just here; he does array " hypo- thetical assumptions against the clear evidence of facts;" and he perpetually insists upon it, that language which, taken by itself in its proper connexion, is perfectly plain in its import, is " intrinsically doubtful" if it does not perfectly chime in with his a priori deductions of reason and philo- sophy. He first proves by these deductions that the mean- ing of the language is " intrinsically doubtful," as " no two truths in the universe can conflict with each other;" and then he " fixes the principles" on which " it is to be inter- preted" in consistency with these self-same deductions — a vastly convenient method by which to make the Bible " a nose of wax," and render it the " laughing-stock" of infi- delity. " The question, then," says the Professor, " is a perfectly fair one, in what manner the Divine Teacher would be apt to promulgate to the Jews, and through them to the world, the grand doctrine of man's future existence. (This is d priori 'with a vengeance!') This question becomes doubly proper and urgent, if we may venture to suppose ourselves to have attained, by scientific discovery apart from revela- tion, a view of the subject which commands assent, but which is at the same time apparently in conflict with the literal statements of the Scriptures ; for the case then be- comes similar to that of geology,* where a reason is im- peratively required for the seeming discrepancy between the letter of the sacred record and the ascertained facts of sci- ence." p. 142. Thus emphatically does he re-affirm the principles upon which his theory is based ; and which have guided him through his long and laborious discussion of Scripture texts, and also conducted him through as many vagaries as, we think, could be conveniently played off in a duodecimo of four hundred pages ! * In reference to this often-repeated assertion of Professor Bush, I again distinctly and emphatically remark, that no geological facts have ever been pointed out, which in themselves contradict the clear import of any passage of God's v^ord, as ascertained by the cc- knowledged principles (not, however, "accommodation principles") of Scripture criticism. And with high respect for his talents and learning, I affirm, that Professor Bush is unable to produce a single instance of the kind. 15 170 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY SECTION II. Definition of Terms, In entering into a discussion of the New Testament evi- dence on the subject before us, it is of great importance to ascertain the meaning of the terms which are most fre- quently employed in relation to it. ' The Jews had no word precisely corresponding with the term dvda-rncris as employed in the New Testament, though they somewhat familiarly designate the resurrection of the body by several words and phrases in use in their Rabbinic dissertations. The most common of these are riDipn derived from aip to stand or rise up, (see Zephaniah iii. 8, Isaiah xxvi. 19, &c.,) and n^nn derived from n^n «go-/f (from i-yii^ce to rise, a verb of very frequent occurrence, in the New Testament, and also employed by the LXX. to translate my and also mp,) in designation of the resurrection of Christ, Matthew xxvii. 53; but ihe term by which they designate the resurrection-state is dvaa-Txa-tc. And this term the Jews before Christ employed to designate the resurrec- tion of the body, as we have shown. (See 2 Maccabees vii. 14, and xii. 43 — 45.) This is the term employed by the inspired apostle in his report of the dispute between Christ and the Sadducees; (Matthew xxii. and Luke xx.,) and in this dispute it is inconceivable that the term could have been ASSERTED AND DEPENDED. 171 employed out of its popular acceptation. And if it were em- ployed in the sense in which the Jews understood it, the term in the New Testament must necessarily import the resurrec- tion of the body. This is a point of great importance, in determining the usage of this word in the New Testament; and of course Professor Bush can have nothing to say either against our argument or inference, as he constantly affirms that our Lord and his apostles " accommodated their teach- ing to the views" of the Jews. As the Jewish usage of the term, therefore, in its application to the future state of man, imports the literal resurrection of his body; the term must include this in its signification as employed by Christ in Matthew xxii. It seems to me to be idle to appeal to the mere etymology of the word (as some writers do,) in order to determine its import as used in the New Testament. I do not deny that it may he used in different senses. It may mean simply, erectio post lapsum, or as Joannes Damascenus defines it, &vda-ToiirU-y iPejri^sL rod TTiTrraKOTOs trrda-tCj [, e., CL Second Standing of that which had fallen down; or, as Bretschneider de- fines it, it may mean simply exsurgere, (see LXX. in Jere- miah iii. 63, and Zephaniah iii. 8,) so far as the simple etymology is concerned ; but the query is, what is its recog- nized import in the New Testament ? In reference to the import of the word Dr. Dwight re- marks : " So far as I have observed, it usually denotes our existence beyond the grave." Theol. IV., p. 430. Dr. Camp- bell, also, says that " in this view, when applied to the dead, the word denotes, properly, no more than a renewal of life to them, in whatever manner this may happen." See Note on Matt. xxii. 23.* But I should rather have the reasons of these eminent men than their authority, great as it con- fessedly is : for I am satisfied that the meaning of the term, as applied in the New Testament to the future existence of the dead, is something far more definite than this. I have no design to write a dissertation ; nor would I make the doctrine under discussion to depend upon a definition of a term ; but there are several things which I have not seen * I have been grieved exceedingly to see the uncandid statement which Professor Bush has made (on pp. 209, 210) of the view of Dr. Campbell, while purporting to make an extract from the note above referred to. The sense of the passage is utterly changed. 172 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY referred to in this connexion, and which have great weight in ascertaining the New Testament usage of the word. Though Dr. Campbell, in the note above quoted, has, for the purpose of sustaining himself in his definition of the term, asserted, that "the Pharisees did not universally mean by this term, the re-union of soul and body," " as is evi- dent," says he, " from Josephus ;" yet, when his definition is out of his mind, he candidly admits that this historian's representations in the matter cannot be fully relied upon. He affirms, "that there are some things, however, which would lead one to infer that the opinions of the Pharisees, on this article, (the resurrection,) were more conformable to Christian doctrine, than is implied in the words of Jose- phus." Prelim. Diss. VI., Part II., § 19. The authority of Josephus, therefore, cannot demonstrate that the Pharisees did not universally mean by this term the re-union of soul and body. But as Dr. Campbell has involved the matter in a mist, so far as the Jewish view is concerned, (which it is highly important here to know,) I must ask the reader's at- tention to a few remarks touching the matter. The Pharisees (who, however, were not the only persons among the Jews who believed the doctrine of the resur- rection) did unquestionably hold the doctrine of the trans- migration of the souls of the righteous. According to Josephus, they believed that " the wicked shall be for ever detained in prison, while the righteous shall be made to revive and live again." Antiq. lib. 18, c. 1. They, also, held "that all souls are incorruptible; but it is the soul of the righteous only which passes into another body, while the soul of the wicked abides in eternal punishment:" KUTdiCdLiviiv iU iTipov (rZ/uot T»V TwV ayctBZv juovov., Tiiv S'i tZv (pAtJKeeV oiiS'iu Ti/ua^U ico\d^scr^M. De Bello Jud., Lib. II., c. 12. These pas- sages require no explanation. If Josephus is correct, the Pharisees held that the soul of the righteous alone under- went transmigration. They believed, also, the do6trine of the resurrection of the body — but it was the resurrection of the body of the righteous alone. Dr. Lightfoot, whose acquaintance with rabbinical literature no one will dispute, says : " The whole nation did so generally assert and hold the resurrection of the dead, (the Sadducees only excepted,) that they made the deniers of this point one of the three parties that should never have part in the world to come: as they speak in the ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. 173 Talmud, in the Tractate of Sanhed. Perek. Helek. — ' These are they that have no portion in the world to come; he that saith, the resurrection of the dead is not taught from the Law; and he that saith, that the Law is not from hea- ven ; and Epicures.' " Comment, on Acts iv. 2. Works, Vol. L, p. 759, folio. This clearly expresses their helief in the resurrection, as distinct from the previous notion of trans- migration. But the following passages (for which I am in- debted to Professor Bush, pp. 253-4) will express their view of its limitation to the righteous : " Kimchi remarks, ' The benefit of the rain is common to the just and unjust; but the resurrection of the dead is the peculiar privilege of those who have lived righteously.' " Menasseh Ben Israel says : " From the mind and opinion then of all the ancients, we conclude that there will not be a general resurrection of the dead, and one common to all men." These conflicting views, thus confusedly mingled in their theology, we shall not undertake here to reconcile: for it is not necessary that they should be reconciled in order to answer entirely the pur- pose for which we have quoted them. They held also, (as the foregoing passages show) that the souls of all, both righteous and unrighteous were alike im- mortal, or incorruptible. The language of Josephus is very express "4'';t'''"»'«'^*''/"«''«^^*§'^'>'''" De Bell. Lib. IL c. 12. But though they admitted so clearly the future existence, or, immortality of the wicked, they never applied the TERM dvda-Tcta-ii TO THAT STATE. — They ncver Called the future state or existence of the wicked an dvao-rao-if:* but apply this term strictly and exclusively to the future state of the righteous; which they defined to be a state of union of the soul with its former body, or some other corporeal structure into which it had passed. The assertion, that ^vda-TAo-ig was employed by the Jews either in the time of Christ or before it, to designate the future state of men without reference to * As a further illustration and confirmation of this statement, see 2 Maccabees vii. 14. " God will raise me again," says the pious mar- tyr, addressing his persecutor, " but for thee indeed there is no resur, rection unto life." Kat yivo/utvog Trpoi to TS\fii>Tdv, ovtws ea«, AiPiTov fMrAXKao-a-ovretg vTr' rtvSgwTraiv tol? {ittq - ««/«/ » dvaa-Tito-zf Kctt » (fax', "I am the resurrection and the life:"* But this merely means as Grotius remarks. " I am the author of the resurrection," or as Wolzogenius observes, " causa re- surrectionis et vitse, seu effector ejus et dator." It is a He- brseism, in which the effect is put for the cause, or the cause is signified by the effect. See also John i. 4. In like man- ner Christ is said to be made to us "wisdom, righteousness, sanctification," &c., 1 Corinthians i. 30. The usage of the term therefore is uniform in the New Testament, and, as there employed, clearly announces the living again of the body, and its reunion with the soul. In another part of his book, (p. 253,) Professor Bush has referred to the passage which we have above quoted from Josephus, and endeavours to give it a turn that would seem to favour his tertium quid theory. As the objection has the * In the Midrash Mishle^ fol. 67. (See also Buxtorf 's Lexicon Tal- mud, p. 961,) there is the following remarkable expression respecting Messiah. After the remark that he is the second Adam who should restore the life and happiness which the first Adam forfeited, they, referring to Psalm Ixxii. 17, ask "Why is his name called ]ijji? — Be- cause he shall hereafter raise the sleepers in the dust.'''' How like the name which Jesus takes to himself in the above-quoted text I So also in Neve Shallom. lib. 9, cap. 5, 8, the old Jews speak as follows : "The Messiah is the last Adam, who will be greater than Moses, and above the ministering angels. He will take away the old sin (comp. John i. 29,) which brought death, and in his days shall be the resurrection of the dead. (Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 21.) God intended in the creation of Adam that he should be immortal ; but sin brought death upon him; and therefore the divine intention, which was not accomplished in the first Adam, is fulfilled in King Messias." ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. 177 appearance of ingenuity, it is proper to notice it in this con- nexion before passing to the next topic. He says, "It is obvious that the phrase nATxCxivm m iri^ov a-Zfxny to pass into another body" does not imply the doctrine of the transmigra- tion of souls ; but that " it yields as readily the sense of a trans- lation of the soul into an etherial or spiritual body, such as we have endeavoured to show is taught by the united voice of sound reasoning and sound hermeneutics." When we view this statement in connexion with Professor Bush's " knowledge of revelation progressive," and his doctrine of "the resurrec- tion body as inferred by reason," and the advance of science and scientific discovery, we certainly cannot but be amazed at the wonderful knowledge here attributed to this ancient sect of Jewish separatists. Well might they boast that they were the favourites of heaven, on account of their accurate know, ledge of the truths of religion, and " despise others" (Luke xi. 52, and xviii. 9, 11,) if such were their wonderful attain- ments. To have anticipated, so long before Christ, the re- sults of present "scientific investigation" was certainly a great deal ; nor can I imagine how Professor Bush can pos- sibly avoid the conclusion that their sect must have had among them true prophets of their own. And we might well ask, that as they had the true doctrine on this subject, and as their doctrine was very popular among the Jews in our Saviour's time, how it happened that he never appealed to them as supporting the true doctrine of the resurrection as taught by him, when such an appeal must have silenced even his most clamorous enemies? And we might also ask, Where was the necessity of his " accommodating his teach- ings" to the errors of the Jews on this subject, when their greatest and most opulent sect had already avowed the real truth ? It would appear that the disciples also, before they were perfectly acquainted with the gospel, had the idea that the soul " passed into another body;" (see John 9,) and if they entertained the idea that this «Vf§cv a-Z/ua. or other body was a tertivm quid, or a "spiritual body," as Professor Bush thinks Josephus means, then they must have thought that the then present ^n^ov a-Zy-n of the man born blind, must have been a spiritual body, or a tertium quid, and that tertium quids might be born like other bodies, and even be blind, and be cured by an anointing of clay. But raillery apart, may I not with reason ask, whether a man is warranted, in order to support a mere theory, thus 178 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY to set philology and history at perfect defiance; and im- pose an utterly unheard of, and altogether arbitrary signifi- cation on a phrase, the true import of which no one has ever dreamed of doubting? Where in the writings of Jo- sephus, or Philo, or in the LXX., or New Testament will Professor Bush find a tertium quid designated by such a phrase? But he not only sets philology at defiance, but his own theory also. For in his book he is perpetually labour- ing to prove that the tertium quid in man is enclosed, so to speak, in his corporeal frame ; and that it itself envelopes the spirit, or the "bodiless and formless Twews;" and that this tertium quid^ which encloses the spirit, is eliminated from the body at death. It encases the spirit while it is in the body; it encases it at its discharge from the body; and it encases it after it has left the body. Where, then, can there be any going into another body? But with all deference to the authority of Professor Bush, I deny that it is upon the authority of this passage of Jo- sephus alone that the Pharisees have been charged with the doctrine of the metempsychosis. If they did entertain this doctrine, then Professor Bush must admit that his explana- tion of «T«§«v a-ZfxA is unnatural and absurd. Does not Jo- sephus, therefore, in other places, assert that they held this doctrine? See Antiq., lib. 18, cap. 1, §.3. and De Bell., lib. 2, cap. 8, §. 14, and lib. 3, cap. 8, §. 5. Take, also, the testimony of the Book of Wisdom, in the LXX., chap. viii. 20, where the speaker says, that by " being upright he came into a pure or undefiled body:" /waxxov S'l ayABog ^.v HxBov ik o-Zy-a &/uiAVTov. Professor Bush would hardly believe that this un- defiled body was a ^Hertium quid^ That the Jews in our Saviour's time entertained the same doctrine, appears from the fact, that during his ministry they speculated much con- cerning his identity with some of their former prophets. Some thought it was the soul of Elijah which animated him, and performed the great works which they saw; others Jeremiah, and others "one of the old prophets ;" (see Matt, xvi. 14, and Luke ix. 19; see, also, John ix. 1-4;) but no one for a moment seemed to have any idea that the body thus inhabited was a tertium quid, or spiritual body. And their attempted assassination of a tertium quid, (had they believed the body of Christ to be such,) must at all events argue that they supposed there must be but little real differ- ence between a sTg^ov o-::^* and e^^g* <^«§|« See Jude 7. ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. 179 The New Testament usage of animal^ or natural body; see V. 46. And in order that the subject may be plain to every reader, I shall, in the Jirst place, exhibit the view which the Professor takes of the phrase; and then shall ex- plain what I conceive to be its biblical import. It is easy to perceive, that as this o-Z^^a TrvtufxArmov is the tertium quid of our author, so very much must depend upon our obtaining an accurate view of it before we proceed with the New Tes- tament argument. "TAe spiritual body^^^ — what is it according to Professor Bush's theory? His definition itself seems to need an ex- positor, or at least an illustration, to make it plain. It is " the life and the intelligence" " which conjointly constitute the essence of man," and which retire as the body dies. It is a " vital principle, pervading the whole frame, and which co-exists with the intellectual principle in the body; and which, therefore, may co-exist out of the body." " It is a psychical body,^^ p. 66. It is formed of those " subtle elements mixed up in the grosser materials of our bodies, with which our mental operations are connected, and upon which they are dependent," p. 77. " By spiritual, in this connexion, we mean refined, ethereal, sublimated. By the development of a spiritual body, we mean the disengage- ment — the extrication — of that psychical part of our nature, with which vital and animal functions are, in the present life, intimately connected, and which differs from the pure spirit, the intellectual principle, as the Greek 4^'a:«> or sensi- tive principle, differs from voD?, the self-conscious intelli- gence. It is a tertium quid — an intermediate something between the cogitative faculty and the gross body. It is indeed invisible; but so are many of the mightiest agents in nature, and so are many of the noblest entities in the ranks of created beings." p. 78. The definition is not sufficiently clear yet; we cannot exactly see the Professor's meaning; 180" THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY and so shall let him speak further. " This existence (z. e, the resurrection state) will indeed be in a body, but it will be a spiritual body; i. e., some exceedingly refined and ethereal substance, unth which the vital principle is con- nectedf^^ p. 145. But on page 66 he says that the spiritual body is itself this " vital principle pervading the whole frame,. and co-existing with the intellectual principle in the body." If, then, it is the vital principle itself, how can it be something " with which the vital principle is con- nected?" We must look still further at the Professor's defi- nitions. Much have I desired that some Ariadne would only grant a clew of thread, by which to guide me through the intricacies of this puzzling labyrinth ; for my friend, the author, has really tired me by keeping me in chase so long after what might be properly called a mere tertium quid of an idea. Perhaps the following incidental remark may help us : " Even in the present life, it is the spiritual body which feels the sensations of pleasure or pain." p. 264. Then, again he says : " The only germ in the human body answering to the germ in the plant, and upon which the apostles' comparison is built, is the spiritual body itself. ^^ p. 179. Then it enters the spiritual world as a germ, or nucleus, and elaborates for itself a spiritual corporeity from the spiritual elements by which it is surrounded, pp. 176— 181. See other remarks hereupon, and other definitions, in Part I., Chap. II. above. On what principle it is expected that a person is to get an idea out of this mass of nonsense I cannot really imagine : and yet Professor Bush expects us to understand him here, in order to appreciate his argument, and see the appropriate- ness of his use of the term in question. If he has had any idea on this subject, he certainly has failed to employ lan- guage by which it might be conveyed to others. But as we cannot get hold of the abstract definition, perhaps we can of his illustrations of it. He asserts that Christ, and the righ- teous dead all have spiritual bodies; while he denies that the wicked have any ; and asserts that they never rise again. Here then we have an affirmative, and also a negative illus- tration. Let us briefly consider each, and see if we can understand the nature of this tertium quid. With respect to the spiritual bodies of the righteous. Pro- fessor Bush affirms that they are the same substantially as the resurrection body of Christ. See pp. 271, 347, 348; ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. 181 And yet Christ's body did not "enter the spiritual world as a germ.'''* He admits also, that the soul or spirit of Christ was living between his death and resurrection, pp. 168, 220, 224, and yet avers that his spiritual body did not arise, or was not eliminated until the third day. pp. 163, 164, 261. He arose on the third day, and yet his material body arose not. pp. 163, 164, 168. And at death he entered at once into a spiritual body. p. 165. His, was a purely spiritual body, p. 156. Such is the affirmative illustration of what Professor Bush means hy ^^f^^'^vivy-An^ntov. The illustration, like the decision of Milton's Old Chaos, only " more embroils the fray," and makes "confusion worse confounded." But perhaps the negative illustration, taken from the state of the wicked in a future world may help us. Throughout his whole book he constantly denies that they arise from the dead, or possess this tertium quid or resurrection body. If, therefore, we can only ascertain how they exist without it, perhaps we shall be able to ascertain what it is. Now it is clear, according to Professor Bush, that the wicked do not exist in material bodies — yet they continue to live after the body dies, pp. 140, 141, 220, 232, and yet do not partake of the resurrection, (for the righteous alone are the subjects of it,) and they have no spiritual body eliminated at death; for such elimination is, in fact, says Professor Bush, the resurrection, pp. 232, 254, 312. Neither are the wicked, in a future state, " mere bodiless and formless mensy'* says he, for " no error is greater than to suppose, that at death the soul goes forth from the body as a hare power of thought — bodiless and formless mens;^^ — this, continues he, " we do not hesitate to say, is nothing more than sheer hy- pothesis." p. 72. And yet, after death they reside in " spir- itual tenements," and have " bodies," and suffer unspeakable misery, pp. 393, 395. Here then is the negative illustra- tion/ The fastidiousness of this age will not allow us to call any thing nonsensical which a learned man asserts; but if it did, I should pronounce the whole of what Prcffessor Bush has said on the subject of the spiritual body, (in this his effort to evade the clear announcements of revelation,) the hugest and most astoundingly nonsensical medley that ever " the progress of science," and the fertile genius of the nineteenth century has produced. If it is the spiritual body — the same which feels pleasure or pain in this life, (see p. 264,) — that is eliminated at death, and which constitutes the 16 182 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY vital principle, I should like to know on what ground it is denied to the wicked? Have they no vital principle? If not how is it that they live at all after death ? How is it that they feel the sensations of pleasure or pain in this life, if it is the spiritual body or tertium quid that feels those sen- sations? And as this tertium quid is the resurrection body, which belongs to the righteous alone, when do they become possessed of it ? Not until they are regenerated ? And do they then feel no pleasure or pain until they are regenerated? But if the wicked have this tertium quid, or resurrection body, what becomes of it when they die ? Professor Bush says it is not eliminated from the body, like that of the righ- teous, for this would be a resurrection. What then becomes of it ? It would be trifling with the reader's patience to press this matter. The properties of this spiritual body, or tertium quid of Professor Bush's theory, remind one very strongly of the account of the learned traveller mentioned in the way of illustration by President Edwards.* For the Professor has discovered a creature that cannot exist without a body, and yet has not a body, and notwithstanding it still exists. And though it has not a body, yet it has a body; and the very body which it does not possess, that self-same body it does possess ; and this though it neither has nor has not a body. At death it goes into another body, and yet it does not go into another body, for it is itself that self-same body into which it goes. It is always " exhaled" at the death of the body, for as it is the vital principle itself, while it continues in the body the body must be alive; and yet the body may truly die, and lie in the grave three days, without such an * " If some learned philosopher, who had been abroad, in giving an account of the curious observations he had made in his travels, should say ' he had been in Terra del Fuego, and there had seen an anima^, which he calls by a certain name, that begat and brought forth itself, and yet had a sire and dam distinct from itself; that it had tn appetite, and was hungry, before it had a being ; that his master who led him, and governed him at his pleasure, was always governed by him, and driven by him where he pleased ; that when he moved, he always took a step before the first step ; that he went with his head first, and yet always went tail foremost; and this, though he had neither head nor tail ;' it would be no impudence at all, to tell such a traveller, though a learned man, that he himself had no idea of such an animal as he gave an account of, and never had, nor ever would have." Freedom of the Will, Part IV. Sect. 2. ASSERTED AND DEPENDED. 183 elimination or exhalation. It belongs to the righteous alone, and yet all the unrighteous possess it who have also " spiri- tual tenements," which leave their physical bodies when they die, and yet do not leave them, for they have no spiri- tual bodies eliminated at death. If such be the theory by which the objections of reason to the doctrine of the resur- rection are to be obviated, and that doctrine rendered pala- table to philosophers, sit anima mea non mm Philosophis, But what is the true scriptural import of ff-^/"* Trvivf^a.^iKov'i The phrase occurs twice in 1 Cor. xv. 44, and is used in antithesis to o-Zf^a, ^vxik-ov, v. 46. In the same connexion it is spoken of as a <^^/"* a<^Bu^rov, (v. 42, 52, 54,) a body which is immortal like the spirit which shall inhabit it. It is also a 6«§tsv, 6v*»tov, and «?, A:' (from which comes 4''A:'*^f») is employed by the Greeks to signify that which man has in common with brute ani- mals. And, as Josephus (Antiq., lib. I., c. 1. § 2.) remarks, that God made Adam with a 5rv«y^a and a 4''A:».* Where TTvevfAct indicates what pertained to man as man, and 4'^x,>^> what was common alike to him and other animals ; the former plainly referring not only to his anima, or life by which he lives as an animal, but also emphatically his ani' mus, or spirit, which is endowed with the faculty of under- standing, knowing, and thinking ; whereas the latter refers * "ETXstO-SV QiOC TOV avB^CDTTOV X°^v Slttq rJiC yH? \ttCZv Kct) miv/uct WMV &vrZ, Ka) -^vxiiv. Hence it is clear that Josephus believed man to be formed of d such will be our resurrection bodies, if we are truly his. And that this change, whatever it may be, infers no * This text will be critically examined hereafter. See also Chal- mers on Romans, pp. 261-264. ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. 187 loss of corporeal identity, is clear from the uniform declara- tions of the Bible. ^^This corruptible,'''' says Paul, " must put on incorruption, and tins mortal must put on immor- tality." 1 Cor, XV. 53. Now it is impossible to refer this language to the spirit, for that is confessedly neither cor- ruptible nor mortal. It can refer only to the body. Then in 2 Cor. v. 4, Paul says, " Not that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might he swallowed up of lifey But mortality here can only be predicated of the body, and hence it is to be perfectly endowed with immortal life. The word translated swallowed vp (x-ATXTriva) means ahsorheo aliquid ita ut non sit, the body shall be mortal no longer. Its mortal functions and properties shall cease to exist forever. Such, therefore, being the plain scriptural import of the term spiritual body, the theory of Professor Bush is false and preposterous ; and his objections to the resurrection of the body, based upon his application of this term, utterly unfounded. In closing his remarks on onomatology, (pp. 149, 150,) Professor Bush makes a long extract from Locke's letter to Slillingfleet, (a poor, paltry, and inconsistent performance, and altogether unworthy of his clarum et venerabile no- men,) in which that great philosopher undertakes to show, that at the general resurrection man will rise with a mate- rial body, but not with precisely the same body that dies. If Mr. Locke's arguments prove this, I really cannot see how it asists the theory of Professor Bush, who utterly de- nies that there will be any day of general resurrection, and that man's resurrection body is, in any sense of the term, such as Mr. Locke asserts that it will be. In its proper place we shall notice what he has offered on this subject. But as he is the favourite author of Professor Bush, (who quotes from him continually in discussing the New Testament argu- ment, and especially when any difliculty presses a little too hard,) it may be in place to show here the estimate in which he is held as a theologian and critic by some of the most learned and evangelical men of our age. Professor Tho- luck (a candid witness) shall be the spokesman. Referring to Mr. Locke, this admirable scholar and critic remarks : " English theology has sustained irreparable injury from the writings of Locke, so highly lauded by Episcopalian divines. We have elsewhere shown his defective views of Chris- 18S THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY tianity. Still, not only in England, but for a long time in Germany, he was regarded as a sound interpreter, and an able apologist of Christianity. His paraphrase of the epis- tles of Paul, translated by J. D. Michaelis, are not only de- ficient, as Ernesti has sJwwn, in philology, but they most miserably dilute and weaken the doctrines of the apostle. The chief fault (5f this reputedly orthodox theologian, is the oversight of the doctrine of human depravity — the Pela- gian error. From this source spring all his other errors. According to him, every man's reason, without previous regeneration, {which is not included in his system,) must recognize Christian truth; then this Christian truth is diluted and brought down to the standard of unregenerate men. The chief evidence of the truth of Christianity is found in mira- cles, or in the beautiful moral precepts of the Bible. The doctrine of the atonement has as little place in his system as that of original siw."* This is a just and discriminating character. And while we shall in the course of this work, pay all proper attention to his arguments as quoted by Pro- fessor Bush, we shall, without intending any disrespect to his memory, pass over his theological opinions with little or no remark. SEpTION III. An Examination of Professor Bush's remarks and criticisms on the fifteenth chapter of 1st Corinthians. The subject of "the Resurrection of Christ," which strangely comes next in order in the work of Professor Bush, we shall pass by for the present, to follow our author in his long array of Scripture texts. He does not seem to regard them precisely in the light of proof texts, by which to sustain the conclusions of his " argument from reason ;" but evinces a disposition to be perfectly satisfied, provided he can only show that their testimony is not altogether sub- versive of his theory. I. The first passage of this chapter which the Professor quotes and remarks upon is the following : " Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not * See " Historical Sketch of German Rationalism." ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. 189 risen;" 1 Cor. xv. 12, 13. And instead of entering into a discussion of that remarkable phraseology in ver. 12, which strikes so deeply at the very root of his theory, to wit : ttZs Ki-ycva-i Ttvi; h l/u'tv on dvda-rua-ic vviej^v ovKiTTtv, i. e., how say SOme AMONG YOU — you Christians of the church of Corinth — that there is no resurrection of the dead ? (a phrase upon which we shall remark hereafter,) he passes it without the least reference. The following is the whole of his criticism upon the passage : " The special doctrine of the resurrection, as generally held to be taught in this chapter, is that of a simultaneous resurrection at what is termed ' the last day,' or at * the end of the world.' On this view it may fairly be submiited as a question, whether the apostle's reasoning is conclusive. We are unable to perceive how the fact of a resurrection at some future time can be adduced as a proof that Christ was already risen. And, on the other hand, if it could be shown that there will be no such resurrection, wouLd that be a proof that Christ is not risen ? Is it not, at least, within the range of possibilities that he should be the only one raised ? The truth is, as the apostle's argument is usually explained, it makes it little more than reasoning in a circle. First, the future resurrection of the saints is proved by the past resurrection of Christ; and then, secondly, the past resurrection of Christ is proved by the future resur- rection of his people. This consequence flows naturally and inevitably from regarding the resurrection of the righ- teous as a future simultaneous event. Let it be understood as a present event, or one that takes place with every indivi- dual believer as soon as he leaves the body, and this logical inconsistency is avoided, and a flood of light poured upon the train of the apostle's reasoning." pp. 169, 170. This is all that the Professor has said on the passage; and every reader will no doubt think with me, that it is much to be regretted that our learned author did not illus- trate how the adoption of his theory would " avoid this logical inconsistency ,"(!) and so "pour the flood of light upon the train of the apostle's reasoning :" for as it seems to me, such a course would be only " darkening counsel by words without knowledge," instead of " pouring lighi*^ upon it. With respect to the simultaneousness of the resurrection, I shall say nothing here, as that subject will come up in its regular order in our examination of Professor Bush's re- 190 THE RESURRECTION OP THE BODY marks on verses 51-55 of the chapter. But before he in- dulged in these hypercritical comments (not to give them a more appropriate name) he should have quoted, or at least referred to the connexion of the passage. The word of God is rather too holy a subject to be employed for the pur- pose of showing one's wit : and a writer who will first keep out of view the apostle's explanation of his own language; and then, having assumed a false position, attempt to sustain it by a display of witticisms at the expense of inspiration, deserves something more severe than a mere refutation. He should be made to hear the language of stern and indignant rebuke. The argument of Paul, as the reader will see by referring to verses 3-11, and 14, 15, (which Professor Bush has omitted to notice,) is simply this : *' I have testified to you, ye Christians of Corinth, how that Christ died for our sins, was buried, and rose again according to the Scriptures of the old economy; and that he was seen, after his resur- rection, by multitudes of witnesses, (who are still living,) and lastly by myself. So we preach, and so ye believed. Here, then, is the evidence that Christ has arisen :— -the Scriptures affirm that it must be so, and multitudes of living witnesses testify that it has been so. But if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead ? For if there is no such resurrection, then Christ is not risen ; because, as I have already shown to you, (ver. 3,) he died, was buried, and rose again, not for himself but for us— for our sins, — according to the Scriptures. And, therefore, if he has arisen, we must arise; and, on the contrary, if we do not rise again, then is he not risen ; and, consequently, our preaching is false, and your faith in the Scriptures is vain ; and we, who profess to have seen him after his resur- rection, are proved to be false witnesses, because we have testified that God raised up Christ, whom he raised not up: and, consequently, you are yet in your sins, (for if he has not arisen, then he is not our Saviour from sin, ver. 3, 4,) and those who have died trusting in him, have trusted in one who cannot save them, and have, therefore, perished." Such is the apostle's argument, lying upon the very sur- face of his language, and plain, one would think, to the comprehension of a jchild. And yet the mind of Professor ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. 191 Bush is so filled, and beclouded by his tertium quid theory, that he has utterly failed to perceive it. He asks : " Is it not, at least, within the range of possi- bilities that he (Christ) should be the only one raised?" What ! when he suffered, and died for ws, and rose again for us, and as a pledge of the resurrection of his redeemed, and as the ''^ first fruits of them that slept?" (ver. 20.) Does Professor Bush think it " at least within the range of possibilities," that our adorable Redeemer has failed to ac- complish what he undertook ? No ! no ! he does not, he cannot entertain such a thought, until he has surrendered his heart's dearest hopes. The remark was as thoughtless as it is unbecoming ; though it lies at the very foundation of the objection upon which he has attempted to invalidate what is plainly the argument of the apostle. The Professor cannot see " how the fact of a resurrection at some future time can be adduced as a proof that Christ was already risen. And, on the other hand, if it could be shown that there will be no such resurrection, would that be a proof that Christ is not risen ?" But can he tell how the resurrection of Christ proves at all the resurrection of the redeemed? and how their resurrection (be it when it may) proves the resurrection of Christ? Paul says, that the establishment of either fact will demonstrate the other:] and surely the Professor does not doubt the apostle's de- j y claration. In the foregoing analysis of Paul's argument I > '■' have pointed out the connexion referred to. If our author i cannot see how the resurrection of Christ proves the resur- , rection of his people, and vice versa, it is plain to all men \ that he ought not to have written on the resurrection. But if he can, then where is there any greater difficulty in per- ceiving the connexion between Christ's resurrection and theirs, and vice versa, though theirs is yet future, than to see this connexion on the hypothesis of^their resurrection at death ? It is perfectly preposterous to pretend that there is any such difficulty. In fact, the only difficulty in the case wholly attaches to the theory of Professor Bush; and on that theory it is indeed insuperable. Christ did not arise from the dead until the third day; hence his people are consoled with the assurance, that though they die, and are consigned to the tomb, yet they, like Christ their great fore- runner, shall rise from its dark domains. In this case there is a comfortable and delightful analogy between his resur- 192 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY rection and theirs. He arose from the grave^ and hence they shall also arise. But on the theory of Professor Bush, where is there any such analogy? He avers, that the resurrection takes place at death, and not after it. "The resurrection body is eliminated at death;" and " is exhaled with the vital principle." But the spiritual body of Christ, as the Professor himself avers, was not thus elimi- nated. He arose some days after his death; but his people rise at death; "every individual believer is raised as soon as he leaves the body," says Professor Bush. And are these events analogous? and is such the view which is "to pour a food of light upon the train of the apostle's rea- soning?" If, however, this "flood" is light, it must be such " light" as is emanated from the dark side of the moon ; for the rays are all too feeble to enable us to get even a glimpse of the object upon which they are ^^poured." And he who attempts to illumine the reasoning of Paul by the adoption of such a theory, will have good reason to say with one of old, " We cannot order our speech by rea- son of darkness." Job xxxvii. 19. Professor Bush appears to be exceedingly anxious to con- vict the advocates of the commonly received doctrine of the resurrection, of reasoning in a circle. We have seen how he has fared in a former attempt, and an examination of the effort contained in his remarks on the text before us will also evince that this circle, like Dean Berkley's ideal world, exists no where but in his own mind. He affirms, that if Paul, in this chapter, asserts that the resurrection is still future, his reasoning is " little more than reasoning in a cir- cle;" and that " this consequence flows naturally and in- evitably from regarding the resurrection of the righteous as a future simultaneous event;" which ^^ logical inconsistency is avoided," if we suppose that the resurrection " takes place with every individual believer so soon as he leaves the body." These are not only broad, but pretty tangible assertions. They are mere baseless assertions, of a very grave character indeed, but meriting no reply other than a bare denial of their, truth, if Professor Bush has hazarded them merely for the sake of effect, he cannot fail to meet the reward of such temerity, in that decision which an en- lightened public will sooner or later pronounce upon his performance. But if he had reasons for making them, then of course he is able to exhibit his proof upon which they ASSERTED AND DEPENDED. 193 are based. I call for it therefore; and I ask him to produce his evidence that will justify the assertion, that the suppo- sition of the resurrection being simultaneous and future, must convict Paul of reasoning in a circle. And I ask him to show, also, how this consequence is avoided by the sup- position that believers arise from the dead at death. He has asserted that these things are so ; and, in order that there may be a true issue, I deny positively, and unequivo- cally, that they are so. Let us have the proof therefore. In closing my observations upon 1 Cor. xv. 12, 13, I would remark tha|..it affords an unanswerable argument in favour of the do^rine of the resurrection of the body. The proof is indeed incidental, but it is not the less con- clusive. We quoted above the original of the clause re- ferred to. — " How say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?" " That is," as a learned critic expounds it, " how say some among you Christians, (who believe the Gospel,) that there is no resurrection of the dead?" Quomodo dicunt quidam in vobis. Id est, inter vos Christianos, qui evangelio credidistis." See also the excellent criticism of Parous in loco. And Piscator gives the true emphasis of the phrase when he says, that nZq^ or ^^how has here the force of rebuking or upbraiding ; as if he had said, they ought not^ therefore, to deny the resurrection of the deady Scholia in loco. Now it is conceivable that a man may, like Professor Bush, deny the resurrection of the body, and yet be a good man ; as the apostle in ver. 12 takes for granted that they were who said there was no resurrection of the dead. This, I say, is easily conceivable. But is it conceivable — can Professor Bush himself conceive how a person can be a good man and a Christian, who should deny the future ex- istence of man? Can Professor Bush conceive that Paul would recognize such persons as members of the Christian church? Would Professor Bush himself recognize a man as a Christian, and believer of divine revelation, who should deny the future state of man ? No, he would not ! for he knows that such a procedure would at once confound Chris- tianity with infidelity. What, then, is the import of " re- surrection^^ here? avda-TAo-K mt^Zvl Does it — can it mean a future state, as Professor Bush pretends ? No, not without the most manifest absurdity. And if not, the term dvaa-raa-K \ >k yatgXy can only refer to the resurrection of the body; the 1 /JL « k^. 194 / IgE ;RESURRECTI0N OF THE BODY '-...-. ' ■■/ ' ■■'. ••'■-- ■ '.-^^ mised in the Scriptures ; and that, therefore, those who -ju- J trusted in him for salvation could not he saved. The im- {Jt^^ port of Professor Bush's question, therefore, is this ; could ,^.^ . not the souls of those who fell asleep in Christ have been .{O. '\ saved, even if he were not the Saviour? And if this be his "w^i meaning, the Professor must answer the question for him- ''^t^ self; for it concerns a quite different matter from that which ^w-Ti we now have before us. - ^ ^' - -'-'<. /km In the foregoing quotation the Professor has made a pass-'-^jiii^ / ing reference to a phrase in ver. 18, upon which he ought ' ^ to have bestowed some serious notice. It is this : « *o//*j)6«yTec Iv x§/(7-t::, " those who are fallen asleep in Christ." On p. 173 he speaks also of " the state of those wlio fall asleep in him;^^ and on p. 190, also, he expresses the same idea — " We shall not all sleep, (i. e., die,) but we shall all," &c.; yet in neither place does he attempt to explain it in consist- ency with his theory, that the resurrection takes place at death. The necessity for such an attempted conciliation will appear in a moment, if we only recur to some of his previous remarks and criticisms. In his remarks, for ex- ample, on Psalm xvii. 15, " I shall be satisfied when I awake with thy likeness," pp. 105-108; or on Dan. xii. 2, " Many that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake;^^ pp. 132-134. Now this word ^^awake,^"* he explains to mean *' the awaking of the righteous to a beatified state" at death, at which time " the spiritual body is eliminated from the corporeal." So, then, according to this vastly conve- nient theory of the Professor, the believer at death, both ^'awakes'' and ''falls asleep/'^ Nor does our author find any difficulty, or perceive any inconsistency in using both of these phrases, (so diametrically contradictory to each other,) as descriptive of one and the same event. — As . ,^ though it should be said of a man who went to bed on a certain night and slept until morning, at which time he 196 THE RESURRECTION OP THE BODY awoke, and arose from the bed ; that his going to sleep in the evening, and his awaking in the morning, meant one and the same thing. Into these vagaries has our author been led, by his attempt to make death and the resurrection one and the same. After quoting Mr. Pelt, &c., (whose reasoning, by the way, directly contravenes one or more of the fundamental principles of Professor Bush's theory,) our author closes with an effort to make dvda-Tcta-i? to mean nothing more than " living again, future life, future state — as a state to be im- mediately entered upon at death, instead of ' resurrection,' implying the resurrection of the body:" and he informs us, that " by substituting, throughout the chapter" either of the foregoing terms, " the whole course of reasoning be- comes luminous and pertinent, while it is, at the same time, brought into perfect harmony with the general tenor of the Scriptures on the subject." p. 172. 1 have sometimes been almost tempted to doubt whether Professor Bush, in some of these round assertions, is really in earnest ; for it seems to me that just in proportion as a proposition is destitute of proof, does he assert the existence of the most demonstrative proof in its favour. The term resurrection, or avda-miTic, occurs only in vers. 12, 13, 21, and 42. With respect to vers. 12 and 13, we have shown above, the utter impracticability of explaining the word in the way mentioned by Professor Bush. Try it then with ver. 21: "Since by man came death, by man also came a. 'future state.' " Where, then, is the antithesis? ,» The apostle's argument is, that to that upon which Adam'*"* ^ brought death, Christ brought life. But Adam brought death to the body, and, therefore, Christ brought life to the body. Such is the antithesis ; and unless, therefore, " future state" includes the revival of the body, it could not here translate dvaa-raa-ig. And then again. On Professor Bush's theory, how can we understand this verse? " By man came death." But death is the entrance upon the resurrection state, by "natural laws." Therefore, "by Adam came the entrance upon the resurrection state, and by Christ came the future state." Is this the way Professor Bush would construe the passage? But not to insist upon this, let us look at the last place where the word occurs : " So also is the resurrection of the dead," (i. e., says Professor Bush * the future state.^) " It is sown in corruption ; it is ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. 197 raised in incorruption." ver. 42. To substitute future state for resurrection here, would make sheer nonsense. The import is plain : "/jf, that is, the dead body, is sown in cor- ruption ; it is raised in incorruption." The term"soziJn" we shall consider when we come to examine the remarks of Professor Bush on the passage in which it occurs. III. The following is his next quotation : " But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the first-fruits of them that slept. For since by man came death, by man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order : Christ the first-fruits ; after- ward they that are Christ's at his coming." 1 Cor. xv. 20-23. The force of the expression vfvi SI, <' but now is Christ," &c., is as if the apostle had said, but now it is false that we of all men are the most miserable, and have hope in Christ only in this life, and none hereafter: For Christ is risen from the dead, and become the frstfruits of them that slept. The similitude of the first fruits was taken from a rite of the ancient law. For as in the offering of the first-fruits, the product of the whole year was consecrated, so, as Calvin remarks, " the poicer of Chrisfs resurrection is diffused to all his chosen." (Compare Phil. iii. 10; tow yvZyeu Tiiv J'uvctjutv T»? dvsta-rdff-taic ai/Tou.) Thus also the apostle else- where reasons : " If the first-fruit be holy, the lump is also holy." Rom. xi. 16. Compare Lev. xxiii. 10, and Numb. XV. 18-21. Thus by his resurrection he made a way for the resurrection of his members, as the offering of the first fruits, according to the law, sanctified the whole crop. Speaking of this term, (first-fruits, u9r«§;t^») as applied by the apostle to the resurrection of Christ, Professor Bush re- marks as follows : " The idea is not so much that Christ was the first, in the order of time, who rose from the dead — as we are expressly taught, both in the Old Testament and the New, that prior causes of resurrection had re- peatedly occurred — but the first in rank, the author, the procuring cause of the resurrection of the saints. But the whole harvest began to be gathered in immediately after the presentation of the first-fruits, and it would be a very violent construction of the analogy to suppose it to imply that hundreds of thousands of years might elapse between the resurrection of the grand Precursor and that of the mass of his followers." p. 173. 17* 198 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY There are several things here asserted, to each of which I would distinctly reply. 1. He says that aTTA^^** here does not mean " that Christ was the first in the order of time ;" and he attempts to sustain this position by a reference to previous cases of resurrection. But, (1,) does Professor Bush mean by this to intimate that a resurrection to this present mortal life, is parallel to a resurrection to an im- mortal state of being] If they are not parallel cases, why are they brought into the argument? If ten thousand had previously been raised, to die again, still when Christ arose from the dead to an immortal life, he was the first- fruits of those who should after him, in the time of the great harvest, obtain a like resurrection to immortality. And it is to discriminate his case from that of all others whose resurrection had preceded his, that Paul remarks, (for the peculiar benefit of those who, like Professor Bush, thought them parallel,) that " Christ being raised from the dead, dieth no more ; death hath no more dominion over Am." Rom. vi. 9. Bui, (2,) why did not Professor Bush, instead of making the loose, unsupported assertion, that it does not mean " that Christ was the first in the order of time," enter into an investigation of the term or phrase itself? Were not the first-fruits under the Old Testament, " the first in the order of time?" Why should the term, therefore, not import here also that Christ is thus first? It is rather too much to ask us to yield our best-supported and most cher- ished convictions to the mere unsupported i-pse dixit of Professor Bush. But why did he not examine other places where the term is used, and then favour us with the result? e. g., Rom. viii. 23, and xi. 16, and xvi. 5, or James i. 18, or Rev. xiv. 4. Or, why did he not take the instance in the very context itself? (ver. 23, and these, with the text, are the only instances of its use in the New Testament,) " Christ the first-fruits ; afterward, (eWrat) they that ARE Christ's at his coming." What are we to think of such bold assertions of our author, so directly in the face of the clearest asseverations of the word of God ? But if the word asragAi" were passed over without examination by the Professor, he might have found phrases in abundance which would have illustrated this, and preserved him from making an assertion so utterly destitute of support. See e. g.. Col. i. 18, where he is called the first-born from the dead:'^ ft^aroTOKQt tK TwK yi3ifjy. Or, See Rev. i. 5, where precisely the \^^ OF THB ^ HIVEP.SIT ASSERTED AND DEFENDEIL ^\/ ^^^^99 .. , same phrase is found. A consideration of thesemtngs can leave no doubt on the mind, as to whether Christ is here de- clared to be first in the order of time. But 2, The Professor thinks " it would be a very violent con- struction of the analogy to suppose it to imply that hundreds of thousands of years might elapse between the resurrection of the grand Precursor and that of the mass of his fol- lowers," as " the whole harvest began to be gathered in im- mediately after the presentation of the first-fruits." Now, (1.) what are we to think of such an objection, when viewed in connexion with the theory of Professor Bush? He teaches that the resurrection-body is eliminated from our corporeal fabric at death, by natural laws, and that all true believers who died from Adam to Christ entered upon the resurrection state, i. e., arose from the dead. That is, the harvest was half gathered before the presentation of the first-fruits. And yet he says that we do " violence" to " the analogy," though we make the harvest, as he admits, to be after the gathering of the first-fruits. There is some- thing so perfectly ludicrous about this that no exposure can make it more so. But (2.) the apostle says nothing about the length of time between the oflfering of the first-fruits and the harvest; The analogy is not concerned with this. He is simply speaking first of the gathering of the first- fruils, and secondly of the crop itself. He has told us that the first-fruits were gathered : and now he proceeds to show when the crop itself shall be brought in. But this branch of the argument of the apostle, so important to a right understanding of what he says respecting the resurrection, Professor Bush entirely passes over; — he does not even quote the verses// From ver. 23, above quoted, he passes on to ver. 35, and omits the very part of the argument where Paul proceeds to mention when the harvest itself is to be gathered. Is such a procedure upright? is it honourable? Professor Bush has quoted and commented on several of these verses in another part of his book, (p. 367 seq.,) but not in connexion with the subject before us. Duty and honour required of him to notice it in this connexion. The passage is the following : " Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father ; when he shall have put down all rule and all au- thority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all 200 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY enemies under his feet. Deaths the last enemy, shall be destroyed, &c. See vers. 24-28. In this passage Paul speaks of the ingathering of the harvest itself, as he had been speaking already of the pre- sentation of the first-fruits. The phrase "Va to TsxocoTai', &c., " T/ie/i Cometh the end," is referred to the preceding verse, «v T« nagoucrU all ou, at the time of his coming: and is sus- ceptible of illustration by other passages, almost without number, in the Bible. See e. g., Mai. iii. 17, 18 : ^^And they shall be mine, saith the Lord of hosts, in that day when I make up my Jewels,''^ or special treasures. But in the New Testament the parallels and illustrations are so numerous and pertinent, that it is astonishing how any one could overlook them. Christ himself has represented it under the very figure of a harvest, — the very illustration here em- .ployed by Paul. See Matt. xiii. 24-30, and 36-43: ''The harvest,^'' says he, " is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels. As, therefore, the tares are gathered and burned in the fire: so shall it be in the end of the world. The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do inquity, &c., &c. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun," &c. The phrase " end of the world," is o-WTiXiia roS atZvoz rovrav, (see also Matt, xxviii. 20,) and is asserted by Professor Bush (pp. 367, 368) to mean the same thing as tsxo? in 1 Cor. xv. 24 ; thus bringing these two passages (so far as the in- gathering of the harvest is concerned) into a parallel. The inference is therefore irresistible, that the harvest is not to be gathered until the second coming of Christ. What could Professor Bush hope to gain by keeping out of sight this glaring proof of the falseness of his theory; at the same time also that he professed to be analyzing and discussing Paul's whole argument (in this chapter) on the resurrection? In this connexion he has, likewise, passed over another overpowering proof of the falseness of his theory. I refer to ver. 29 : " Else what shall they do who are baptized for the dead, {uJtie, t^^v vatf^v)^ if the dead rise not at all? Why are they then baptized for the dead ?" Now the argument deducible from this verse against Professor Bush's theory, that the resurrection takes place at death, and not after it, does not depend upon our being able to explain what was ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. 201 the rite here referred to by the apostle. So far as the argu- ment is concerned, any one of that almost score of inter- pretations mentioned by Bochart (0pp. Tom. I., pp. 1026- 1035, Leyden, 1692, folio) may be the true one. But the point is this : — the persons here spoken of by Paul, and whom he asserts to be dead, (vnc^ol) had not yet arisen from the dead. The supposition that they had arisen at death, would be an accusation against Paul of foolishness, or of dishonesty in his argument. The persons spoken of as dead were at that time dead, of course; and Paul and other be- lievers asserted that they would rise from the dead. Of course, then, they had not arisen at death. And, therefore, the theory of Professor Bush, which asserts that man does rise at death, is utterly false. The conclusion is irresistible on the principle, (asserted by Professor Bush,) that Paul is in this chapter treating of the resurrection of only the righteous dead. In the close of his remarks on vers. 20-23, the Professor throws out several observations which call for a brief no- tice. In order to justify the exposition which he has given in the passage quoted above, he adds that the true view of the matter is clearly indicated by the sequel, (i. e., vers. 21-23,) in which we are taught, that this resuscitation of the dead, this investiture of the disciples of Christ with im- mortality, proceeds in a manner analagous with the suc- cessive generations of the animal and mortal family who derive their first life from Adam.'''' But if the reader will consult pages 175, 185, 186, &c., &c., of Professor Bush's work, he will find that, according to the Professor's theory, man derives not only his first life from Adam, but his ^^ spiritual body'''' likewise; which the theory recognizes as the second life. But this only in passing. Our author continues thus: "As the first family is not formed at once, nor dissolved at once; as the members of it have risen into existence in succession; so neither will the other family be completed at once." pp. 173, 174. The object of Professor Bush in these remarks, is to en- deavour to afford his theory en passant the support of a fanciful analogy, dependent on his notion of the succession in the order of completing the family of Adam and that of Christ. Now it is true, as Paul remarks, that our first life (as well as our death) is derived from Adam, and our second life from Christ. But where is the antithesis of 202 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY succession referred to by the Professor? So far from Christ being the first of his great family who arose from the dead to a glorious immortality, Professor Bush makes his family to have preceded him in this resurrection for thousands of years. This surely is pointing out a queer resemblance be- tween Adam as the frst of his family, and Christ as the frst of his ! And the Professor is welcome to all the sup- port that his theory can receive from such a striking analogy. But, secondly; he insinuates here also that the advocates of the doctrine of the resurrection of the body entertain the sentiment, that the family of Christ have no- thing of succession in their assembling. If Professor Bush would open Howe's *' Blessedness of the Righteous," or Baxter's "Saint's Rest," or Edwards' "Sermon at Brainard's Funeral," or any one of the ^^ Corpus Confessionum,^^ he would find the Protestant belief to be, that God adopts his elect out of the generations of man as they succeed one another; and that when they die, they "are present with the Lord," and there await the coming of the great day, when they shall re-assume their bodies, which shall then be changed and " fashioned like his own glorious body." Through the successive ages of the world, regeneration, justification, and adoption had rendered them "the sons of God" before they left earth: and, though it did not then " appear what they should be," they were willing to wait (either " in the body or out of it,") until he who is their life should appear, and clothe them anew, in the then beautified garments of their once mortal bodies, and thus gather them home as a precious harvest, purchased with his blood. The Professor next endeavours to expound the phrase, " but every man in his own order:" but it is an exposition which may be significantly described by a phrase used sometimes by critics, — " a running commentary ." Unita- rians and Universalists often affect to employ this kind of exposition ; but theirs is not exactly " a running commen- tary," but a running away from the text. And even our author not unfrequently (in his Anastasis) uses this me- thod. And here he passes this important phrase with the following mere ipse dixit: " Every man of this (Christ's) family, is to be quickened * in his own order,' or as [when) he dies, from Christ the first-fruits," &c., p. 174. This is rather a too summary method of interpreting hard phrases, but per- haps the Professor thinks that " results and not processes are ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. 203 for the public eye." Still, I should very much like to know how he ascertained that the meaning of the phrase is, that every man is raised from the dead at his death — that the instant he is dead, he is raised from the dead. It is won- derful that our author did not exhibit his evidence, and de- monstrate this point at once, for it would have saved him much subsequent labour, and would also have been of great advantage to his theory; and I divine that the simple reason why he has not done this is, that he had no proof to give. Yet I have a little proof to offer of the falseness of this ex- position, before I pass on. In 1 Thess.,iv. 13-18, Paul, re- ferring to the time of the resurrection and to that event itself, says: "This we say unto you, by the word of the Lordi that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord, shall not prevent (cu ^» Saa-4)^ev, shall not anti- cipate) them which are asleep:'''' that is, we shall not re- ceive this glorious change before they do. And would not this be a most extraordinary piece of information for Paul now to impart, if he had been teaching all along that every man was quickened, or raised from the dead at death, or as he died 1 This would be " going to first principles" with a vengeance. It would be making him say, " those who are asleep have already entered on the resurrection -state, and have been changed ; some of them thousands of years before this time of which I speak. And now I tell you from the Lord himself, {it is a special and direct revela- tion,) that those who shall be alive at the time of his com- ing, shall not enter upon that state before those who had entered upon it " even thousands of years ago." Does Pro- fessor Bush think that it would require a revelation to make the Thessalonians believe this ? As to the word translated order, (rdyf^A,) therefore, what- ever else it may mean, it can have no such import as that attached to it by Professor Bush. It is a military term, and is employed only once in the New Testament, although it is sometimes used in the LXX., e. g., 1 Sam. iv. 10, and XV. 4, and 2 Sam. xxiii. 13. Josephus also employs it. Antiq., lib. 14, cap. 15, §. 9, and De Bell., lib. 1, cap. 9, §, 1, &c. The idea seems to be, that every one shall be raised in his own rank. There is a distinction merely between the leader and the body of the army; (see the illustrations of the use of the word above referred to ;) the leader is first, the raryfxx, or Ta^/usiTa, come after — each in his own order. 204 THE RESURRECTION OP THE BODr Hence in the second part of the verse Paul gives an exegesis of the part referred to. Tertullian thinks that the order (or rank) is an'order ac- cording to merit, as e. g., the martyrs first, then others next in merit, &c. See Rev. xx. This is likewise the view of the learned Mede. Others think that the resurrection here spoken of will be perfectly simultaneous, and that " order" refers to that celestial order spoken of by Paul, which shall exist among the raised saints, (and in which they shall be raised {) " as one star differeth from another star in glory." See also Dan. xii. 3, and Matt. xiii. 43. But to determine the point is of no importance to the argument. IV. The next passage quoted by the Professor is the fol- lowing : " But some man will say, how are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come? Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened except it die. And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain : it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain." 1 Cor. xv. 35-37. In order to perceive the force of the apostle's reasoning in this section of his argument, it is necessary to look at the questions propounded, and his reply to it. The question is, " How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come? 'ro/ft) tTg a-wjuctTt «g;tov7-at<. The epithet bestowed upon the objector by Paul shows that the objection was one of mere infidelity or heathen philosophy, which perhaps the Christians mentioned in ver. 12, had been perplexed with. Therefore says Paul to the objector, "?§5v, thou fool. Hence the objection was not one intended to elicit information, but to justify doubt or unbelief: q. d. How is it possible that the dead should be raised, when their bodies are putrified, reduced to ashes, decomposed by the waters, consumed by fire, devoured by wild beasts ? &c. How is it possible that they should arise again under such circumstances? The two questions are one, and the <^« is here used to give force to the interrogation, and is employed for this purpose par- ticularly in the repetition of a question ; see e. g., 2 Cor. vi. 14-16; which idiom it is important here to notice on account of the turn which Professor Bush endeavours to give to the subject. This, therefore, is the question or objection: and Pro- fessor Bush was well aware that a great deal depended upon understanding it rightly. Hence he gives it the following ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. 205 explanation: "* How are the dead raised, and with what body do they come?'' i. e., not with what body do they come up out of the ground, but with what body do they come down from heaven ?" p. 268. Even he has not " the length of rational and exegetical hardihood" to deny that the question in these two clauses is one — the latter clause being exegetical of the former. And what preposterous work does he make of the question itself? On his con- struction of it, it must read, " How are the dead raised down from heaven?" The man who would ask such a question must truly be an a^g'v; so much so, that I think Paul would not have regarded his questions or cavils as de- serving of much notice. But taking for granted that the fool did ask, " With what bodies do the dead come down from heaven?" (though if they had already entered on their resurrection-state, or been " raised from the dead," it is rather mysterious how they should be called " the dead,'''') how does Paul meet the ob- jection? What reply does he make to it? for he surely has made some; and he would have hardly thought it worth bringing forward had he considered it worthy of no answer. Why he begins his reply by stating an analogy taken from the planting and springing up of grain. And this is, ac- cording to Professor Bush, to show the objector with what body the dead come down from heaven? Surely the ob- jector must have thought (if this were the import of his ob- jection) that Paul was rather hard pushed, and was trying to creep out of a difficulty without being able even to put a good face upon it. But can any man seriously think that Paul would have answered the objection thus? And then when he comes to apply the illustration or analogy, he shows the futility of the objection by remarking, *' So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in cor- ruption, it is raised (i. e., according to the Professor's con- struction, it comes down from heaven) in incorruption," &c., &;c. This is the application of the analogy from the grain. And well might the objector stare, at seeing such an analogy as that of the grain applied to illustrate the putting of some- thing into earth, and having its fruit come down from hea- ven. We need not pursue this subject further than to remark, that Professor Bush himself explains " raised,^'' in the verses last referred to, to mean, not the coming down of 18 206 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY the body out of heaven, but of its elimination at death. Thus refuting his own absurd construction of this question. On the verses which stand at the head of this section, Professor Bush offers more remarks than on all those pre- viously quoted from the chapter: but they are remarks not offered in elucidation of Paul, but in the vain attempt to en- graft his own theory on the apostolic doctrine of the resur- rection. But the best way to treat such inconsecutive and random argument as he offers on this whole chapter, is to subject it to a rigid analysis. And this, by the way, is the better style of refuting all objection and argument which present not a fair issue, or no issue at all. The Professor in the first place intimates, with much probability, that the analogy employed by Paul in this passage, was suggested by our Saviour's language, (see John xii. 24,) *' Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die," &c. He thinks, too, *' that an analogy drawn from insect transmutations, would have been a more striking" illustration ; but ques- tions " whether the facts known in this province of nature were known to the apostle." pp. 174, 175. Paine, in his "Age of Reason" expresses the same sentiment ; but Wat- son replies justly, that " had he known as much as any naturalist in Europe does, of the progress of an animal from one state to another, as from a worm to a butterfly, I am of opinion he would not have used that illustration in preference to what he has used, which is obvious and satis- factory." Apology, Letter IX. The Professor next proceeds to show the points of agree- ment and of disagreement between the illustration employed by Paul and the thing illustrated. There is, says he, a " coincidence in the fact of ' dying.^ In both cases there is that process of decay and dissolution which we denominate deatJi.^^ He then " aims at precision of ideas, and notes the points of difference as well as of similitude." One of these " points of difference" is, that " the ' dying,' which the apostle predicates of the seed, takes place subsequently to the sowing. But the human body does not die after it is deposited in the dust. It is previously dead — * for the body without the spirit is dead' — and therefore cannot die again." Here, then, the depositing of the seed in the ground, is, ac- cording to our author, intended by Paul as analogous to the depositing of the body in the earth : and the " point of dif- ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. 207 ference" which he finds, is that the seed is then liting, and the body is dead. But how will this harmonize with what he offers on a subsequent page? He says : " So far is the apostle from teaching that the body is ' sown' by being de- posited in the grave. It is sown at its birth, and not at its DEATH." p. 186. I shall hereafter remark on the incor- rectness of this observation ; and I refer to it here merely to show how easily Professor Bush can refute his own cri- ticisms. For if the body is sown at birth, and if this is what Paul here teaches, (as our author asserts,) then the body when it is sown, is alive as well as the grain. What, then, has become of this ^^ point of difference?^'' The Professor next proceeds to remark, that *' as there is something in the plant which dies, so there is also some- thing which does not die :" and that " we cannot, of course, suppose that the apostle intended to say that this embryo died, although this is the very point of Thomas Paine's rail- ing accusation against the Scripture doctrine of the resur- rection, and on the ground of which he calls St. Paul a fool; contending, that if the seed really and literally died, no plant would grow, which is indeed true" says Professor Bush. " But this evidently is not the apostle's meaning ; and if the skeptic had ever put his hand into a hill of young potatoes," &c. pp. 175, 176. Now it is well known that the Jews thought the death of the grain was necessary to its reproduction. Hence our blessed Redeemer says, in a pas- sage referred to above, " except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit." And this process of decomposition is what they meant by death; and it surely is absurd to give the term another and a different meaning, and then say that Tom Paine was right, and the apostle consequently wrong in the use of it. The reply of Watson to the " paltry and contemptible cavilling" of Paine in this instance, is so ap- propriate in its application to the foregoing remarks of Pro- fessor Bush, that I shall merely quote it, without adding any thing further than to express my regret that our good friend the Professor has placed himself in such questionable society. " Every husbandman in Corinth," says the Bishop, " though unable, perhaps, to define the term death, would understand the apostle's phrase in a popular sense, and agree with him, that a grain of wheat must become rotten in the ground before it could sprout; and that, as God 208 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY raised from a rotten grain of wheat, the roots, the stem, the leaves, the ear of a new plant, he might also cause a new body to spring up from the rotten carcass in the grave." Let- ter IX. It is useful once in a while for the mariner, as he passes onward to the destined port, to look at his compass and chart, and institute a reckoning, in order to ascertain not only how far he has proceeded, but whether he be truly in the right way : and this is the more important if his way be in the vicinity of shoals and quicksands, and the atmos. phere be filled with fog. We may perhaps here act wisely, if we imitate his example. Following in the wake of our author, we have had a foggy atmosphere ever since we started. We have opened up the shallows (see ^n. I., 144-147) thus far; but here we deem it important to pause for a moment and examine our chart. The question which Paul is discussing is, " How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?" We have remarked, that <^s is used here to give force to the in- terrogation. It is used as >«§ in verse 13. As we have re- marked above also, there can be not the shadow of a doubt that the questions are one — that iyi^ovrctt and 8g;tovT*/ both refer to the same thing, and mean, prodeimt, or come forth. The objector, therefore, supposed that the resurrection of the body, (not the future state of man, as Professor Bush seems to think,) is impossible. And hence the strength of his objection consists in this : — If the dead are raised again, what body can they have, with which to return to life? But they have no ^^^^, or body now, for (by hypothesis) it has been burned up, or devoured by beasts. And hence the dead are not able to return to life again. This is the ob- jection ; and it is easy to imagine how delighted those old philosophising objectors would have been, could they then have had a copy of Professor JBush's Anastasis. This is the question, nor must we permit ourselves to lose sight of it in this section. The Professor, in his remarks on Paul's reply, perpetually loses sight of it. But while we continue to analyze what he has offered, we must still carefully note the direction to which the compass points. The single object of Paul in this branch of his argu- ment, is, by means of the illustration taken from the sowing and springing up of grain, to repel or refute the assertion of the skeptic, that the resurrection of the body is impos- ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. 209 sible. I say " body" because even Professor Bush will not venture to deny that the objection is based upon the asserted impossibility, not of the future state of man, (which would turn the reply of the apostle into sheer absurdity,) but of the resurrection of the body. And if this be the force of the objection, then Paul's reply contemplates that resur- rection. It is, therefore, the impossibility of the resur- rection of the body which was asserted by the objector; and, by consequence, the clear possibility of it which Paul is maintaining. He enters into no philosophical specula- tions ; but states a plain matter of fact. The grain which you sow, says he, dies — it decays ; until it is no longer grain, but a mere putrescent mass. So, also, it is with the human body ; it decays, and is a body in form no more. But God gives to each seed which you sow, a body; (see ver. 38, which Professor Bush, with an unfairness which nothing can justify, and the object of which is perfectly ap- parent, has separated from its connexion.) It is not nature which does it, but God by his mighty power. He raises the beautiful stalk and ear from the putrid mass of the naked grain which you have sown. And the God who is able to do this, is able also to raise from the decayed body of man, the glorious body of which I speak. And you are an a§':v) or a fool, says Paul to the objector, if you do not see that the God who does the one can do the other. The question, as to what amount of the grain of seed which is sown enters into the transformed body of the bladcj stalk, and ear, is a question which has nothing to do with the point which Paul is elucidating. In meeting the objec- tion, based upon an alleged impossibility, he proceeds upon the assumption, which even the skeptic durst not refuse to grant, that there is a clear identity between the seed sown, and the body which God gives it. Such an identity as would justify the husbandman, as he looked over his field of grain after it was grown, in saying, there is^the grain which I sowed last Fall. Nor does Paul attempt to tell what constitutes this identity. The indisputable fact itself is suffi- cient. And so, also, is it with the human body, as he pro- ceeds to remark in vers. 42-44, a passage which will come up for consideration hereafter. These remarks will serve to show how inappropriate are the criticisms of Professor Bush on pp. 176-182 ; in which he takes up for consideration the question of the gernif from which 18* 210 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY the resurrection body, as it is asserted by some, will be ela- borated. But the point which Paul is here considering calls for no such discussion, and therefore I shall pass it by with a few brief remarks. It is upon this utter misunderstanding or misapprehension of the point of the apostle's reasoning that the Professor builds those fanciful notions (taken from Goethe) of the spiritual body being a germ, and leaving the material body as a germ, and elaborating for itself a spiritual corporeity from the spiritual elements by which it is sur- rounded, &c. &c., and upon which he dwells, and rings the changes etiam ad nauseam. The argument of Paul has no more to do with such notions than it has with Alnaschar's dreams. But let us attend to a few of the more important remarks of our author on this subject. He observes that "we cannot understand the apostle's reasoning, unless he means to ajirm (!) that there is some- thing of the nature of a germ which emanates from the de- funct body, and forms either the substance or the nucleus of the future resurrection body." p. 178. And from this he would infer that the spiritual body is " eliminated at death." But Paul, as above remarked, means to affirm nothing on the subject. His argument in no sense calls for it. He denies the assertion of the fool, by stating that God would provide the body when it was needed : which he also illustrates by showing that God provides the future body of the grain that is sown and has putrified. But as to the manner of his pro- ducing it, he says nothing in either case. The Professor also rernarks, that " the only germ in the human body answering to the germ in the plant, and upon which the apostle's comparison is built, is the spiritual body itself." p. 179. Assertions are easily made; but they are of little account if wholly destitute of proof, as in this case. The apostle says nothing about germs in either case, and therefore builds no comparison upon them. Our author again remarks : " We cannot suppose Paul to have had recourse to the comparison, without having in view some point of resemblance in the two cases. That point his own words certainly develope. In regard to the grain, he affirms, ' Thou sowest not the body that shall be.' What is the correlative to this, unless it be, that * the body that dies is not the same body that shall be at or after the resurrec- tion?'" p. 179. But Professor Bush misapprehends the apostle's argument; the point of comparison, is in respect to ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. 211 God's furnishing the future body in both cases. It is as easy, says Paul, for him to do the one as the other. And the fact of the decay of the body which takes place, is no more an objection to its being reproduced by God, than the same fact would be in the case of the grain. It is amusing to notice the Professor's repeated refutation of himself. We have here another instance. He has, as above noticed, already explained " sowing" to mean birth; and now he finds that death is " the correlative" of putting the seed in the earth. The remark of Paul " Thou sowest not the body that shall be," is explained by himself in the very phrase from which Professor Bush has cut off this part: "Thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain," d\Ka yv/uvov zozkov. Granum sine culmo, sine arista, as Gro- tius explains it. It is merely a contrast between the naked unclothed grain, and the beautiful form with which God shall thereafter clothe it. The Professor again remarks: "Admit, for a moment, that the life itself of the body ceases, and that it is only after long ages of time that the succeeding corporeity ensues, and the analogy is at once destroyed. The true life of the seed is not for an instant intermitted, even in the midst of its dying; and we maintain, that it is only by the development of the spiritual body at death, and not from the entombed relics in the grave, that any parallelism in the two cases can be recognized." p. 180. But we have already remarked that the comparison of the apostle and that of Professor Bush differ toto codo. Paul makes no such comparison as the Professor institutes; and therefore it would be strange indeed if he could see any parallelism. " The analogy that is destroyed" therefore, is not that instituted by Paul, but by the Professor. This important passage, therefore, not only fails to furnish our author the least support, hut it bears the most decided testimony to the doctrine which he has endeavoured to im- pugn. V. The next passage quoted by Professor Bush is the fol- lowing: " But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body. All flesh is not the same flesh ; but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds. There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial — but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial another. 212 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differeth from another star in glory." 1 Cor. xv. 38-41. We have already remarked on our author's separating the first of these verses from its immediate connexion: and before we proceed to discuss what he has said on this branch of the apostle's argument, we shall follow the apostle him- self. He now drops the illustration taken from the grain, and anticipates an objection which he saw would be offered to the doctrine itself — or rather perhaps, to present another view, or illustration of the doctrine, by which to obviate the objection stated in ver. 35. And the connecting link between this argument and the one taken from the grain is this — ' There is a diversity of bodies, and I have shown that it is not absurd to believe that a dead body may be revived in another form.' He then proceeds. ' But omitting further re- mark on the grain, let us come directly to the subject of ani- mated nature. You say that it is absurd to suppose that the decayed and dissolved flesh of animals can be revived — and therefore, as man is an animal, that it is absurd to suppose his body will ever rise again. But stop — there are different kinds of flesh. One appertains to men, another to beasts, another to fish, and another to birds: and in fact this is a diversity which you find in the heavenly bodies as well as in things on earth. You are compelled to agree with me, there- fore, that there is this difference — and I willingly agree with you that there is to be no resurrection of beasts, birds, &c. But the flesh of man, (created in the image of God, and re- deemed by the blood of his Son,) is far different from the flesh of brutes. Man is also compounded of body and spirit, which is not the case with the brutes. And therefore there is not the same necessity for their bodies to be raised. Here, then, is a difference not only in the flesh, but in the destiny. The one requires a body, for the spirit lives. In the other case there is no spirit to live, and a body is, therefore, not needed.' And having obviated this objection, the apostle continues his argument in ver. 42, seq.: " So also is the re- surrection of the dead," &c. Our author commences his criticism on these verses with a remark of his own, and another of Mr. Locke, both aim- ing to present a construction of ver. 38, that might enervate the argument which it furnishes, (taken in its proper con- nexion,) against their notions of the resurrection. But we are ASSERTED AND DEPENDED. 213 content to take the passage to mean, that the body which is produced from the grain, is the body given it by God. This is what Paul asserts, and neither Professor Bush nor Mr. Locke have offered a syllable which can set aside its plain and obvious import. It is abundantly sufficient for the argu- ment. In order to favour his theory, the Professor, remarking on the phrase, " there are also celestial bodies," o-^^at* «,Toy- gdvm, ver. 40, observes : " It is, we believe, not unusual for expositors to understand the phrase, ' bodies celestial,' of the sun, moon, and planets. But this is entirely a modern diction. There is no evidence, we believe, that the original o-JjfAstrct was ever used in this sense by the ancient writers, sacred or profane. The * bodies,' of which the apostle here speaks, are human bodies, and, as he says, there are (not shall be) celestial human bodies, what other inference can we draw, than that they are the glorified resurrection-bodies in which the risen saints now exist?" p. 182. But what does he mean by " entirely a modern diction?" He will find the phrase so expounded (to go no further back) by Erasmus, 300 years ago; and by Estius, and by Parous, and Crellius, and Poole, and a whole mass of other expositors not gene- rally reckoned amongst the moderns. It is not, therefore, a " modern diction," though our alhor's theory might require it to be so. Nor is he more successful in his effort to prove that a-J^fAatrct cannot be here employed metaphorically by the apos- tle. Josephus employs the word with a latitude that suffi- ciently justifies such a usage. In De Bell. II., cap. II., §. 5, speaking of Archelaus, he says : " He desires to obtain the shadow of that kingly authority, of which he had already seized the substance," (or body,) o-ntav Aimcrofxim Cctc, Hb. I., cap. 11. The Latins, also, employ the corresponding term in their own own language with equal latitude of signification. They speak of aquoe corpus, Lu- 214 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY cret. de Rerum Nat. II., 232; and they apply the same term in designation of a tree, a rock, a city, nation, &c., &c., so frequently that it would be idle to specify instances. Now in all these instances, (or to speak only of the refer- ences to the Greek writers,) <^^y-^ is used metaphorically, Professor Bush to the contrary notwithstanding. Such an use of it is, therefore, allowable. And hence it is allowable for Paul to employ it in this manner. But we cannot consent to rest the question here. The metaphorical "use of '^'^h-'*- and corpvs is frequent among the Romans and Greeks : and that Paul employs the Greek term to designate the sun, moon, and stars, is plain from the explanation of his meaning which he gives in ver. 41. But where, let me ask, do the Greeks or Latins ever employ either of these terms to designate a tertium quid? for such Professor Bush declares the resurrection-6oQ^ies to be. This surely is a " modern diction :" and I hesitate not to say that he can find no instance of such an usage in any of the writers referred to. How vain, then, not to say, prepos- terous, are the inferences which he has attempted to deduce in favour of his theory, from an explanation of the term, which is not only destitute of any positive evidence in its favour, but has the entire usage of language against it. On page 183 he ventures also most egregiously to mis- represent the apostle, by saying, that " he proceeds to show, by similitudes drawn from various natural objects, that man may have a different body fitted to the different state in which he enters at death.'''' Now there is not in the whole chapter the remotest allusion to any such idea whatever. It is painful to be compelled to contradict my friend so roundly. But an author who will venture upon such utterly baseless assertions must expect to be contradicted. The Professor closes his remarks on these verses by quoting an excellent note (which in no sense justifies his theory, however,) from the commentary of Mr. Barnes, in loco: and happy had it been for him had he, in expounding the argument of this chapter, only followed the principles which guided that popular expositor. VI. The next passage quoted and commented on, is the following : " So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is . " • . . . , . . . . . sown m corruption, it is raised m incorruption : it is sown in dishonour, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power : it is sown a natural body, it is raised ASSERTED AND DEPENDED, 215 a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body." 1 Cor. xv. 42-44. The first clause of this passage contains what critics call a metonomy of the adjunct for the subject. For ^vo- a-Tci(rig tZv ven^Zv is here to be taken for those who arise from the dead. It is a figure often used by Paul, e.g., circum- cision often means those who have been circumcised ; Rom. ii. 25, and iii. 30, and iv. 9, 12; Eph. ii. 11; Phil. iii. 3,5, and vice versa, with uncircumcision. Election is also taken for the elect ; see Rom. xi. 7. The import of the phrase, therefore, is, so shall things be in the resurrection of the dead — the body, which previously had decayed, &c., &c., shall then be thus, or so. The apostle here begins to apply the illustrations which he had been presenting — q. d, ' The different kinds of grain which are sown, though they decay, yet do not mingle. A mysterious arrangement of Providence keeps them dis- tinct. That same Providence keeps the body, or flesh, of man distinct, though it decay, or, to human appearance, is utterly consumed, or incorporated with other bodies. Now in the resurrection of the dead, that which is thus sown in corruption, is raised in incorruptibility,' &c., &c. But here we are met with a " take heed" from Professor Bush; who begins his criticism on this passage as follows : " The true purport of this language is not so obvious as might at first blush appear. The point of difficulty is, to determine whether the * sowing,' as applied to the body, is to be understood of its consignment to the dust, or, as Whitby suggests, of the corrupt and corruptible nature in which man is born into the world." p. 184. It is a " point of difficulty," however, which he feels no difficulty in deter- mining. With little or no " argument from reason," or Scripture either, he soon decides that " the * sowing,' there- fore, is our birth in Adam, or in the nature of Adam, and our resurrection but the finished result of our birth by re- generation in Christ." " So far is the apostle from teach- ing, that the body is * sown,' by being deposited in the grave. It is sown at its birth, and not at its death.''"' pp. 185, 186. It is not singular that Professor Bush should so strenu- ously insist on this point, for he well knew that unless it could be carried, his whole theory would share the fate of every other castle built merely in the air; and which has 216 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY elaborated for itself an aerial corporeity, from the aerial ele- ments by which it is surrounded — that is, it would be sadly in want of a foundation. But let us canvass his reasons for announcing this conclusion. He says 1. " The dying affirmed of the seed is not strictly parallel of the dying which holds good of the body. In the one case it takes place after the subject is deposited in the earth, in the other before.''^ p. 185. But how would such a conside- ration tend to show that therefore " the sowing" referred to must mean " our birth in Adam?" There is an awful hia- tus between the premises and conclusion, and one which Professor Bush can never pass over. The proper inference from this asserted failure in the " strict parallel," is, as we have shown already, that Paul intended no such parallel. He does not refer to the " grain" or " flesh" for the purpose of drawing out imaginary parallels, but to refute the ob- jector's assertion that the resurrection of the body is impos- sible. And he does this by a simple reference to an undis- puted fact. The question as to " germs," &c. (fee. has nothing to do with his argument. The objector affirmed that a dead and decayed body could not be made to revive : Paul denies the assertion, and refutes it by a reference to the grain. And this is the sum total of the ^^ parallelism^'' which he draws. 2. " But,^ says the Professor, " another consideration of still greater weight is derived from the contrast which follows between Adam and Christ. * And so it is written, the first Adam was made a living soul, Oa:« f^'^*») the last Adam a quickening spirit.^ But how does this illustrate the case of the natural and spiritual body? The answer to this is sug- gested by the import of the terms which the writer employs. The original word for soul {4'^X") is that which is always em- ployed by the apostle to denote the animal soul, or the life of the natural or animal man, as contradistinguished from spiritual. It is the substantive from which is formed the adjective >;t'Ko?, always translated in the New Testament natural.* Now the apostle had just said that ' it is sown a * This declaration may serve as a tolerably good illustration of the carelessness with which Professor Bush makes assertions. As to its being " always translated," &c., it is used but three times in the New Testament, besides in the verses before us ; to wit, 1 Cor. ii. 14, and Jas. iii. 15, and Jude 19, in only one of which it is translated " na- tural:' ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. 217 natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.' Here he refers to the origin of these two bodies. The one is derived from Adam, the other from Christ." p. 185. On a former page we have clearly explained the import o^^vxMoc as used in the J^few Testament. It means the soul of the unrenewed man as distinguished from the regenerate. And as to this "consideration of still greater weight," which comprises every thing that Professor Bush. has offered in defence of his construction of o-na'g®, it will be found, on exa- mination, to have no more weight than the one which pre- cedes it. For in the^rs^ place, he has attempted a distinction which is subversive of his whole theory of a spiritual body, possessed in this life, and eliminated at death by natural laws. As we have abundantly shown already, he makes the spiritual body as much a part of man in the present life, as his material body: and of course the one is as much de- rived from Adam as the other. His theory throughout assumes that the doctrine of immortality is the same as that of the resurrection: and therefore if man be im- mortal, he obtains his immortal part through the instru- mentality of Adam as well as his mortal. A reference to the delineation of his theory in chap. II., part I., above, wilt show this at once. And therefore to say that man receives his animal body from Adam, and his spiritual body from Christ, is, according to this theory, to talk sheer nonsense. How is a spiritual body eliminated by mere natural laws, and yet derived from the mere grace or mercy of Christ ! The resurrection of the body, being a pure miracle, is effected by the power and grace of Christ ; and natural laws have no- thing to do with it. But secondly: according to this theory the spiritual body ife sown^ as well a« the animal body. The *' sowing," says Professor BUsh, refers to our birth: and at our birth, even he himself will admit, we have a a-^f*<^, a 4"A:"v and a 5ry«yyua-, a body, soul, and spirit. Now when the spirit leaves the body at death, it leaves it with a " tertium quid— an inter- mediate something between the cogitative faculty and the gross body," p. 78; (that is, something between matter, and the " bare power of thought/" p. 72,) and this intermediate something, " is intimately related to the spiritual life im- planted in regeneration;" (p. 140,) " it constitutes the inner essential vitality of our present bodies, and it lives again in another state, because it never dies." p. 70. "We know that 19 218 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY there are these subtle elements mixed up in the grosser ma' terials of oUr bodies, with which our mental operations are connected, and upon which they are dependent, and we cannot know but that they may exist separate from our bodies, and form in fact, in the strictest propriety of speech, a spiritual body." p. 77. Now if all this be so, (and Professor Bush surely will not question it,) then it follows irresistibly that we derive our spiritual body from Adam, no less than our natural body. And, therefore, if" sowing" here, relates to our birth, as the Professor asserts, then, Paul's language amounts to no more than this, that the natural body and the spiritual body are both sown. Where, then, is this derivation of the one from Adam and the other from Christ? And such being the reasons, therefore, by which Professor Bush seeks to justify his reference of privative, andT/^«s (the very etymology is enough to show its import, and such is, in fact, its meaning in the New Testament;) which, besides in the verse before us, is used but six times in the New Testament. In Rom. i. 26, it is rendered "riZe;" and in ix. 21, '•^dishonour;'''' in 1 Cor. xi. 14, ^^ shame f'' in our text, "dishonour;" and so, also, in 2 Cor. vi. 8, and in 2 Tim. ii. 20 ; and in 2 Cor. xi. 21, "reproach:" in every instance it is used in a had moral sense, "at/^o? is used but four limes, and in each of these, in strict accordance with its etymological import ; see Matt. xiii. 57; Mark vi. 4; 1 Cor. iv. 10, and xii. 23. On the term da-6mU it is unnecessary to dwell. It is used to mean, weakness^ infirmity, imbecility, either of body or mind, &c. And on the phrase, o-w^^t 4y;t<;iov, we have dwelt already. Who can look over this character which Socinians have, by clear implication, bestowed upon infants, and not say, "Alas ! poor little creatures — this is worse than the decre- tum horribile itself — it is worse than the worst forms of imputation," &c., &c. But there is no escape from these consequences, if "soiiJn" here means what these men assert. The infant when born must be a subject of moral corrup- ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. 221 tion in its worst forms ; it must be " without honour," " dis- honourable," " vile," &c., &c.; and as these things cannot, of course, be predicated of it in consequence of its actual transgressions, the poor Socinian and Pelagian have no other alternative but to hold on to their bodies, and so give up their definition of o-Tni^ce-^ or else admit the doctrine of imputation, and that, too, in a form (which is not by any means the true one, but) in which they have ever carica- tured it, and gloried in holding it up to contempt. 2. But again. I have already remarked that this is the branch of the argument in which Paul applies his illustra- tions so as to answer directly the question of the fool. That question, ivas concerning the dead — not bi?'th but death. — How are the dead raised up? And if Paul had replied to this question by telling the objector how people ivere horn, he would have acted as neither Professor Bush, nor any other man of sense would have done; and might well have apprehended that his «?§oi' would have been returned with interest. And therefore Paul is not here speaking of per- sons being born, but of their consignment to earth.* But the clause (in v. 42,) which I have explained above, clearly exhibits the connecting link between the reasoning of the apostle here, and the illustration taken from the grain. And as Piscator remarks " ' Is sown\ here, means the same thing as * is buried.^ It is a metaphor, by which the apos- tle changes by an alternation the words concerning agricul- ture. For in verse 36, above, he attributes those things to the seed which pertain to our bodies: but here, on the con- trary he attributes to our bodies what pertains to the seed." Scholia in loco. " Serititr; id est, sepelitur. Mefaphora, qua Apostolus verba eva\xa'| permutavit de industria. nam supr. 36, semini ea attribuit, quae pertinent ad corpora nos- tra: hic contra corporibus nostris tribuit quse pertinent ad semen." The profoundly learned Glassius, in his Philologia Sacra, Lib. V. Tract. I. cap. 11, p. 1736, makes the same remark almost in the same words. And so far as mere authority goes, his opinion is of more worth than that of all * The learned and acute Cloppenburg- remarks with great force, "Nam h versu 35, sermo fuit de mortuis, ut non venerit Apostolo in mentem loqui de generatione per seminis traducem : sed loquutus est de sepultura cadaverum, quse instar seminis terrcB mandantur, in spem messis, quce futura est in consummatione sceculi ; confer Joh, xii. 24, et Matt. xiii. 39." Confut. Socin. Cap. 8. 19* 222 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY the Socinians who have ever lived. Grotius also remarks that " when the apostle might have said, It is buried, he preferred to say It is sown, that he might not depart from the foregoing similitude taken from the grain." Grotius wrote this also after he had been enlightened by the Socin- ian criticisms. (See his letter to Crellius in Vol. III. of the Fratres PolonicB.) It is needless to refer to other commen- tators. On this principle, therefore, does the apostle employ the language referred to, and respond directly ^ (that is without a formal analogy,) to the objection which he has been dis- cussing: q. d. "It is true, it is, as you intimate, sown in corruption; but this is no objection, for it is raised again in incorruption. True, it is sown in dishonour, for it has been the instrument of sinning against God ; but this dishonour shall not cleave to it hereafter, for it shall be raised in glory. I admit all that you say of its weak and wretched condition ; but God will, in the resurrection, impart to it new vigor; it shall be raised in power. True it is but a mere animal body when sown ; it had never been entirely obedient to the spirit ; and therefore not fit for the glory which is to be re- vealed ; but God shall raise it a spiritual body ; which shall be better adapted to the use of the TrnZf/.A^ than it was in this world even to the 4'';t« itself." The argument of the apos- tle requires, therefore, that o-Tnie^u, should be here interpreted of the consignment of the body to the earth ; according to the sentence " Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou re- turn." 3. But in addition to these considerations, I remark that Professor Bush is not able to adduce a single instance from the New Testament, the LXX., or elsewhere, of o-Triie^a, being used simply for the birth of a human being. The corres- ponding term in the Old Testament, is jjnN which is trans- lated by o-n-ii^a in the LXX. almost always. I have exam- ined twenty-eight instances of its use, and in no one case is it employed in any way that would at all countenance such an idea. The term is mostly employed in reference to the literal planting of seed. But in Judges ix, 45, it refers to the scattering of salt as seed. In other places it is used figuratively in reference to the performance of works either good or evil, which will at the great harvestof the judgment, produce their appropriate fruit. See Job iv. 8; Prov. xxii. 8; ASSERTED AKD DEFENDED. 223 Hosea viii. 7; and also Psalm cxxvi. 5; Prov. xi. 18; Jer. iv-. 3. (Compare also Gal. vi. 7, 8.) Its primary import, therefore, is simply to scatter. Its secondary, to sow, or plant seed. See Hosea ii. 23, Jer. xxxi. 27. In Niphal it means to be soivn, as a field, and also to be scattered as seed; and hence tropically it means to be impregnated, Numb. v. 28. In Hiphil, to bear seed as a plant, Gen. i. 11, and tropically to conceive seed, as a woman. But even here it is, by the writer, most carefully distinguished from birth itself, (Lev it. xii. 2,) for 3>n? refers to the sowing, ov impregnation; which is Garefully distin- guished from n*?"" to bring forth. In all these -instances, which serve to exhibit the Hebrew usage, as well as that of crtg/ga) with the LXX., there is nothing thstt can be tortured even into an analogy to the meaning contended for by Pro- fessor Bush, and the Pelagians, and Socinians. And the reason is plain; — birth, so far from being a sowings is the production o{ the fruit itself : and to confound such an etet- nal distinction in the very nature of things,- would be to ren- der language itself a perfect chaos, and wholly incapable of asserting any thing. ■ • •. • •. . ' An appeal to the New Testament, will; brmg us to the same result. The term is used about forty-four times,. in' addition to the instances in the passage before us : • Nor caii Professor Bush find one instance which will at aU justify hiS" reference of it to birth. There is one that may, it is true, be thought to squint that way, and as, the- Professor has jiot regarded the rules of exegesis very strictly where his theory is concerned, he may think it will afford him some support. He is welcome to all the assistance which it will yield him, however : but it will require " a length of rational and exe- getical hardihood" to which he has not yet attained, to re- present Paul as taking an analogy from the workings of Satan, to illustrate the subject of the resurrection. The instance is Matt. xiii. 38, 39. " The tares are the children of the- evil one. The enemy that sowed them is the devil :" o <^e tpck^^ « TTTsi^Ac ctvra, iffTiv tTmCoAof. Socinians might' not care about violating the rules of language, in order to maintain their notions; but Professor Bush will admit, that ,*uTa cannot possibly relate to wJ here as its antecedent; and catl.on■ly reIate to ^'^aW /ares.. ■ •.•■'• The rendering of <^'^«g« propounded- by Professor Btrsbi therefore, has not only nothing to support it, but is in direct 224 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY violation of all the laws and analogies of language ; and of course is undeserving of any regard. 4. It may be further remarked that in the hctwd^ or alter- nation which Paul here uses, (and which we have referred to above,) the laws of language perfectly justify him in such an application of the illustration he had been using, as to represent our bodies as sown, when deposited in the earth, as the seed-corn, to which he refers, had been. And then he could have found instances both of Hebrew and Greek usage to justify such an application o^ a-7ru^a>^ even if his illus- tration did not call for it. I have not searched for instances confirmatory of this, but know that the representation can be fully established, should any one call it into question. A single one just occurs to mind, found also in a book quoted by Paul in this very chapter. Hosea (chap. ii. 23,) refers to Jehovah as saying, " And I will sow her (my spouse) to myself in the earth;" rendered by the LXX., »ati )f yiic. Now at the time referred to, the spouse of God was represented as dead ; and the idea is, I will sow her in the earth as seed, from which a new and more spiritual church shall arise. I have just opened Pareus in loco., and find the following beautiful annotation, singularly corrobora- tive of the above representation. " Primus spurius erat lidsreel, semen Dei, sic dictus, quia Deus populum contu- macem erat disseminaturus seu dispersurus. Nunc convertit etymon in melius: Ego seminaho earn mihi in terra: hoc est, faciam vere semen Dei, quod vox sonat: et quidem seminaho earn non in aere, ut dispergatur a ventis, sed in terra, ut crescat; et seminaho mihi, ut crescat mihi in pecu- lium. Promittit igitur novae Ecclesise ex dissipatione collec- tionem, et dilatationem in toto terrarum orbe per vocem Evangelii, quod vere est semen Dei immortale ex quo na- scuntur filii Dei. Matt. xiii. 37; 1 Pet. i. 23." This is be- yond doubt the true idea of the passage. The irresistible inference from all this is, that *' sown," in the passage before us, is to be interpreted of the deposition of the body into the earth: and by consequence, that the body which dies, and is consigned to the earth, is raised again from the dead. As ^^,«a is confessedly the nominative of a-Triieirrcu .\\iQ conclusion is utterly unavoidable: "/if, (the "§ ^3 pfia^Tcv rovro, &c. Because if it did not put on incorruption and immortality, then flesh and blood must inherit the kingdom of God. After a passing remark respecting the phrase " flesh and blood," and an attempt to show (without investigating the passage) that the change spoken of here, is predicated only of those who shall then be alive, the Professor proceeds as follows: "But we here encounter a great difficulty in view of our previous position, that the true resurrection takes place at the death of every individual believer, when he emerges from a material into a spiritual body. Is it not clearly implied, not to say exprcssly asserted, in this pas- sage, that the resurrection of all the righteous is simulta- neous, and that this event is still future, to occur at the epoch of the second advent, and in conjunction with the translation of the living saints?" " We can have no object in denying or disguising the fact, (continues he,) that these words have very much the air of directly contravening the general tenor of our interpretation of the preceding portions of this chapter. Still, if our pre- vious train of reasoning be sound, [a most important proviso, truly,] — if our conclusions be fairly sustained by the evi- dence adduced — it is certain that these words rightly i/n- derstood cannot be in conflict with them. Every part of the word of God must be in harmony with every other part, though apparent discrepancies may exist, to the clear con- ciliation of which we may not always be competent. In the present case, we are so strongly persuaded of the truth of our previous conclusions, founded both upon the intrinsic nature of the subject itself, and upon the just interpretation of language, that our confidence in them is no wise shaken by the literal reading of a passage, which seems at first view to enforce entirely another theory, (!) It remains, therefore, to inquire in what manner this declaration of the apostle, is to be made consistent with what we conceive to be the gene- ral teaching of the New Testament on the subject of the resurrection, viz., that it is the same with the future life of the righteous" pp. 190, 191. From this train of remark the reader will at once see that 228 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY the " argument from reason," and the " principle of accom- modation," are both to be brought in to the aid of the Profes- sor in his difficulty : and hence is apparent, the importance of the thorough examination to which we have subjected them in the formor part of our work. No Christian doubts that the Bible, when " rightly understood," is perfectly con- sistent with itself; but the question here is not as to this point, but whether Professor Bush's theory is consistent with the Bible 1 and this he himself will admit, is an entirely dif- ferent question. In passing, I would request the reader to notice also, the distinct announcement in the closing para- graph of this quotation, that the New Testament doctrine of the resurrection, is the same with the future life of the righ- teous : that is, in other words, that so far as the righteous are concerned, the New Testament doctrine of the resurrec- tion, and the New Testament doctrine of immortality, are one and the same thing. It would be out of place to discuss this subject here ; yet we cannot but express our regret, that, as the Professor has told us that the wicked are not partakers of the resurrection, and yet live hereafter " in spiritual tene- ments," he had not also told us whence their spiritual tene- ments were derived, and wherein they differed from those of the righteous. Are they not immortal, and incorruptible, &c. &c. ? But to return. The Professor has, with tolerable fair- ness, stated the difficulty, presented by this text, to the adop- tion of his theory : let us therefore follow him in order to ascertain how he obviates it. It is evident from the foregoing extract that it has in nowise daunted him. So far, how- ever, as the remarks are concerned, respecting his " previous train of reasoning," and his " conclusions founded both upon the intrinsic nature of the subject itself, and upon the just interpretation of language," he can obtain no assistance in this case: for we have demonstrated that his previous train of reasoning is not sound, and that his conclusions, " founded upon the intrinsic nature of the subject," are false, and his rules for V the just interpretation of language," utterly falla- cious; and finally, that he has totally misapprehended the apostle's argument throughout the chapter, and has con- stantly put upon his language a meaning not only wholly arbitrary, but one which it cannot be made to bear. If, therefore, the Professor would remove the obstacle which this passage puts in his way, it must be "by a purely inde- pendent process." ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. 229 He commences his effort with some observations concern- ing the expectations which the ancient Jews entertained respecting the conning of their Messiah; and he remarks that they confounded his second coming, with his first, by overlooking his previous ordained humiliation. And after remarking that our Lord announced the fulfilments of those prophecies (on which they had based their expectations,) as still future, he says, " And let it here be remarked, that while the predictions of our Lord himself on this subject were in fact but the application of numerous Old Testament prophe- cies to their true-meant design, these predictions, thus drawn from the earlier prophets, were the foundation of all the knowledge which the apostles possessed respecting the Lord's second coming.'^ And to show that he does not mean this to be understood of the apostles while in their comparatively blind and unbelieving state during our Lord's ministry, he continues thus: *' In other words, their own announcements on the subject were not strictly original^ or uttered de novo, but were the echo of the Saviour's oracles, and of those of the Old Testament on which they were founded." And then after asserting the palpable misrepre- sentation that 1 Thess. iv. 15-17, "is but a paraphrase" of Matt. xxiv. 29-34, (by which means he hopes to get rid of the plain testimony of Paul in that passage, that he spoke, what is therein recorded, by an express and direct revela- lion from " the Lord,") he adds, *' Consequently, if the true meaning of the symbolic language in which our Lord deli- vered his predictions was not made known to the apostles, of which their writings afford no evidence , they would naturally interpret them according to the letter, and suppose a speedy fulfilment." p. 191-193. These references to the old Jewish notions, are of course to prepare the mind of the reader for the adoption of the principle that the apostles were never freed from their Jew- ish prejudices, which, consequently, must more or less have influenced their teachings. Then of course follows the infe- rence hinted at above in no ambiguous language, that the apostles were not inspired (in the sense in which the old pro- phets were) to communicate a revelation directly from hea- ven, but merely delivered their own random views, made up of the prejudices of a Jewish education, and of their own mere opinions of what Christ meant in his teachings; and, therefore, as they were mere fallible men, they could not 20 230 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY help being mistaken, at least on the subject of the resurrec- tion: so much so that reason must be called in to set the matter right, and Professor Bush as the champion of reason must come forward,' and modify the views of the church on this subject and correct the errors under which it has been labouring ever since it entertained the doctrine of the resur- rection. If this be not the clear import of the foregoing declarations, let the reader himself endeavour to explain them, in consistency with their connexion, so as to arrive at a different conclusion : for I frankly confess it transcends my powers to do so. But let us follow our author further.* After remarking that the epistles were written in the in- terval between the crucifixion and the destruction of Jerusa- lem, and that the apostles undoubtedly cherished the expec- tation that they should live until the day of judgment, he proceeds to show " from two very opposite sources," that such was truly their belief The first of these authorities is Edward Gibbon, Esq.; and from the notorious ^i^een^ A chap- ter (every section of which contains some egregious misre- presentation of the primitive church) of his " Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,'''' he makes a long extract, charging Christ and the apostles with having predicted that the day of doom would occur during the lifetime of the generation in which they lived. Professor Bush is heartily welcome to the full support of this high authority. His other " source'''' is Dr. Watts, from whose preliminary essay to his " World to Come,^^ he extracts several paragraphs intended * In this connexion (p. 192,) the Professor also repeats a remark which he had made in the Preface, page ix., to the effect that Christ promised that his Second Advent should virtually take place while some of the generation then on the stage of action should be living. The text he refers to is Matt. xvi. 28. But a reference to the parallel passages will at once show that the coming here, is the coming of the kingdom of God with potoer, Mark ix. 1, or its signal manifestation, Luke ix. 27, which Professor Bush will not deny, took place in the apostle's time. The Professor is a strenuous advocate for "a double sense^' of prophecy, (.see his ^^ Hierophant" pp. 73, 97, 121, 145, 169, and 193,) and if he will but follow each of the evangelists referred to, only a few verses afler their record of these words of Christ, he will find reason to believe that the Saviour here refers to a visible earnest and specimen of his coming personally: which Peter, who was one of the three witnesses of his transfiguration, calls the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, see 2 Pet. i. 16-18. There is, there- fore, no occasion whatever that " this declaration should be repealed.'* See Preface, page ix. ASSERTED AND DEPENDED. 231 to show that " the Christians of the first age did generally expect the second coming of Christ to judgment, and the resurrection of the dead, in that very age in which it was foretold:" and that " from the words of Christ in John xxi. 22, it is probable that the apostles themselves at firsts as well as other Christians, might derive this apprehension of his speedy coming." And from all these things the Profes- sor concludes that the apostles were mistaken as to the true time of Christ's second advent. In order that we may not lose our way, let us here pause a moment and consider where we are. We started on our course with the declaration of Paul in our eye, that the resurrection of which he treats in 1 Cor. xv., will transpire at the second coming of Christ ; but he says nothing as to the point of time when that advent will occur. Professor Bush was in our company when we started, and he set out with the avowed intention of showing us the path to his theory without going out of the way of this explicit declara- tion of the apostle. Our author admits that the way, " at first view," seems to be rather crooked, and inclining in an opposite direction; but he attributes this to the distance from which our observation has been taken — a nearer view, will, he thinks, show it to be " as straight as a rule can make it." It is true, that thus far we have not approached very near to it, but we may nevertheless here pause a moment to survey the ground already traversed. And 1. Suppose then we grant that the apostles were abso- lutely ignorant of the time when the second advent should occur, and really thought it would take place in their life- time, (which latter sentiment, by the way, we hold to be utterly false,) and what follows? — that they were mistaken about every thing? If not, then pray how does it follow because they did not know precisely when the second advent would take place that therefore they did not know that the resurrection would be simultaneous? for this is the point now before us. Suppose it should be said of Professor Bush, that hecavse he does not know ^he day of Christ's final and glorious manifestation, that therefore he does not know whether angels will attend on him then, and the whole assem- bly of the redeemed? Would not our author look with con- tempt and pity upon the man who seriously deduced such an inference from such premises! And can he not see that the inference (even on his assumed principles,) is just as 232 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY legitimate in one case as in the other? Even should we grant, therefore, all that he claims on the authority of Mr. Gibbon and Dr. Watts, it would avail him absolutely nothing so far as the true issue is concerned. The point is not, v^hen will the second advent occur? but simply, tchat will then take place? But 2. The apostles have no where asserted that Christ would come in their day, or that they believed he would. No passage intimating this can be produced. John xxi. 22, does not imply in fact any thing like it; but merely that the apostles, in their state of comparative ignorance at the time that Christ spoke these words, drew the inference referred to. From their remarks on this subject, others of " the brethren" obtained the same view, till the " saying went abroad," not that Christ would come in that generation, hvt that John would not die — which looks like anything else rather than that the advent would take place in the lifetime of that generation. But admitting that such was the inference which they drew from it, it only proves that they were then mistaken, and not that they continued in the error. And John's recording it after all the other apostles were dead, will hardly be thought to have been designed to show them that they were wrong. But we shall continue our remarks on this topic, after having heard Professor Bush somewhat further. After the quotation from Dr. Watts, he proceeds thus: *' But to all this we are aware it may be objected, that it impugns the inspiration and infallibility of the sacred writ- ings. If they laboured under a mistake on this point, how can they be said to have been prompted by the unerring guidance of the Holy Spirit? And if they have mistaken the mind of the Spirit in regard to the doctrine of the se- cond advent, why may they not have mistaken it on other doctrines, and thus the church be lefl; without an infallible standard of truth?" pp. 195, 196. The reader will note that the point previously discussed by Professor Bush was whether the apostles had mistaken the time of the second advent ; but here, he dexterously sub- stitutes ^'- doctrine,^'' and keeps up this substitution through the remainder of the discussion: so that the reader might be led to infer that the apostles had really announced nothing certain respecting that doctrine. But how does he meet this objection? Here are his words: "To this objection thus ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. 233 urged, we reply, in the first place, that it does not present a fair issue. The question is not whether the apostles have erroneously represented any doctrine which they were in- spired to deliver, but how far their inspiration extended ;" and he proceeds to say that the apostles " were made the subjects, or rather the organs of special revelations — reve- lations, lying entirely without the compass of their own un- assisted faculties;" and that so far as these "revelations, were concerned, the apostles must of course be considered as having spoken with absolute inerrancy:" that " acting as the organs of certain divine communications, it would be natural that they should exercise their thoughts upon the themes that thus expressed themselves through them. But the judgments which they personally formed on these dis- closures, being distinct from the truths themselves, may not have been free from error, simply for the reason, that they did not come really within the scope of their inspiration. The mind of the Spirit is one thing, and their personal view of its meaning is another; and it is very conceivable that we, from having more ample data, may be better able TO JUDGE OF THIS MEANING THAN THEY WERE." " We contend therefore, that it does not truly detract from Paul's claims to inspiration that he should not have understood what was not revealed, or that he should have so stated what was revealed as to evince that he had in some res- pects mistaken its true purport — that he should have put upon it a sense which we now know to be erroneous^ And " in this view" he professes to be " happy to be confirmed by the authority of Mr. Barnes, in his remarks on the very passage we are now considering." pp. 196-198. I am neither the advocate of nor apologist for the peculiar senti- ments attributed to Mr. Barnes; but should be exceedingly sorry to think that he had ever uttered any thing that would sanction this glaring neology. The passage quoted from him in this connexion, by Professor Bush, contains not the most distant endorsement of these principles, if we except a little careless verbiage at the conclusion, which ingenuity might, perhaps, compel to speak a language which it never was intended to utter. But in this very extract Mr. Barnes repeatedly declares, that, though the apostles do not profess to state the precise time in which the predicted events will occur, they yet ^^ state truly and exactly the order^^ of those events : a sentiment which the reader will agree with me in 20* 234 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODT thinking, is any thing else than an endorsement of Professor liush's views. Such, therefore, is the Professor's ^rs^ reply to the fore- going objection. The second we will attend to in its order hereafter. 1 quote these revolting sentiments from our author, not so much for the purpose of refuting them, (for their nature and tendency has been sufficiently exposed in a former chapter,) as to evince by what means he is determined to retain his theory and rid himself of the opposing testimony of the word of God. Nevertheless a few remarks on the subject in passing, will not be deemed out of place. The obvious design of these remarks of Professor Bush, is not to prepare the way for explaining the language of the apostle, so as to make it accord with the theory in ques- tion, but to get rid of its testimony altogether. Hence it is first maintained that Paul was ignorant not only of the time when the second advent should take place, (which no one known to me disputes,) but that he had mistaken the mind of the Spirit respecting the doctrine itself, and that in his writings and preaching, he had communicated his mistakes to others: and that we, in this age, may be better able to judge of the meaning of the Spirit than were the apostles themselves. Semler himself would not have dared to give utterance to sentiments like these; and yet they must be thus published to the American churches as unquestioned princi- ples of hermeneutics ! But it is apparent at a glance that on these principles the whole of the New Testament is involved in the utmost un- certainty. I could safely challenge any man to specify a single doctrine therein announced, which I could not explain entirely away without in the least deviating from the course pursued by Professor Bush with respect to the passage be- fore us. And if the apostles were so ignorant and mistaken, that we can now better understand even the revelations which they were commissioned to announce than they could them- selves, the great wonder is that Professor Bush should have thought it worth while at all to attempt a reconciliation be- tween their statements and his theory. Why not honestly stand forth, and, by virtue of his claim to understand the revelation of God better than the apostles did, at once set aside their authority? This would have been open and fair; ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. 235 and precisely what the public have a right to expect from the man who will advocate these abominable principles. With respect to the subject, or proposition upon which these inferences depend, 1 have offered a remark or two upon it a few pages back, with the intention to resume the consideration of it here. The sum total of the evidence that our author has adduced, on which to charge the apostles with mistake and error in their teachings, is simply and merely this; — they knew not the day nor the hour of Christ's advent. Then assuming that they professed to know it, and really announced that it would take place during the lifetime of that generation, he concludes that, as they were mistaken on this point, they had totally misunderstood the doctrine of the second advent, and consequently, their testi- mony on that subject can establish nothing against the truth of his theory. This is his argument in its logical depend- ence, presented in a nutshell. Now let us look at it. In addition to what has been offered on this subject al- ready, I remark that there is not a particle of evidence which goes to prove either that the apostles announced that the second advent would occur in their day, or even entertained the opinion that it would. Grotius, who I think was the father of this notion, predicates it upon the futile remark, (like Professor Bush,) that *' the prophets and apostles had not a revelation concerning every thing:" " Sicul Prophetae, ita et Apostoli non de omnibus habuere revelationem." See Append, ad lib. de Antichristo, 0pp. IV. p. 475.* Well, suppose they had not, and what follows? Why that there- fore they thought the coming of Christ would take place in their own day, and, consequently y were mistaken. This is truly drawing an inference with " a cart rope." For absurd- ity it is equal to the remark of Grotius on the same page, where, commenting on the language of the apostle in 1 Cor. XV. and 1 Thess. iv. he says that " he divides those who are raised from the dead, into two classes, to wit, those who should die before the resurrection, and those Yiho should be alive at the time when it occurred." • If any one wishes to pursue this subject, and see Grotius and Locke hjindsomely "used up" in relation to it, let him turn to Mac, knight's Preface to the 2d epist. to the Thessalonians. It is too long to extract and too excellent to abridge. See also Pres. Edward's " Miscellaneous Observations,'" Part I. Chap. II. Works VII. 221. 236 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY But says Professor Bush, " Do not some of their ex- pressions clearly intimate that the apostles believed it?" No, not one ! And suppose they have- that appearance to Professor Bush, does this prove that such was the meaning of the apostles? and are we hence to infer that they were in error, and knew nothing about the order of events at the second advent, &c. &c.? The assertors of this sentiment can find nothing in all the epistles touching this point, which for plainness and explicitness can be compared with the de- clarations of Christ. See Matt. xxiv. 34; Rev. xxii. 10, 12, &c. And if such declarations when made by the apostles, prove that they were in error, the same reasoning will prove Christ to have been in error. If the inference follows not in one case neither does it in the other. But I have detained the reader on this point long enough, and shall dismiss the subject with one or two brief remarks. And first; I am willing for the sake of the argument to admit with Dr. Watts, that the primitive Christians gene- rally may have expected the second coming of Christ in their time : but let it be remembered that *' the primitive Christians generally^^ were not inspired to teach God's truth as the apostles were. They were for the most part uninspired Jews, and had always believed that the destruc- tion of the temple and the end of the world or day of judg- ment should be synchronical. They inferred, therefore, the speedy coming of this day, from what Christ had said respecting the approaching destruction of the temple and subversion of the Jewish polity. And secondly, the apostles were so far from teaching that the second advent would occur in their day, that they esteemed the opinion to be an error of such magnitude that they formally wrote to correct it. It was for this purpose emphatically that Paul wrote his second epistle to the Thessalonians. Such was the uniform belief of the ancient church. And even the clause in 1 Thes. iv. 15, " We who are alive," (from which Mr. Locke and others have discovered that Paul expected to live till the time of the resurrection,) Chrysostom, Theodoret, (Ecumenius, Theophylact and others assert, was not intended by the apostle to mean that he expected to live till then, but " was spoken for those Christians who should be alive at that time." Hence in 2 Cor. iv. 4, he declares his own expectation of a resurrection. " He that raised up the Lord Jesus shall raise up us also by Jesus," &c.,* and hence he laboured that he ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. 237 might attain to the resurrection of the dead. Phil. iii. 11. See also 2 Thess. ii. 1, 2. Even Crellius (in 1 Cor. xv. 52,) remarks that Paul had no such hope, and announced by many declarations that he did not expect it. *' Opponit au- tem apostolus vocem, nos, mortuis, non quod Paulus omnino speraverit, se quoque ipsum una cum Corinthiis, ad quos scribebat, et quos vocula isla compleclebatur, usque ad ad- ventum Christ! fore superslitem, imo potius ex multis ejus apostoli dictis satis liquet, eum id neqvaquam sperasse." The Professor's second reply to the foregoing objection is as follows : " Our Lord's second coming, and its associated events are described in highly symbolic and prophetic terms, taken mostly from the language of the Old Testament pro- phets, and so framed as to be intrinsically obscure and capa- ble of being erroneously apprehended. Nor does it appear that Christ himself distinctly laid open to his disciples the nature of that event. Consequently, as the predictions re- specting the first coming were so worded as to be liable to misunderstanding before he came, even by the very pro- phets themselves who recorded them, so the idea seems en- tirely reasonable, that the predictions respecting his second coming may not have been perfectly understood in all re- spects even by the apostles and the primitive Christians." pp. 198, 199. But to this I reply, frst, that to predicate the issue upon the question, whether " Christ himself distinctly laid open to his disciples the nature" of his second advent, is to present a false issue. The point is not, whether Christ himself instructed them on this subject, but whether what they have offered in relation to it was by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. Here we djirm, and Professor Bush de- nies. Secondly, as to " highly symbolic and prophetic" terms, there are none of them in the passage now under discussion ; the remark, therefore, in such a connexion, is uncalled for and unwarrantable. And, in the third place, the question, as to the intelUgibleness of the old prophecies, is not, " whether the prophets themselves understood fully what they wrote," but "whether they have in their writings asserted errors and mistakes." And so of the apostles — the question is not, whether they might have entertained erro- neous views when not under the immediate inspiration of the Spirit, but whether they have taught errors and mistakes in their epistles, &c.?— a question which resolves itself sim- ply into this, " Whether all Scripture is given by inspiration 238 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY of God?" If they have inculcated "their own errors and mistakes" as the truth of God, then all Scripture is not given by inspiration. If they have not, then this discus- sion is out of place, for we are now speaking only of their writings. It is the statements which they have left on record, and which they asserted to be the truth of God, that Professor Bush is discussing ; and to these statements alone are his remarks applicable. He continues as fol- lows : "And why does their ignorance of this single point — the time and manner of the second advent — any more invali- date their inspiration than a like ignorance in the Old Tes- tament writers invalidates theirs?" But Professor Bush loses sight of the point. The question is not, whether they were ignorant of the time and manner of the second advent, but whether they have in their writings asserted on this subject what is false? Whether they have recorded their errors as the truth of God?* Let Professor Bush state an instance where either prophet or apostle asserted his own mere opinions or errors for the truth of God. He con- tinues thus : " The apostle, in the present instance, dis- closes the grand fundamental fact, that, at the time to which the Holy Spirit refers, there should be a translation of the living saints. This he has slated infallibly, because he spake as he was moved by the Holy Ghost, and how could he make any other than an infallible suggestion? But we have no evidence that the precise time of this event was any where made known," &c. p. 199. There is a want of candour in this and kindred state- ments of Professor Bush, which, taking into consideration the nature of the intensely interesting and stupendous theme before us, would justify a severity of reply, alike painful to the writer and reader. The Professor knows as well as I can tell him, that " the precise time of this event" is a sub- ject in no way connected with the question. No one asserts * If the reader would wish to consult some of the passages in which it is clearly asserted or implied, that the apostles spoke by the Spirit of God, he may turn to the following: John xiv, 16, 26, and XV. 26, and xvi. 7-15 ; (compare Matt. x. 19, 20 ; Mark xiii. 11; Luke xii. 11, 12;) and Luke xxi. 14, 15; Acts ii. 4, and iv. 13; and 1 Cor. ii. 9, 10, 12, 13, and vii. 40; Eph. iii 5; Gal. i. 12; 1 Thess. ii. 13 ; and 1 Tim. iv. 1 ; Acts xv. 23, 28 ; 2 Tim. iii. 15, 16 ; and Acts viii. 18; andxix. 6; ICor. xii. 1-11, &c., &c. ... ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. 239 that Paul knew it; and in the passage under discussion, he claims to stale merely the order of events, and leaves wholly undertermine^ the question as to the day or year of their occurrence. So far from having attempted to state that era, it can be inferred from nothing he has said, that he even claimed to know any thing about it. To charge him with mistake, therefore, on this subject, and consequent error in his announcements respecting the doctrine of the second advent, is not only to make a most unfounded and perfectly gratuitous accusation, but one which, unless openly and unambiguously retracted, must subject its author to the clear imputation of sanctioning the grossest forms of skep- ticism and infidelity. There is, besides the foregoing, a misrepresentation of the apostle in the above extract, so gross and so easily detected, that it is impossible to conceive what the Professor expected to accomplish by means of it. He represents Paul as dis- closing in the passage before us, " the grand fundamental fact," that at the period referred to, to wit, the second advent, "there should be a translation of the living saints;" and " this he has stated infallibly, because moved by the Holy Ghost." And to this, forsooth, in order to save his theory, he would limit the infallibility of the apostle's declaration. But let the reader turn back and read the passage: " Behold, I show you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump; for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall BE RAISED incorruptible, and we shall be changed." vers. 51, 52. What must be the nature of that man's powers of perception who can here see nothing asserted but the " trans- lation of the living saints;" or who is so sharpsighted as to see a difference between the authority on which it is slated that the saints should be changed, and that on which it is asserted that there will at the same time be also a resurrec- tion — a simultaneous resurrection of (at least) the righteous dead? It would be insulting the common sense of the reader to dwell upon this subject. But if, as Professor Bush asserts, the Holy Spirit infallibly announced one of these occur- rences, he also announced the other; and therefore Profes- sor Bushes theory is in direct contradiction to the infalli- ble announcements of the Holy Ghost. The Professor concludes the foregoing remarks with a criticism on Matt. xxiv. 34, " This generation shall not pass 240 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY away till all these things be fulfilled;" which he supposes to mean that " the event predicted should occur, or rather begin to occur, in the term of the natural lives of the then existing generation of men." It cannot be doubted that such an ex- position is in the strictest accordance with the true principles of prophetical interpretation.* But as the Professor is a strenuous advocate for the " double sense" of prophecy, why should he object so earnestly to the reference of ai^rn ymd here, to the Jewish nation, and as intended by our Saviour to intimate their permanently remaining distinction from all other nations, (while all other nations then on the stage of action should substantially " pass away,") until all things which he there spake should be perfectly accomplished? The primary import of ymd is not aevum, aetas, or as the Germans say ein Menschenalter, (for this is wholly second- ary,) but natales, and hence progenies, familia, genus, &c.; from which by a very natural application, it comes to mean natio. — *' This nation (whatever becomes of the other nations of earth) shall retain its distinctive character until all these things shall be fulfilled." A reference to Poole's Synopsis will show that this is an exposition of long standing, and sustained by high authority. Mede, in Fragmentis Sac. (sub finem Dissert. Ecclesiast. p. 93, or 0pp. p. 712,) gives it this exposition. Markius also sustains it, see Exercit. Exeget. p. 566; J.Christian Wolfius also in Cura Philol. et Crit. p. 533: StoJcius also, Clavis Novi Test, sub voce, ysvid, p. 227; Her- manus Venema, also, see Dissert. Sac. p. 236-7, Lib. i. cap. xi. in fine. Beza translates y^vid by natio seven times in Matthew and twice in Luke. And if Professor Bush will take his concordance and run through the word as used in the New Testament, he will find that it may properly be so translated much oftener. See Matt. xiii. 39, 41, 42, 45, and xvi. 4; and Luke xi. 29, 30, 31, 50, 51; Phil. ii. 15; Matt. xi. 16; Mark viii. 12, &c. Such a rendering of the text in question seems also to accord better with the declaration Jer. xxxi. 35, 36. These things should certainly have led our author to hesitate before charging this interpretation with doing " the most downright violence''' to the words in ques- tion ; and as he has offered no reasons for this assertion, but * See for example Rev i. 1, where the phrase "things which must shortly come to pass," (see also ver. 3,) unquestionably means " things which must shortly begin to come to pass." ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. 241 affirms it on the weight of his own authority, perhaps the foregoing authorities may collectively amount to an equal weight. In the next paragraph the Professor repeats the revolting sentiments upon which we have animadverted above. For the sake of the curiosity of the thing, I will present the reader with a specimen : " The preceding remarks may, perhaps, be considered as having levelled an avenue of ap- proach to the true view of the apostle's language. He has faithfully and unerringly announced that part of the divine counsels which relates to the transformation of the living saints at the period referred to, whatever that period may be. He has informed us that they shall undergo a change equi- valent to that which accrues to the risen, i. e. the re-living dead. He undoubtedly supposes that this change was to occur simultaneously with that promised advent of the Sa- viour that was to be ushered in during the life-time of that generation — a supposition built upon the letter of numerous predictions, but which the event has shown to be, in this respect, erroneous." p. 200. This is sufficient to show that we have not misapprehended the meaning of our author in our remarks on the previous quotations. The language of Paul in the passage before us, evinces to the mind of the Professor that he " undoubtedly supposed" what is clearly erroneous: and hence there is no necessity for explaining the text, as its testimony either pro or contra is not of any account. Truly this is reconciling Scripture with reason, in perfect accordance with what he avows as " correct prin- ciples of interpretation." After a few remarks on the Judgment (which will be hereafter noticed,) the Professor proceeds to close his re- marks on this passage: — " In the mean time," says he, " let no man suppose he can reject the view now suggested, and fall back upon one that is free from equal or greater diji- culties.^^ This is in the style of a noted remark at the close of the " Confessions^^ of Rousseau. But I deny it wholly, and call upon Professor Bush to prove it by showing that those who entertain the doctrine of the resurrection of the body, are, in order to maintain it, necessitated to charge the apostles with teaching mistakes and falsehoods for truth. I throw back the assertion, therefore, upon Professor Bush, and pronounce it to be as destitute of truth as it is of Chris- tian propriety. 21 242 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY But, says the Professor, "The single declaration of the Apocalypse, * The leaves of the tree shall he {\) for the healing of the nations, (Gentiles),' leaves all the common theories of the future at fault, because they afford no solu- tion of the problem, 'What Gentile nations remain to be healed in heaven V " p. 202. But suppose this were even so, and how would it justify the author in charging Paul with teaching mistakes and errors? No one needs any "theory of the future," in order to maintain the doctrine of the resurrection of the body; and it is perfectly nugatory to make such a remark in such a connexion, and pretend that it has any application to the subject. But further: the reader will notice how easy it is for Professor Bush, in order to support his theory, to take away symbols from where they really are, and place others where there are none. A few pages back he pretended to find them (in 1 Cor. xv. 50-53,) where there are none; and now he pretends there are none in Rev. xxii. 2, which is notoriously full of them. But thirdly, even taking it literally, as the Professor does, his exposition and question are wholly at fault. For the New Jerusalem spoken of has come down out of heaven (chap. xxi. 1-4,) to the new earth, (v. 23, 24,) and in it was the throne from which the crystal stream emanated; (ch. xxii. ],) and along that river were the trees, of whose leaves the Pro- fessor speaks, (v. 2.) The question as to "Aeare«," there- fore, is out of place. And as to the word " healed,'''' if the Professor had looked at the original he would have lost his confidence in the question he propounds. e^ATnia. (from Bi^ATTivo) ministro, servo, see Wahl and Bretschneider,) means properly ministerium, or as Wahl defines it in German, Dienstleistung, that is, rendering of service; and the passage which is so formidable to Professor Bush, means no more than that the leaves of the tree of life were for the ser- vice of the nations. Or, if he will contend for a stricter etymological rendering of the term, let him take the follow- ing, which perfectly consists with the last named : " The leaves of the tree were for the continuance of the health of the nations;" i. e. a pledge for the continuance of the divine favour to all eternity. As Professor Bush has not attempted, on philological grounds, to invalidate the testimony which this passage bears to the utter falseness of his theory, we have nothing to offer that can present the truth which it asserts more plainly than ASSERTED AND DEPENDED. 243 our own excellent translation of it. It announces that the resurrection is future, and that it will be a simultaneous event, to occur at the sounding of the last trump, at which time also those who are alive shall be changed from a mortal condition to immortality, and from corruption to incorrup- tion. Such is the clear and unambiguous testimony of the apostle, and therefore the theory that denies the resurrection of the body is false. For if the resurrection takes place hereafter, it cannot of course be a resurrection of the soul or spirit, and therefore it must be a resurrection of the body. And then again, that the body is here clearly referred to is manifest from verse 53 : " For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal immortality." This language cannot refer to the immortal spirit ; for that, confessedly, is neither corruptible nor mortal. Hence it cannot refer to the clothing of the spirit with a new body, for this would not be " mortal putting on immortality" in any sense of the term ; nor could it be " this corruptible putting on incorruption." It would require a statement entirely opposite to that of the apostle here, to describe such an event. It therefore can refer only to the body, and to its being changed from a fragile, mortal state, to a state of immortality. So also in 2 Cor. V. 4, Paul uses the same idea substantially; *' That mortality might be swallowed up of life ;" i. e. that it might be endowed with immortal existence. We have now brought our remarks on this important chapter to a close. We have not passed over a single re- mark or criticism of Professor Bush's, bearing on the sub- ject, without fully and fairly stating it; and we are willing that the reader should judge whether we claim more than is our due when we claim to have refuted, not only his argu- ments, but every shred or vestige of an argument which he has offered with a view to invalidate the testimony of this glorious witness to the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead. It establishes the fact that the resurrection is still future; that it will be simultaneous; that it will be a resur- rection of the body that died, and a consequent reunion of it with the soul ; and as an irresistible consequence, it drives into the land of shadows, or to a certain other place men- tioned by Milton, (Parad. Lost, b. III. 445-497,) the tertium quid theory of Professor Bush, and the preposterous notions that men are raised from the dead at death, (that is, no sooner dead than alive again;) thai the wicked are not 244 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY raised at all, and yet possess spiritual bodies; and the ridi- culous idea of the poet Goethe, that the soul is a germ, which will elaborate for itself a spirtual corporeity out of spiritual elements; with a huge heap of like nonsense which our author soberly pretends is more reasonable than the doctrine of the resurrection of the body. SECTION IV. Examination of passages from Matthew. I. The next passage adduced by the Professor is the fol- lowing: "And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee : for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee : for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell." Matt. v. 29, 30. In examining any portion of a connected and consecutive discourse, it is perfectly obvious that we should always con- sider the connexion in which it is found; for the connexion is often of the greatest assistance in enabling us to determine the precise import of any word or words as therein em- ployed. Christ, perfectly aware that many would deem the precept in ver. 28, (" Whosoever looketh on a woman with impure desire," &c.) too difficult, if not impossible to be ob- served, adds the tremendous sanction in the text; showing plainly that the perpetration of such a crime must expose the sinner to the doom of hell-fire : and consequently, though it were difficult to observe the precept, better far observe it ; and if, in order to do this, even a right hand, or a right eye should be sacrificed, still, be it so, rather than to incur such a doom. In this connexion, therefore, it is plain, that, though Christ does not inculcate the duty of maiming our persons, he does teach by one of the strongest oriental figures, that we have no alternative between a refusal to part with sin, at whatever cost, and the eternal endurance of hell-fire. Our Lord, in the course of his journeys through Palestine, sometimes repeated his instructions to different audiences, with some slight variation. Thus the figure of leaven, he frequently employed in his teaching: see Mark viii. 15, and Matt. xvi. 7, 18, and also Luke xii. 1-12. And the -parable ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. 245 of the leaven he repeated, at least, on two different occa- sions. See Matt. xiii. 33, and Luke xiii. 20, 21. So also the parable of the mustard seed. Matt. xiii. 31, 32, and Luke xiii. 18, 19. And so with the figure before us. He em- ploys it also in Matt, xviii. 8, 9, and in Mark ix. 43-48; in which latter places he specifies the hand after the eye^ for the reason referred to above. But the connexion in each place abundantly demonstrates that Christ is speaking of the awards of sin in a future world. The attempt to confine the execution of the threatening to the present world, turns it into a complete farce. For the threatening would be ap- plicable to the Jewish nation alone; and to them only while their government remained. The whole passage, therefore, as a threat, or admonition, can have no application at all in the present time. But if it refer to the future world, it clearly implies that soul and body are alike to partake of the punish- ment of sin. We have never regarded this passage as one of the " seats''' of the doctrine of the resurrection ; though it clearly implies that doctrine. But as Professor Bush has introduced and discussed it, we shall thoroughly examine it also. And after explaining its import, shall consider what he has offered in relation to it. The term here translated offend, is j or the vale of Hinnom; a very beauti- ful valley near Jerusalem, and which bounds it on the south. Josh. XV. 8, and xviii. 6. It is also called the valley of the sons of Hinnom. 2 Kings, xxiii. 10, and 2 Chron. xxviii. 3. In this valley was the place called Tophet, in which the Israelites, imitating the horrid superstition of the neighbour- ing nations worshipped Moloch, (the idol god of the Ammo- nites,) by sacrificing to him their own offspring. See 2 Kings, xxiii. 10. 2 Chron. xxviii. 3. Ezek. xxiii. 37. 39; (compare Levit. xviii. 21, and xx. 2.) The whole valley, in conse- quence of this, and its subsequent pollution by Josiah, was called Tophet; (from Toph, to vomit with loathing, as Pro- fessor Stuart observes, Exeget. Essays, pp. 140, 141.) Into this place the filth of Jerusalem, and carcasses of dead ani- mals, &c. were thrown, and consumed by fires which were kept burning perpetually. And hence, as Tremellius re- marks, the name Gihanna, or Gehinnam, came to be em- ployed by the Jews, Chaldeans, and Syrians, to denote hell itself. " Undo factum est, ut postea a Chaldaeis, Syris et Hebraeis antiquis Scriptoribus nomen ipsam Gihanna vel Gehinnam usuparelur ad significandum locum reprobis in aeternum cruciandis destinatum. Ita usurpatur in lib. Pirke- aboth admodum antique cap. I. et V." Notae in Matt. v. 22. The term yimA is used twelve times in the New Testa- ment ; in each of which it designates what we in English properly term hell.* The strange remark of Professor Bush on this subject will be noticed presently. By viewing this passage in connexion with its parallel in Mark ix. 43-48, it will be at once perceived also that Christ refers to Isa. Ixvi. 24; and that by yiiwa. he means the place " where the w^orm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." » Matt. V. 22, 29, 30; and x, 28 ; and xviii. 9 ; and xxiii. 15, 33 ; Mark ix. 43, 45, 47 ; Luke xii. 5 ; Jas. iii. 6. ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. 247 Now by common consent it is admitted that the prophet, in vers. 23, 24, of the chapter referred to, is speaking of the state of things after the new heavens and the new earth shall have been created." Mr. Barnes (in loco) remarks that " The Saviour (Mark ix. 44, 46) applied the langvage (of Isa. Ixvi. 24) to the future punishment of the" wicked, and no one, I think, can doubt that in Isaiah it includes that consummation of worldly affairs" Vitringa makes sub- stantially the same remark. Lowth, {in loco,) also, observes, that though Christ employs the image of Gehenna and the worm and fire, for the purpose of representing hell, yet he marks ^'•in the strongest manner, the difference between Gehenna and the invisible i)lace of torment.'^'' Nor can the time referred to be assigned to any other period than that of the consummation of all things. And if so, it is per- fectly plain from the prophet, that soul and body will be re- united : for surely even Professor Bush would hardly say that -^JS (here translated carcass) can possibly mean a ter- tium quid, or " a resurrection-body eliminated at death," for he denies that the wicked possess any such thing. Without pretending, therefore, to penetrate the veil of futurity, it may be truly affirmed, that as the wicked are to serve as eternal monuments of God's wrath, upon which all holy beings shall for ever look and behold the consequences of sin, so carcasses here, and the term body in Matt. v. 28, 29, must clearly imply a resurrection of the body and re-union of it with the soul. Now in commenting on this passage, Professor Bush, after referring to the etymology of Gehenna, and quoting Mr. Barnes and Dr. Campbell to prove that the term was used as an image or emblem of hell itself, remarks as follows : " Con- sequently, if the term denotes an image — an emblem — of hell, or place of torment, it does not denote the place itself, and of that (i. e., the place) we must form our ideas from other sources." p. 204. It would be difficult to give an ap- propriate character to this criticism, which thus, for the sake of saving an unfounded theory, surrenders to Universalists at once the whole ground upon which the unanswerable argument for future punishment, derived from the usage of yima. in the New Testament, is based. The term, according to Professor Bush, can never mean hell, because Gehenna is only an image or emblem of it! The conclusion is as shallow and unsupported, as the remark is uncalled for and 248 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY injudicious. What was the design of our Saviour in usinor the image or emblem in this connexion? It is an image of hell, as the Professor adnnits. Did Christ then mean that there was danger of mankind noiv being cast into the valley on the southeast of Jerusalem? Professor Bush will hardly say so. But he either did mean this, or, that there is now danger of so sinning against God as to incur the penalty of being cast soul and body into the fire that shall never be quenched — and, consequently, he here teaches that the wicked are to be raised from the dead in order to undergo this penalty. The Professor next attempts the reductio ad absurdum, and, after taking for granted that " material fire" is not an ingredient in the future punishment of the damned, he pro- ceeds to remark, that " if one part of it (Matt. v. 29, 30,) is to be taken in the strictness of the letter, every other is also, and, consequently, it follows that if the body here literally means the body, the right eye means the right eye, and the right hand the right hand ; and then we come to the con- clusion, that entrance into heaven is facilitated by plucking out an eye and cutting off a hand," &c., &c. But, gentle reader, the entire basis of this " consequently," rests upon the sand. It is not true, that if one part of a passage is a figure, that consequently all of it must be. Professor Bush cannot read his Bible five minutes in any part of it without finding his principle contradicted. Even the passage under discussion contradicts him — for he himself admits that the important terms, " offend," and " profitable," are not figura- tive. In John vii. 38, we read that Jesus said, " He that believeth on me, as the Scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water." Is then the first part of this passage figurative because the latter is ? If not, what becomes of the Professor's " consequently ?" But let us see how the Professor himself explains the passage. " What then," says he, " does the passage, when viewed in connexion with the general tenor of the Scrip- tures, natively teach? * Evidently,' says Mr. Noble, (Ap- pealj p. 61), ' the offending eye and hand are mentioned to denote certain perverse propensities of the mind or spirit, from which alone, all the organs of the body act; and as certain organs of the body are thus put for certain disorderly func- tions of the mind or spirit, which is the real man, to carry on the figure, and to avoid the incongruity of a mixed metaphor, ASSERTED AND DEPENDED. 249 the whole body is naturally, and, according to the strict laws of composition, put for the whole mind or spirit, and thus for the whole man as he exists after death.' " p. 204-5. • We have already remarked that " eye" and " hand" in this passage are to be understood figuratively. But it by no means follows because they are to be so taken, that there- fore " hody^^ must be understood in a figurative manner. Pro- fessor Bush, by asserting the contrary, has not only made " body" a figure, but " helV also ; and consequently the threatening implied in the passage must be also b. figurative threatening; and as the whole is based upon the sin referred to in verse 28, that sin itself must be figurative, and the woman figurative ; nor is it possible to imagine where the Professor's idea would permit us to stop. And it may be further remarked, that there is no " incongruity of a mixed metaphor" in our Saviour's language, if we take hand and eye figuratively and body literally, as the writer quoted by Professor Bush pretends; any more than there is in a thousand other passages of the Bible. If that gentleman had found any where but in the Scriptures the expression *'The Lord God is a sun and a shield" Ps. Ixxxiv. 11, he would have pronounced it an " incongruous mixed meta- phor." So also in Hosea x. 12, "Sow to yourselves in righteousness — reap in mercy ; break up your fallow ground; for it is time to seek the Lord, till he come and rain right- eousness upon you." Here, according to these critics, is a sad confusion of the literal and figurative; for the third clause is strictly literal and all the rest highly figurative. What " incongruity of a mixed metaphor !" But we cannot pass without remark the exhibition of logic and mental philosophy contained in the foregoing passage, which has been endorsed and adopted by Professor Bush. " Certain disorderly functions of the mind or spirit" are represented by " certain organs of the body," says the writer : and therefore " the whole body" must mean " the whole mind or spirit." This is a true specimen of Sweden- borgian reasoning ; and it is the exact style in which all their works are composed. Most of the uninitiated into the mysteries of the Baron's Psychology, however, would say, that if " the eye and hand" represent some of the disorderly functions of mind or spirit, then "the whole body" must represent all the disorderly functions of mind or spirit ; and this, as a child can see, is the true inference. According 250 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY to this profound expositor therefore, all the disorderly func- tions of mind or spirit are to be cast into hell. And such is the exposition by which Professor Bush's theory is to be sustained, and to be proved more consonant with reason than " the common theory.^'' It is worthy of remark, however, that even these writers, as appears from the foregoing extract, are compelled to ad- mit that " body " here means the whole man as he exists after the resurrection. If the Bible therefore teaches the resurrection of the body, this passage, confessedly, is in- tended to teach just what we have explained it to mean. II. The next passage quoted by our author is the follow- ing: "And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul : but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." Matt. x. 28. This plain and unequivocal announcement, that those who fear not God, are to expect to be cast body and soul into hell, is a clear implication that the bodies of the wicked must be raised to life in order that they may undergo that doom. And so the passage teaches not only the resurrection of the body, but the resurrection of the wicked ; both of which are denied by Professor Bush. The testimony afforded by this passage in favour of the doctrine of the reunion of body and soul is so overwhelming, that even the Socinians of Poland, who, in Chap. 8 of their Compendiolum, deny the resurrection of the wicked, are obliged to admit it in direct contrariety to their avowed sen- timents. Wolzogenius (in Pol. Fratres Tom. VI. p. 275,) remarks on it as follows : " Properly speaking neither soul nor body is killed. For neither the one nor the other alone possesses life; but man lives by the union of the soul with the body. Therefore man is killed by the separation of the soul from the body." " As Christ names the place, to wit Ge- henna, where God can destroy the soul as well as the body, it appears that by the word destroy he does not mean simply to kill, or to annihilate, (for this God can do at once when the soul is separated from the body,) but to torment and torture." This celebrated critic therefore (laying aside his material- ism) explains the language of Christ to refer to a literal tor- menting of soul and body in hell. And such is its plain and obvious import. But let us see how Professor Bush would set it aside: "neither this, nor any other text," says he, " bearing upon the life after death, can be explained in dis- ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. 251 regard of the results which we have previously reached res- pecting the intrinsic and essential nature of the spirtual body- in contradistinction from the natural. If these results ad- dress themselves, upon their own evidence, with irresistible force to our convictions, it is impossible that the mind, con- stituted as it is, can receive a declaration in conflict with them." p. 205. But to this repeated appeal for aid to his " argument from reason," &c., it is sufficient to remark again that the argu- ment has been fully proved to be wholly unsound, and its results utterly fallacious. It can afford Professor Bush no assistance whatever. The following is the remainder of Professor Bush's criti- cisms upon this passage: " The leading scope of the passage is, that there was a destruction in this world which was not at all to be feared in comparison with a destruction which was to be feared in the next world. But the destruction in both cases was of course to be of such a nature as corres- ponded with the conditions of being in each world. In this world it was a material body which might be killed ; but as material bodies do not pertain to the spiritual world, the destruction there to be feared was such as might befall the bodies there possessed. But these were spiritual bodies, as we learn from sound sources of information, though not ex- pressly asserted, as it was not necessary it should be, in the present connexion. Thus understood, the words present no difficulty, except to one who would educe from them a proof of the resurrection of the body." p. 206. But the words in their obvious import present no difficulty whatever to one who believes the doctrine of the resurrection of the body: and the fallacy of the Professor's evasion is easily demonstrated. For 1, the use of <^-i«a body, in the passage, leaves not the least possible ground to conclude that there is any difference between the present and future body of man, other than a change from a mortal state to an immortal: the body is identically the same. The word is i 'I'ijj sx vsx^mv, of the re- surrection from the dead, (Luke xx. 35,) they neither marry nor are given in marriage. Now a time so deter- mined, and respecting what shovld be hereafter, cannot refer to the present state of their souls, which in no sense are raised from the dead, but only to the future condition of their bodies." Paraphrase, &c., in loco, Vol. I., p. 184. We quote the above, not for the purpose of giving Whitby's authority, but his argument: and it is triumphantly con- clusive. Professor Bush is acquainted with the commentary from which this extract is taken, for in other places in his book he both quotes and refers to it; and in such an exami- nation of the subject under discussion as he professes to have given, he was certainly called upon to have fairly stated, and to have fully met the foregoing argument, before he should have ventured to pursue the course which he has taken with the passage before us. When a man comes before the public, as he has done, claiming to have come up to the spirit of the age in the ascertained results of his scientific and scriptural investigation, and professing to an- nounce conclusions which must essentially modify the views which the Christian world has ever entertained respecting the most stupendous and momentous themes connected with the future destiny of our race, it is expected that he should be the last person in the world who would evade a difficulty by misstating a question, or by refusing to notice an argu- ment which he is unable to obviate.* * If the reader would desire to see this argiiment of our Saviour with the Sadducees further discussed, he will find it done at lull length and most ably, in the singularly acute '■'Analysis and Scholia,''' of Piscator, (Tom. II., 120 ;) and, also, in Parens (Comment., in loco;) and, likewise, with equal ability and at great length, by Episcopius, in his "JVbfte in Matt., 0pp. Tom. I., p. 146-149. Each of these writers draws out the argument fully, and in a complete syllogism. See, also, Poole's excellent Note on the subject in his " Annotations :" and the learned dissertations of Grotius, in loco ; and, also, Wolzo- genius, Polon. Frat. VI., p. 362-365, and 664, 665. Lightfoot, also, has presented some important considerations in his " Specilegia,*' or " Handful of Gleanings from Exodus," Works, Vol. I., p. 701, folio; and, also, Witsius, in his (Econ. Foed., B. 111., cap. II., §§. 11-15. A reference to either of these well known critics will evince how great has been the unfairness of Professor Bush in treating the pas- sage under consideration as he has done. 260 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY IV. The next passage is the following. I quote it just as it is given by Professor Bush, both in Greek and English, for reasons which will be stated presently. Matthew xxvii. 50-53. GR. ENG. VERS. * O be ^Irjaovg Tid-Kiv x^a|aj Jesus, when he had cried ^oivri 1^^7'^'^V ^^V^^ *o Ttvevfia, again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. Kal ISov, -to xatariitaafia And behold the vail of the tov vaov lox^<^^v f'i' ^^°' ^^^ temple was rent in twain avco^fv fcoj xdtu, xo.1 ly y^ from the top to the bottom: iasCaOyjj xal at TteV^at iax^' ^^d the earth did quake, and o^tjaav' the rocks rent; xai, fd fxvrifizla avt^^x^v^^^^ ^"^ ^^^ graves were open- xal Tto'K%d cfw/tar'a f wv xsxoo- ed, and many bodies of the fXYifiivcav ayiov '^yi^Ori' saints which slept, arose; xai iiiTJ^ovtii sx tCiiV fivrj- And came out of the graves fisimv fittd -f^v eys^sLv avtov after his resurrection, and cl^rj'K^ov d^ f^v dyiav Tio'Kvv xai went into the holy city, and avs^tavU^'Tjaav TtoXXtoj. appeared unto many. The Professor, after a few common place remarks on the subject of the resurrection, introduces his criticism on this passage, by expressing a hope that he shall " present it in a somewhat new and interesting light: and by observing that all conjectures as to the particular persons here said to be raised are vain and fruitless; and likewise all attempts to ascertain what became of the raised bodies. " They were in their graves," says he — " they were raised: this is the extent of our information respecting them." p. 210-211. He then proceeds as follows: " In entering upon the consideration of the event itself, we observe, first, that the language of the text is to be especially noted: 7toM.d aafiata tiov xBxocfii^ixsvav ouytcav ^Jyt^^*?) many bodies of saints that slept arose. A question of no small difficulty, as to the precise meaning of these words, is sug- gested by the fact, that although these bodies are said to have * arisen' at the time of the crucifixion, yet they did not come forth from the graves till three days afterwards ; and even then it does not clearly appear that this ' coming forth' is predicated of the bodies; for the language is, xai llfX^ovr'?? ix tuiv [ivTjfifCoiVi Uitd iriv tyi^aiv dutov, siar^%^ov ftj T'lyv aycav ^ or TBE r ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. ^^♦'^ 261 TtoXiVi xal evs^avic^rjoav 7to%xoli, and having come forth from the graves after his resurrection, they entered into the holy city and appeared unto many, where it is not to be over- looked, that the participle flfX^oj/ffj is in the masculine gender, whereas the previous noun, ooifiata, bodies, is in the neuter. What then is precisely the effect denoted by the verb Vyk^V^ arose? Or, in other words, what was the condition of these bodies, as distinguished from their previous condi- tion, during the three days prior to the issuing forth of the persons (the ol ih^^ovte?) from their tombs? And was it these bodies, that then came forth and appeared to those that saw them? If so, why is the gender changed? Why do we not read i^e^'^ovta instead of sh^'^ovts^l These are points of very difficult solution, though liable to be over- looked by the mere reader of the English translation, which do6s not, because it could not, present the nicer shades of the original. The natural impression produced by the phrase ' the dead bodies arose,' would doubtless be, that they were reanimated by the spirits which formerly inhabited them, and thus from dead carcasses, became living persons. But then it strikes us as exceedingly strange, that a multitude of living, conscious, intelligent persons should be abiding in their sepulchral habiliments, for the space of three days, in the tombs, in which they had been deposited at death." There are two points in reference to this subject, here introduced by Professor Bush, each of which calls for a re- mark: the asserted difficulty respecting the resurrection of these bodies " at the time of the crucifixion;" and the change of gender, from the neuter to the masculine. He evidently wishes to involve this plain-speaking text in a fog, and the sequel will show how he has succeeded therein. We shall attend to each of his " difficulties" in their order. 1. As to the " question of no small difficulty, as to the precise meaning of these words, suggested by the fact, that although these bodies are said to have * arisen' at the time of the crucifixion, yet they did not come forth from the graves till three days afterwards" — I remark that it is a difficulty that has no existence except in an erroneous point- ing of the passage. Professor Bush, in v. 50-53, has fol- lowed the pointing of no codex with which I am acquainted. It is not the pointing of the Textus Receptus, either as given by Stephens, or Leusden, or Bagster's Polyglott ; or of the text of Mill, or Bengel or Griesbach. Professor Bush owes 262 THE RESURRECTION OP THE BODY it to himself to state whose text he has followed. And this is not all; but he has presumed to change the pointing of our English version by putting a semicolon after "arose;" apparently to give countenance to this alleged dificvlty. And 1 call upon Professor Bush to state what edition he has followed in this matter; for he cannot but be sensible that in this connexion it is an affair of grave and serious impor- tance so far as he is concerned. Where is the English text pointed as he has given it above? I have examined a large number of the best editions and find it in none of them. The punctuation of the Professor is obviously designed to represent the rising of the bodies referred to, to be synchroni- cal with the rending of the veil, or with the death of Christ; and their coming out of their graves to be after his resurrec- tion : and thus an air of mystery is to be thrown around the passage, under cover of which he expects to avoid the diffi- culty which it throws in the way of his system. In times when the authority of the Greek punctuation was not under- stood, it might have been allowable to acknowledge the ex- istence of a difficulty here; but why could not Professor Bush have openly admitted that no such difficulty exists in the best versions. In the excellent one of Bengel, for ex- ample, the pointing obviates the difficulty entirely. After iaxt'iidTjiiav at the end of v. 51, there is a colon; and from this until the end of v. 53, the comma is the only inter- vening point. Griesbach points it somewhat differently, but the " difficulty" is equally well obviated: xai r^ yrj sasladyj, xai at TtsTf^at itSx^oBriaav^ xai •ta fxvvjfxsla avectx^^^f^^' ^cat rto'KT.d (fiiifiata "tZiV xsxotixyjixevMV ayt'cov i^ys^Ofj^ xai t^sT^Oovts? sx TfHtv [jLvvjfxsloiVi (XB'ta triv eys^atv avtov (la7^%.9ov &c. Here, the earth- quake, the rending of the rocks, and the opening of the graves are represented as synchronizing with the rending of the veil and the death of Christ: while the raising of the bodies, and their coming from their sepulchres and going into the city is represented as occurring after his resurrec- tion. Where then is the alleged difficulty of Professor Bush, from the fact of their being " said to have arisen at the time of the crucifixion? It is worthy of remark also that on the same page on which he quotes Matt, xxvii. 50-53, as well as on the pre- ceding page, he has a long quotation from Campbell on the Gospels. Now while he had this work of that eminent critic in his hand, why could he not have referred the reader ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. 263 to his translation of this passage? It is as follows: "Jesus having again cried with a loud voice, resigned his spirit. And behold the veil of the temple was rent in two from top to bottom, the earth trembled, and the rocks split. Graves also burst open, and after his resurrection, the bodies of several saints who slept were raised, came out of the graves, went into the holy city, and were seen by many." To men- tion an alleged difficulty, and to show that its attempted solu- tion is unsatisfactory, and then to use the difficulty to cast dust in the eyes of a reader, is a procedure which has some- times been adopted with some show of fairness ; but Profes- sor Bush has for this purpose asserted the existence of a difficulty which he could not help knowing has received an abundant and every way satisfactory solution. 2. The other difficulty of the Professor is in respect to the gender, and the agreement of aafiata bodies, which is neuter, with s^tMovts^ which is masculine. Why was the gender changed? he asks : and he would try to find here a place to introduce his tertium quid. But there is no place here for such an introduction. The gender is changed for the best of reasons. The aCj/xata or bodies, were revived by their union with the soul ; and when ihey came out of their graves they were mere bodies no longer — no longer (jw/iata merely, but truly aivd^uTioi, persons, living men, constituted of body and soul, as they were before they died. The very difficulty of the Professor, therefore, affords a singularly strong confirma- tion of the doctrine which he opposes. It is amusing to see howmuch of Professor Bush's length- ened detail upon this passage is based upon these asserted dif- ficulties, I he existence of which he takes for granted, as well as the fact that they admit of no satisfactory solution, unless on the principles of his theory. He also quotes " Noble's Appeal,^'' pp. 64, 65, in which that writer professes to find strong proof in favour of Swedenborgianism, from the fact that no one can tell with absolute certainty what became of the raised saints. Such lucubrations are unworthy of serious notice. And on this subject the Professor remarks that '' To us the hypothesis is far more probable, that the bodies disap- peared immediately upon what is termed their ' rising,' and were seen no more ; for the supposition is to us utterly incre- dible that these material bodies were the objects beheld by those to whom the subsequent appearance was made. To the objections already urged against the supposition, we may 264 THE RESURRECTION OP THE BODY add, that the term for * appeared,' (Ivs^avbcs^aav) is the pro- per term for the manifestation of a spiritual being, whether angel or departed spirit. This indicates that they were seen in vision, and not with the natural eye, which was not formed to take cognizance of spiritual bodies.'''' pp. 213-215. The *' objections already urged against the supposition," that the material bodies were the objects of vision to the many to whom the raised saints appeared, are those already noticed above; and the reader will judge for himself how much weight should be attached to them. And as to the other " ob- jection" here stated, the reader may also judge of its weight when I tell him that the Greek word referred to by Professor Bush, {Ifi^avi^ui,) is employed in the New Testament just ten times; and in not one of them is it used for " the manifesta- tion of a spiritual being, whether angel or departed spirit,''"' In our text such a meaning is clearly out of the question, as CQjuar'a itself shows. In John xiv. 21, 22, and Heb. ix. 25, it is used in reference to Christ's manifestation of himself to his people after his resurrection, and also to his appearing in our behalf at the throne of God. The reader may turn to the other instances of its use, which are as follows : Acts xxiii. 15.22, and xxiv. 1, and xxv. 2. 15 ; Heb. xi. 14. Pro- fessor Bush wished to prove that the bodies of these saints were dissipated, and that the holy city in which they appeared, was not the earthly, but " celestial Jerusalem," p. 217, and such is the course he has adopted, by which to gain this point ! The remainder of the Professor's remarks on Matt, xxvii. 50-53, have no real bearing on the subject under discussion, and therefore we pass them without further notice. SECTION V. Examination of passages in John's Gospel. / I. The next passage quoted by Professor Bush, and for- mally discussed by him is the following: — "Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation." John V. 28, 29. p. 234. Here is as plain and emphatic a declaration as can be ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. 265 made, that both the righteous and unrighteous are to be the subjects of the resurrection of the body ; and also that the period of this resurrection was still future when Christ uttered these words. Consequently the theory that denies ihe resur- rection of the wicked is false; and the assertion that the righ- teous who had died before this time had entered upon the resurrection-state, is also false. Yet our author is in no wise discouraged by this formidable testimony, but proceeds, with a serious effort to obviate its force. After admitting that the testimony is very weighty; and stating that if he knows himself he " would deal with the profoundest deference, and with the utmost fairness, with every declaration of holy writ," (a point, which, one would suppose, ought to be taken for granted in a teacher of Chris- tian theology,) he prociseds with several '* suggestions," by the aid of which he would aim to reconcile the passage with his theory. The first of these suggestions is, that Christ " for the most part" speaks of the resurrection " as the dis- tinguishing privilege and prerogative of the righteous :" to prove which he quotes Luke xx. 35, 36, and xiv. 12-14. But if this were even so, it would not help Professor Bush, for Christ here asserts with the utmost plainness the resur- rection of the unrighteous. His second suggestion is as follows : " (2.) The passage, as understood in its literal import, does certainly encounter the force of that cumulative mass of evidence, built upon rational and philosophical grounds, which we have arrayed against any statement of the doc- trine that would imply the participation of the body in that rising again which is predicated of the dead. We do not by any means affirm that the conclusions from that source, to which we have come, are sufficient of themselves to coun- tervail the rebutting conclusion which may be formed from the present passage. All we would say is, that they have weight, and consequently we are not required, or rather are not at liberty, at once to dismiss them, as a kind of profane intruders into holy ground, where even the ' daughter of a voice ' from Reason is not to insinuate itself into the ears of Faith. We confidently re-affirm our position, that the human mind cannot be insensible to the claims of the argu- ments which we have presented in the form of rational ob- jections to the views of the resurrection that would naturally 23 266 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY be suggested by the literal reading of the present text." p. 235-6. This passage is backed by a note containing an extract from Mr. Locke in which he contends for the resurrection of a material body, but denies that the same body that died will arise; (for this is the doctrine contended for by Mr. Locke against Stillingfleet;) and what this has to do with Professor Bush's theory, the reader will determine for him- self. Locke admits that a body is raised from the earth, and this our author utterly denies. Yet Professor Bush and Mr. Locke are willing to become friends, if by so doing this plain testimony of our Saviour can be sacrificed. The foregoing *' suggestion," however, unfortunately for the Professor, has no more weight than the first; and it can lend him no aid in disposing of the passage under considera- tion. We have fully demonstrated that his " argument from reason" is not worth a rush; and that "that cumulative mass of evidence,{\) built upon rational and philosophical grounds," is no evidence at all, and has not the weight of a feather in settling the question before us. On the next page he follows up this " suggestion," with remarking that " So far as we are competent to form a judg- ment, the evidence from reason -preponderates in favour of the idea of the immediate entrance at death upon the resur- rection-state. This evidence we have seen to be confirmed by the testimony of a multitude of passages which yield this more easily and naturally than any other sense." Unfor- tunately for our author, however, this statement is destitute of the least confirmatory evidence. So far from his having produced a multitude of passages, he has not produced a solitary one^ ichich yields any suck sense as this! He proceeds as follows: "But in the text under consideration, and perhaps a few others, the doctrine of a future, simul- taneous bodily resurrection seems (!) to be explicitly taught. Here then we are reduced to a new dilemma. The charac- ter of the difficulty is changed. It is not so much now a conflict between revelation and reason, as it is an apparent conflict between one part of revelation and another.''^ p. 237. Not at all. Professor Bush: there is neither a new nor an old dilemma. There is no conflict between true philo- sophy or reason, and revelation; nor is there any between one part of the Bible and another part. All this is base- ASSERTED AND DEPENDED. 267 less assumption; no facts have been adduced to sustain it. The only real conflict in the matter is between Revelation and Professor Bush's theory. The Professor's third " suggestion," is a formal acceding to Semler's notorious principle of " accommodation," by the aid of which he would also endeavour to obviate the diffi- culty presented by this text. But neither can German neology here lend our author any aid, as we have fully shown in Part II., chapter I., above. Under this third and last of his " suggestions," he also introduces Dan. xii. 2, and supposes that our Saviour had that passage in mind when he uttered the words under con- sideration: and if so, even the Professor must admit, that the Prophet also announces the resurrection of the wicked as well as of the righteous. It would surely be, what was once called, " a retrograde improvement,^^ to explain what is clear and obvious, by that which is dark and difficult.* The Professor closes his remarks on this passage as fol- lows: " Even framed as it is, the declaration may be understood to yield an important truth in accordance with the view we have presented. For true it unquestionably is, that all those whose bodies are consigned to the sepulchre emerge from their defunct state, in obedience to the voice of him who has the keys of death and hell, into a sphere of existence where, according to their works, they are either crowned with life everlasting, or doomed to a judgment of wrath without end. If this be intrinsically true, it is certain that our Saviour's words cannot teach the contrary; and if they do not mean this, they must mean something consistent with it. If the truth is not to be harmonized with itself in this way, let him who can, suggest another and a better." pp. 240, 241. * Professor Bush is not satisfied with only adopting the creed of the German Neologists on the subject of the resurrection, but he avails himself of their very arguments and expositions of Scripture. Dr. Amtnon's exposition of John v. 21, 24, 28, is of the same charac- ter as the Professor's ; and Hammer replies to him by remarking, among other things, that " The supposition, that Christ intended to describe the moral resurrection, with figures drawn from Dan. xii. 2, is not only destitute of proof, but is actually improbable ; for there is not a single word which gives the least intimation of such an allu- sion ; moreover, the words are not those of Daniel, nor is Daniel, in the passage to which we refer, at all speaking of a moral resur- rection." 268 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY It seems to be rather a hard case, but even this idea fails to afford the Professor any assistance. To say nothing of that egregious perversion of language, by which a Coming forth out of the grave is explained to mean no more than *' emerging from a defunct state" before the body is con- signed to the sepulchre; and to say nothing either of his making bolh the righteous and wicked alike thus emerge into the resurrection-state, in direct contradiction to his theory, which denies the resurrection of the wicked ; the absurdity of the foregoing criticism will at once be seen by referring to the fact, that our Saviour says the hour is com- ing,''^ «^;t«T'at» in which this event will take place. Surely, then, it had not already occurred. And, therefore, the doc- trine that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, with all the pious dead who were in their graves before the time of Christ, had entered upon the resurrection-state at death, is utterly false and unfounded, II. The next passage is thus quoted by Professor Bush : John vi. 39, 40: "And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me, I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seelh the Son, and believeth on him, may have ever- lasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day." p. 241. It will be observed that the construction in the first of these verses is what grammarians style imperfect, ilav agrees with no other word, and stands in the place of sx Ttavto^. This idiom is hebrseistic ; as rtdv in the nomina- tive is again resumed by the genitive of the pronoun, tl avTfov. It is also to be noticed that the article (t^) at the close of each of the verses is emphalic. Professor Bush commences his remarks on the passage with the following reference to the important phrase therein twice occurring^" the last day.^"* " The same declaration in substance or in form occurs, v. 44, 54. It certainly de- notes the resurrection of those who believed in him, and, according to the letter, a resurrection within the limits of a certain period, denominated here ' the last day.' An equiva- lent allusion to this day occurs also, chap. xii. 48: * The word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him at the last day."* That the expression is conformed to the usual mode in which the resurrection of the righteous was spoken of among the Jews, is also unquestionable." The phrase is ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. 269 certainly an important one in this connexion, and I wish our author had made some effort here to explain it. He does not, however, and immediately after the forequoted re- mark, commences with another application of the neological principle o[ accommodation: expecting thus to evade the tes- timony here given against his theory, and in favour of a future simultaneous resurrection and judgment. Now it cannot be successfully contested that the phrase iax'^'^V ^A*^'C» which is here employed, and translated last day, or emphatically "?Ae last day," is a phrase equivalent to x^iavi (xeydKtjS '^H'^^"'? ^^ Jude 6; and vjfis^a tii? x^tcfawj in Matt. X. 15; and xi. 22, 24; and 1 Jno. iv. 17; and also to the Tjfii^a Stxatox^Kjiaj tov ®eov in Rom. ii. 5; and to sxelvfj i^lj^B^a of Matt. vii. 22; and vj^s^a Ku^t'ov in 1 Thess. v. 2; and also yjfxi^a ^Irjaov X^Kjfov in Phil. i. 6 ; and 1 Cor. i. 8 : as also to the phrase awteuia tov atwvoj as used in Matt, xiii. 39, 40, 49, &c. Compare also the expressions -^ artoxd- jiv^'s Tfov xv^Covi rj rta^ovaia, &c. &c., in 2 Thess. i. 7 ; 1 Cor. i. 7; and iii. 13; and 1 Tim. vi. 14; and 2 Tim. iv. 1; and Tit. ii. 13; 2 Thess. ii. 8; and 1 Cor. xv. 23; and 1 Jno. ii. 28; 2 Pet. iii. 12, &c. All these expressions clearly refer to one and the same period, or crisis in the world's history, as the reader will see by turning to the references, and noticing in what connexion the phrases are found. The events which are to transpire on this day are also clearly stated, and they are all declared to be yet future. " God has appointed a day in which he will judge {fiiTCkBo x^Cvsiv) the world in righteousness," &c. Acts xvii. 31. A number of the preceding references likewise inculcate the same doctrine. See also 1 Cor. iv. 5. It is called also " the day of wrath," vj/xi^a 6^y^?, a statement wholly irreconcileable with the doctrine of Professor Bush, that the present merci- ful dispensation of the Gospel, is the day of judgment. Rom. ii. 5. At this time also the dead are to be raised; (See the passage under discussion ; and v. 44, and 54 ; see also 1 Cor. XV. 23, and passim; and 1 Thess. iv. 16; Jude 14; Rev. i.-7.) All mankind are then to be judged, the dead and the living, both small and great. Matt. xi. 22, 24; 2 Cor. v. 10; Rev. XX. &c. Immediately after the passage above quoted irom the " Anastasis," our author proceeds to refer to the accommoda- tion principle to help him out of his difficulties. And he 23* 270 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY makes also a long quotation from a book called " Chandler^s Vindication,''^ asserting the same principle. But this prin- ciple we have already sufficiently exploded, and shall not dis- cuss it in connexion with every text in the consideration of which Professor Bush chooses to introduce it. And so far as his reference to it here is concerned, it can afford him no as- sistance whatever. On p. 244, however, he makes an effort to justify his adop- tion of this neological principle in the following words : *' When our Saviour, for instance, says, Matt. xii. 27, * If I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out?' are we to suppose that he intended to sanc- tion the common belief, that such exorcisms were actually performed at that time by others than his own disciples ? The conceit was rife among the people that such was indeed the case, and our Lord simply adopted the argument ex concessis, without intimating whether the popular belief had a ground or not.* The same remark applies to a subsequent part of the same conversation, where he speaks of an evil spirit going out of a man, wandering over waste and dry places, and finally returning reinforced by a company of other spi- rits worse than himself, and taking possession of his old habi- tation. This surely does not imply the absolute truth of such a representation, but is merely a specimen of his adapting his teachings to prevalent ideas." But the Professor is quite unfortunate in his illustrations of this principle. So far as Matt. xii. 27 is concerned, Christ does plainly assert the fact that "such exorcisms were actu- ally performed at that time by others than his own disciples." If the Professor had turned to Mark ix. 38-40, he would have met a case in point. — " And John answered him, saying. Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us : and we forbad him, because he followeth not us. But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me." See also Luke ix. 49. Here was a man who did the very thing in question, and yet followed not with the disciples of Christ. And Christ himself admitted the reality * The Professor here quotes Mr. Barnes in a note, as saying-, " The words of Christ here do not prove that they had actually the power of casting out devils, but only that they claimed it, and practised magic or JugS^^'^y^''^ (Notes on Matt. xii. 27,) a sentiment uncalled for and unwarrantable. ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. 271 of the performance, and called it a miracle, ^vm/tej. He admits the same thing also in reference to many : — " Many- will say to me in that day, Lord ! Lord ! have we not pro- phesied in thy name? and in thy name cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works ? (miracles, 8vvd- /if tj.) And then will I profess imto them, I never knew you : depart from me ye that wo?'k iniquity /" Matt. vii. 22, 23. There is, therefore, no accommodation here to the erroneous views of the Jews ; and of course nothing to justify the Pro- fessor's application of that principle in evading the difficulty which the text under consideration places in the way of his theory. Nor is our author more fortunate in his reference to the re- lapsing demoniac of which he speaks. See Matt. xii. 43-45. The passage is no doubt a parable, but founded in actual truth, as our Lord's parables uniformly were. And as this case is always referred to by the advocates of the principle of accom- modation, in justification of that principle, it will be in place here to offer a few remarks upon it. The immediate occasion of our Lord's introducing this parable was his having cured a demoniac. (See Mark iii, 19-21, in connexion wifh Matt. xii. 22.) The multitude around were amiazed at his exhibition of power over the spirits of darkness, and exclaimed " Is not this the Son of David ?" But when the Pharisees heard it they exclaimed, " He hath Beelzebub— this fellow doth not cast out devils but by Beelzebub, the prince of the devils." This charge Jesus refutes by showing that Satan could not contend against him- self ^v. 25, 26.) And then reasoning from the truth which the Jews themselves admitted, that demons could be cast out (v. 27), he shows (v. 28), that this action of his in thus ex- pelling the demon, proved that the Messiah was among them — and that of course he himself was the Messiah. It also evinced, (as he proved, v. 29,) that he was more powerful than Satan, and so far from being in confederacy with him, was truly his enemy, (v. 30.) He then gives them the awful admonition (contained in verses 31, 32,) respecting their guilt in ascribing the works of the Spirit of God to diabolical agency: assuring them that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, (of which this was a marked example,) would never be forgiven. And he con- cludes the address with assuring them that they must give an account of their words at the day of judgment. 272 THE RESURRECTION OJP THE BODY It was then that certain Soribes. and Pharisees said " Mas- ter, we would see a sign from thee!" That is, an evidence that you are the Messiah whom you claim, to be: by which they insinuated that casting out demons was not a sufficient evidence, as others did the like; refusing to acknowledge, however, that whenever they .were truly cast out it was always in the name of Christ; so that when others did it, it was still a proof of his Messiahship.* Hence he reproves the unbelieving spirit which dictated this request, and re- marks that the men of Nineveh and the Queen of the South, should, in the day of judgment, condemn that guilty race for refusing to believe the evidence which his works afforded of his being a greater than either Jonas or Solomon. He then in continuation of his remarks, introduces the parable under consideration, and applies it by saying " Even so shall it be also unto this icicked generation.'''' (Comp. Matt. xii. 22-45; Mark iii. 19-30; and Luke ii. 14-36.) The plain meaning of which is, ' You go on to disbelieve and to deride me and my works; suffering yourselves herein to be led astray by the Devil, under whose influence you will con- tinue until you finally perish.' John, by his preaching, and Christ, by his preaching and miracles, had freed, as it were, that unhappy people from the influence of the Devil, and led them to the very door of eternal life. But by giving way again to Satanic influence he had returned upon them with greater force than ever, and would now precipitate them to perdition. The simile in the parable is taken from the case of a demoniac, from whom the demon had gone out. This demon passes through dry places, {pi avvB^uv fortcov,) seek- ing another resting place among those poor creatures who dwelt in caves, or among rocks and tombs. But finding no subject to occupy he returns to his former habitation — the poor wretch out of whom he had departed: and finding this seat still unoccupied either by the Spirit of God, or by an unclean spirit like himself; and fearing that the power that ejected him might still be present and prevent his re-entrance, he goes and takes with him a number of other spirits like himself, and sufficient, as he hopes to withstand any effort to eject him hereafter; and they going in dwell there. * " //I the name of Christ^''^ was the formula used by others, as above shown, see Mark ix. 38-40 ; Luke ix. 49, 50 ; Matt. vii. 22, 23. ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. 273 The obscurity in the phrase " he findeth it empty, sweptj and garnished,'^ is removed by recolleciing that it is a Jew- ish phrase or idiom, and means no more than that he found it furnished for an inhabitant: "swept and garnished," but still "empty," i. e. destitute of one. Whereupon he pro- ceeds to enter it anew. The allegory is intended, therefore, to describe the dread- ful state of the Jews. Nor can Professor Bush produce a particle of proof to show that it is not a matter of fact in every part of the representation. The Jews may have had such ideas before, respecting evil spirits ; and again, they may have had no such ideas until communicated by Christ. But until the advocates of the principle of accommodation produce some proof to justify their so doing, it is perfectly nugatory for them to adduce this passage as an instance of the Saviour's accommodating his teaching to the erroneous notions of the Jews. Professor Bush next remarks that the Jews employed a variety of terms (such as spirit, soul, heaven, hell, world, * world to come,' ' end of the world,' &c.) doubtless in an erroneous sense: and that the Saviour employed them "with- out intimating that he did it in any other than the common acceptation." And on the strength of this most shameful assertion, he says, " So in the present case we rest in the conclusion. That our Lord spake on the subject of the resur- rection in accordance with the sentiments of the diction then prevalent, and that his words are not to be regarded as a criterion of the absolute truth of the current doctrine^ pp. 244, 245. And in this way does Professor Bush prefer to get rid of the explicit testimony of our adorable Redeemer, rather than to resign the paltry theory which he has arrayed against his teaching. More barefaced infidelity cannot be found in the whole of Tindal's deistical work, called '■'• Chris- tianity as old as the Creation.'''' III. The next passage adduced by our author is John xi. 21-26. " Then Martha said unto Jesus, Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died. But I know that even now, whatsoever thou wilt ask of God, God will give it thee. Jesus saith unto her, thy brother shall rise again. Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resur- rection at the last day. Jesus saith unto her, I am the resur- rection and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were 274 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY dead, yet shall he live: and whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?" p. 246. The doctrine of a simultaneous resurrection at the last day, is here very clearly announced. If the reader, how- ever, would like to know how Professor Bush regards it, he can read his exposition as follows. " This is a passage of similar import with the preceding, and is to be construed on the same principle. The words of Martha evince that she merely echoed the general senti- ment of the age, and perhaps of former ages, in declaring the expectation that her brother would rise at the last day. Our Lord does not, indeed, in so many words assure her that her belief was founded upon an incorrect view of the truth; at the same time, upon a closer view of the Saviour's language, we cannot easily resist the impression, that he actually designed to correct something that was erroneous, or at least inadequate, in her belief. On any other supposi- tion let us see how the discourse proceeds. Martha tells Jesus that she has no doubt that her brother will rise at the last day; and he, admitting and approving the sentiment, replies, ' I am the resurrection and ihe life,' intimating, on this construction, that what she said was very true, that at the last day he should raise her brother to an immortal life. He then proceeds, advancing in some way upon what he had just said, and informs her that all dead Christians shall live again, and that no living Christian shall die for ever. But upon this view of the passage, what has he said hut what Martha had already told him that she kneic? For surely, if she knew that Lazarus should rise again at the last day, she must, upon the same grounds, have known that every deceased Christian would also rise at the last day, and that no living Christian would die for ever. This sense seems, in fact, to be precluded by the question which Christ imme- diately proposes, ' Believest thou this?' Can we suppose he would spend so many words to tell Martha what she already knew, and then, after all, ask her whether she believed this?" pp. 246, 247. But this view the Professor dismisses as unsatisfactory, and proposes the following. " The following, then, we conceive, to be a much juster interpretation. Our Lord really designs, by imparting to her the true nature of the resurrection, to inform her, also, that that ' last day, which she was expecting, had even now ASSERTED AND DEPENDED. 275 in effect come, and, therefore, that there was no reason why- she should give way to sorrow, or even despair of having her brother restored to her. He tells her, * He that believeth in me, though he should die, as your brother now seems to have done, yet, in fact, it is little more than an illusion on the senses ; he still lives to every high and real purpose of existence. Nor is this all ; every living man that believes in me shall, in fact, never die. Although, indeed, he may- be called in God's time, to put off the mortal body, and though you may call this death, yet, in truth, it is a change scarcely worth the name. Of his conscious, active, and happy being there is no interruption at all for ever. If such, then, be the true state of the case in regard to de- parted believers — if they really emerge in full life and con- sciousness from the dying body into the resurrection-state — why imagine the resurrection to be deferred to some dis- tant future period, called the Mast day?' Believest thou, Martha, what I say? If so, you perceive you have little occasion to grieve for your deceased brother; nevertheless, as the mere reanimation of the lifeless corpse is a compara- tively trifling work of Omnipotence, ^ your brother shall rise again.'' Here, doubtless, was much new and impor- tant doctrine, in regard to which it might, very properly, be asked of Martha, ' Believest thou this?' " pp. 247, 248. Such is the criticism of our author on this important pas- sage; and thus would he first set aside the obvious meaning of the passage, and then establish his own exposition of it. We shall follow him in each of these attempts. With respect to the first particular, he has egregiously failed in his attempt to present the obvious and ordinary view of the passage; and, as he has based his rejection of this view upon this very mistake of his, it is plain that his reasons for rejecting it amount to nothing. Our Lord does not assure her, in so many words, says he, that her belief was founded upon an incorrect view of the truth ; (but why should he, if he " accommodated" himself to her er- rors?) but yet we cannot easily resist the impression, that he designed to correct something erroneous or inadequate in her belief. This may have been so to some extent; yet not in the sense pretended by Professor Bush. Martha, like the rest of our Lord's followers, doubtless had an inadequate view of his character and mission. Hence our Lord intro- duces this very point directly to her in this conversation. 276 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY But, says Professor Bush, upon the view of the passage, that Christ here informs Martha that all dead Christians shall live again, what has he said but what Martha had already told him that she knew? "For surely she knew that Lazarus would rise again at the last day," and, of course, that all oiher " deceased Christians would also rise at the last day." We thank Professor Bush for this full admission, that such was the belief of Martha, and, by consequence, of the rest of our Saviour's followers. But yet he has failed to present the import of our Saviour's questions, " Believest thou this ?" — a point upon which, as Professor Bush has presented the matter, the whole subject turns. Christ does not ask, " Believest thou that the righ- teous dead will hereafter be raised at the last day?" This, Martha had told him that she believed : but he asks her, " Believest thou that / am the resurrection and the life ;" and that the resurrection, at the last day, is so connected with me as the Saviour, " that whosoever believeth in me though he were dead, yet shall he live" — live, and never die? "Believest thou this?" A mere glance at the text will show any one that, this is the import of our Saviour's question: and it is impossible to conceive how an intelligent man could mistake it. The answer of Martha itself, which is given in the next verse, (and ought to have been quoted by Professor Bush, as it is the last verse of the paragraph, as well as the answer to the question,) clearly evinces also what was the import of the query. She does not say, "Yea, Lord, I believe that the dead shall arise" — but "Yea, Lord ; / believe that thou art the Christy the Son of God^ who should come, into the world P'' vdr. 27. Our author's rejection of the common view, therefore, being based upon a total and unaccountable misapprehension of the import of the passage, can avail nothing; and the passage, as thus in- terpreted, must continue to utter a solemn testimony against the ruinous errors of his theory. But the Professor was hard put to it, for he must, of course, make a show of rejecting the foregoing and obvious explanation, before he could, with any appearance of pro- priety, propose the one which might be more favourable to his principles. Hence, after rejecting it, he oftbrs what he conceives to be " a much juster interpretation." And this interpretation the Professor would have to be, that Christ teaches Martha that the resurrection takes place at death; ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. 277 and that hence Lazarus had " really emerged in full life and consciousness from the dying body into the resurrection- state;" "a change," from the present state of being, " scarcely worth the name of death." Now the reader will please to take notice, that all this occurred before the resurrection of Christ; "and it behooved not," says Pro- fessor Bush, (p. 217,) " that the resurrection of the mefnhers should precede that of the Head.'''' And yet the Professor would have it, that Christ is here teaching Martha, that the resurrection of the members did precede that of the Head ! Surely this is but a poor illustration of the truth of " the doctrine of correspondencies." And then again, in the 23d verse, *';Jesus saith to her. Thy brother shall rise again," {h.va.atyiat'to.v o dfif^^oj cjov.) This is fatal to this " much juster interpretation" of the Professor; for if he had already entered the resurrection-state, and Christ intended, as our author asserts, to teach Martha this fact, it needs no words to show that he would hardly have used an expression which asserted that he had not yet arisen. It is true, doubtless, that by this expression, our Saviour meant that he should be again raised to life by an union of soul and body; but this concession Professor Bush cannot avail himself of, while he maintains that Christ was here teaching Martha that the resurrection took place at death, at which time he " really emerged into full life and conscious- ness." The exposition of the Professor also involves the idea that, as Lazarus had already truly arisen from the dead in a spiritual body, he must have either left that body behind him when he united again with his material body, or have brought it with him, and entered his material body with his " refined, setherial, resurrection body." And surely, if he could do this, others may do it likewise. And therefore, on the Professor's own principles, there is after all, no absurdity in a spiritual body becoming reunited with a material. And provided the material body is adapted to spiritual uses, as it will be at the resurrection in the last day, there can be there- fore no absurdity in the spiritual body uniting with it again. So that if the Professor's exposition be not retained, the pas- sage is fatal to his theory; and if it is retained, it is ruinous to his " argument from reason," and to his philosophy. The Professor might well remark that such an exposition would contain "much new doctrine" to Martha; and the query 24 278 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY might well be propounded to others besides her, " Believest thou this?" The reply of Martha to the Saviour's question, is also fatal to this " much juster exposition" of Professor Bush. She does not answer any question that he makes the Lord to propose to her: but simply replies that she believes in his Messiahship. And the plain and irresistible inference is that therefore no such questions were propounded to her. Had our author honestly quoted the reply of Martha, as he should have done, the reader could at a glance have dis- covered the absurdity of this " much juster exposition." But Professor Bush does not seem satisfied, after all, with his own exposition: and hence he cannot conclude without again calling to his aid " the cumulative mass nfemdence''' so often referred to already, and from which he concludes that " if, as we have endeavoured to show, the general tenor of Scripture is adverse to the idea of a resurrection so long delayed, the true sense of the Saviour's language cannot hear that interpretation.^'' p. 249. " TjT," is sometimes an important word, though a little one; and it is certainly true that if Professor Bush's arguments and expositions are sound, his theory must be true: but alas! they are unsound and at direct variance with Scripture and true philosophy, and, therefore, his theory is a mere castle built in the air — or an Aladdin's palace, which, without the aid of a genie, may be transported whole into the land of dreams. SECTION VI. Examination of passages in Acts. I. The next passage quoted by Professor Bush, is Acts ii. 29-35: " Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. Therefore being a pro- phet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; He seeing this before, spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither did his flesh see corruption. This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we are all witnesses. There- fore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. 279 hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. For David is not ascended into the heavens, but he saith of him- self, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, until I make thy foes thy footstool." The assertion (with which Professor Bush begins his re- marks on this passage,) that " ascended " (avtSrj) in ver. 34, here means " exalted in the heavens, in the sense in which Peter is here speaking of the Messiah," i. e. " a glori- ous exaltation, or ascension and session at the right hand of God," is an idea that will not stand any serious examination. The single and primary meaning of the verb is to ascend: as e. g. when the Jews were said to go vp to Jerusalem, Matt. XX. 18, and John xii. 20. And, then, where the phrase *' to ascend into heaven " is employed, either in the New Testament or theLXX., it in no instance means to he glori- ously exalted in heaven: and if such an idea is found in the connexion, it is not in the word itself but in other terms used along with it. See John iii. 13, and xx. 17; Rom. x. 6; Eph. iv. 8-10; Rev. iv. 1. Even John vi. 62, in no sense means exaltation, but a mere return or ascension to a situation pre- viously occupied. See also Deut. xxx. 12; Ps. cxxxix. 8; Prov. xxx. 4; Isaiah xiv. 13, 14; Jer. li. 53; Tobit xii. 20, &c., &c. The criticism therefore is unfounded. And though Mr. Barnes is quoted by the Professor as sustaining his ex- position ; yet it is plain that he was led to adopt it by a supposed theological difficulty, rather than by a thorough grammatical investigation of the passage. And yet, upon this erroneous rendering of the word. Professor Bush has based the whole of his attempt to explain away the clear announcement that as David's sepulchre, (which contained his body,) was still in Jerusalem, so it was clear that he had not arisen from the dead, and of course had not ascended into heaven as Messiah, but must, (according to prophecy,) after his resurrection. David's unopened sepulchre proved that /t?'* body was still under the dominion of corruption: and Peter denies that he had as yet arisen from the dead. The first verse of the passage also proves the falseness of the doctrine of Professor Bush : for Peter here asserts of *' David that he is both dead and buried." But in no sense of the word could this be true if he had been already raised from the dead, as Professor Bush would have him to be. There can be no more preposterous contradiction than to say that at one and the same time a person is dead and 280 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY buried and raised from the dead and entered upon the resur- rection-state. Professor Bush must cease laughing at the Romish doctors' profound discussion of the question, whether a thing can be in two places at one and the same time. In the same paragraph also, from which our author makes this quotation, there is another passage which is equally de- structive of his theory. " Him (i. e. Christ) ye have taken and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should not be holden of it.'''' vers. 23, 24. Christ arose, says Professor Bush, in a spiritual body; and his material body never arose. But it is plain that the spiritual or resurrection-body can in no sense be under the dominion of death. And yet that which was slain, is here said to have been raised up by God ; and it is also said that this raising up (after the period of three days,) was by loosing the pains (or bands) of death, because it was not possible that death should hold him. The assertion, therefore, that Christ arose in a spiritual body is false. Professor Bush, in carrying out his erroneous observation respecting the import of the word " ascend," remarks that " the apostle certainly did not mean to say that that which constituted the actual and essential ipseity or selfhood of David, was then reposing in the sepulchre at Jerusalem." (p. 251.) True, he may not have meant to say so : but much less does he say that his " ipseity or selfhood,^^ (if I may be pardoned the use of these barbarisms,) had entered upon the resurrection-state; or had been raised from the dead. Nor does he intend to say that the soul of David had not ascended into heaven: but simply that David had not. The soul of David is not David himself; and neither is his body David. But soul and body united constitute David. And David, soul and body had not ascended into heaven, though his soul might have done so. And hence the proof that Peter gave that David had not ascended into heaven, was that he had not yet arisen from the dead ; his body yet saw corruption. This same argument applies, to show the erroneousness of Professor Bush's exposition. For if David liad arisen from the dead, he would have ascended into heaven ; but he had not ascended, and therefore he had not arisen from the dead. This passage, therefore, must still stand as an insuperable obstacle in the way of Professor Bush's theory. ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. 281 II. The next passage presented by the Professor is the following: Acts xxiv. 14, 15: "But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets: And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just, find the un- just." Here is a plain statement not only that Paul believed and taught that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, (that is, of those who were dead at the time in which he spoke these words, as well as those who should die afterwards,) both o^ the just and the unjust. He asserts that they all shall arise : and also that this same doctrine is asserted in the law and in the prophets. He also avers that this doctrine was " al- lowed," or acknowledged to be true, by the Jews themselves. There can be no plainer avowal of the truths for which we contend, nor a plainer denial of the theory contended for by Professor Bush. How then does he dispose of this over- whelming statement? We shall see. Entirely overlooking the declaration of Paul, that there SHALL BE a resurrection of the dead, he begins his remarks as follows : "A problem of a twofold solution is here pre- sented to us. First, upon what authority Paul affirms that the Pharisees believed in a resurrection ' both of the just and the unjust?' Secondly, supposing the assertion to he well founded, how are his words to be construed in consistency with what we assume to be the true doctrine of the Scrip- tures on this subject?" pp. 251, 252. And after a feeble attempt at solving this " twofold problem," he dismisses the passage without further remark. But is this criticism? Such a course of evasion is utterly unworthy the name of inves- tigation. We shall follow him, however, in the solution of his problem. I pass, for the present, the polite intimation of a doubt ex- pressed by the Professor, whether the assertion o^ the apostle " be icell founded,^'' for the reader will not be at a loss how to estimate a theory that reduces its advocates to such an extremity of solution. But in examining the "authority" upon which Paul makes the assertion, it will be proper first to follow our author in his statement of counter authorities. He is not satisfied to receive the testimony of the Apostle in 24* 282 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY this matter, unless supported by the authority of others. I suppose that Paine or Voltaire would have been fully willing to believe the Bible on such ternns. But the Professor attempts to sustain himself in this singu- lar position as follows : *' We must certainly admit that the unequivocal assertion of an inspired apostle carries with it a prima facie evidence of conveying an absolute truth. Yet when such an assertion relates to a matter of historical fact, on which we have other sources of information, we are, doubtless, at liberty freely to inquire how far the assertion is sustained by authentic records, and in what way any appa- rent discrepancy between them is to be reconciled. We do not conceive that the simple declaration even of an inspired man, on a subject of this nature, is a necessary foreclosure of ail inquiry into its grounds." p. 252. But this is a mere evasion ; or an attempt to confound things which are entirely different. Professor Bush cannot but know that there is a wide difference between inquiring into the grounds of an assertion, the truth of which is unquestionable, and an in- quiry whether the assertion is true or not. Now while he professes to be doing the former of these (as his words would evince), he is really doing the latter. And hence he adds, *' In regard to the present point, we think the evidence is conclusive that the Pharisees, as a body, did not hold to the resurrection of the wicked^ p. 252. He also quotes the testimony of Josephus, and R. David Kimchi, and R. Menasseh Ben Israel, &c. &c., to prove that they held no such sentiments as he asserts that Paul here attributes to them : from all of which he concludes that '•Hhere seems no room to question that the general sentiments of the Pharisees in all ages have been adverse to the doctrine of the resurrec- tion of the wicked," (pp. 252-254,) and ergo, Paul was plainly mistaken in asserting what he does in the passage before us. Now there is something so uncandid in such a procedure — in pretending to be inquiring into the grounds of an asser- tion, and so attempting to escape the odium which he might well apprehend would result from an open denial of its truth, at the same time that he is doing his utmost to impugn its authority, that it needs but be mentioned to become the subject of merited and universal reprehension. But yet this whole criticism of the Professor is based upon a total misapprehension of the passage before us. Paul is ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. 283 not here speaking of the Pharisees " as a sect," hut of the Jews; (and the Pharisees were but a small part of the na- tion;) he affirms that the Jews held the doctrine referred to. The Pharisees, may or may not have held it, (and even our author is compelled to admit that at least some of them did so believe,) but the Jews as a nation did believe that the wicked would be raised from the dead. On the principle of accommodation^ even Professor Bush is compelled to admit this. For if Christ accommodated himself to the errors of the Jews, it is plain from Matt. xxv. 31-46, and John v. 28, 29, that this must have been the view of the multitudes of his hearers. So also if the apostles accommodated their teaching in like manner, the inference is irresistible that the nation must have entertained this view, as the text itself un- der consideration at once shows. And if they did not ac- commodate themselves thus to Jewish errors, it follows of course that they in these passages announced the truth. So that either way, our author cannot escape the inference which he denies. U it be necessary to sustain by authority the statement that Paul is here speaking, not of the Pharisees as a sect, but of the Jewish nation, I would refer the Professor to the context; and also to Home, who remarks that the apostle is here speaking " of the Jews in general, and of himself in particular." Crit. Introd. Vol. I. p. 351. Dr. Knapp also remarks that " It may be perhaps that this (i. e. that the wicked would not be raised from the dead,) was tavght by some at the time of Josephus ; but during the first century it was the more 'prevailing belief even among the Pharisees, that both the righteous and the wicked would share in the coming resurrection^ And after referring to Acts xxiv. 15, he continues: " But frequent traces of this opinion are to be found in the Chaldaic Paraphrases, and in the writings of the Rabbins after the time of Christ, although it never (i. e. after this time) became general among the Jews." See " Christian Theology,^'' p. 467, London Ed. So also Rabbi Israel, in his book Be Anima, cap. 8, says that " Both the body and soul of the Israelites who sin in the body shall be tormented in the fire," i. e. of hell. And Rabbi Bechai says that " The Israelites who forsake the law, shall be raised from the dead and suffer eternal torments in soul and body." Such, then, is the Professor's " solution" of the first ^^prob- 284 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY /em." As to the second, to wit, " how the apostle's words are to be understood consistently with the dominant teaching of reason and revelation on the subject," he remarks that they are to be explained as he, the Professor, has explained the language of Christ, in relation to the same subject. " In explaining the one," says he, " we have explained the other:" and so he dismisses the subject. But so far as the Professor's explanations of the language of Christ are con- cerned, the reader will probably agree with me, that to take them in order to clear up the Professor's difficulties with this passage, would be truly explaining ignotum pet igno- tivs. SECTION VII. Examination of passages in the Epistles. I. The next passage adduced by our author is the fol- lowing : — "And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin ; but the spirit is life because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead, shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you." Rom. viii. 10, 11. (p. 255.) Professor Bush begins his remarks on this passage with the following observation : " Nothing is more obvious to the careful reader of this and the other epistles of Paul, than that the term ' body' is used in a somewhat figurative sense, to denote not so much the physical organization in distinction from the soul, as the body considered as the seat and subject of moral corruption, and thus set in opposition to the spiritual or renewed part of our nature. By the body's being dead, therefore,''^ &c. On the correctness of this remark depends the correctness of the exposition which he offers of the passage. But the remark is not sustained by fact. It is not a fact that " nothing is more obvious to the careful reader," than that Paul thus places aofia, body, "in opposition to the spiritual or renewed part of our nature." It is painful to be compelled to contradict thus pointedly so many positive assertions of Professor Bush ; but if he will hazard them without examination, he must expect that, when they concern subjects of such vast im- ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. 285 portance, and yet are unsupported by fact, they will be contradicted. The remark struck me as somewhat sin- gular, and, as I have professed to be a " careful reader" of Paul, and had never noticed the fact asserted by the Pro- fessor, I thought the subject worthy of examination. Our author would have the ow^a, " the seat and subject of moral corruption," and the antithesis of the " spiritual or renewed part of our nature;" and then he hopes that it will, there- fore, not appear to be any very great loss, if, after all, the spirit should not become re-united therewith. But the truth of the matter is this : Paul employs aui/xa in his epistles ninety- six times ; and out of all these Professor Bush cannot pro- duce five where it is used as he would have it constantly to be. So far is this fact from being obvious to the readers of Paul. The word is thrice used to designate the seat of the affec- tions, or the nature of man as led by the senses, (Rom. vi. 6, and vii. 24; 1 Cor. ix. 27,) and once, or twice, perhaps, as Professor Bush asserts, (Rom. viii. 13; yet see the mar- ginal reading in Griesbach:) but, on the other hand, it is referred to as a subject of the sanctifying influences of the Spirit, and directly styled " a temple of the Holy Spirit," and an instrument of doing the will of God : 1 Cor. vi. 19, 20; Phil. iii. 21; Rom. xii. 1, 2. If Professor Bush had said that cra^l was often employed by the apostle in contrast with " the spiritual or renewed part of our nature ;" he would have said what is susceptible of proof: see Rom. vii. 18, 25, and viii. 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13; 2 Cor. x. 2; Gal. v. 13, 16, 17, 19, 24, and vi. 8; Col. ii. 11, 23. Xa^^, flesh, is thus often used in contrast with spirit, and the works of the flesh to the vwrks of the Spirit;' and odt^l xal al'ixa, flesh and blood, is said to be excluded from the kingdom of God ; but never is this said of the a^fia, body. This is to be changed; Phil. iii. 21, and 1 Cor. xv. 42-55. And so carefully does the apostle distinguish between them, (as a general thing,) that in his use of the two terms in Col. ii. 1 1, it is of the flesh, or cri^l that the sin is predicated : " The body of the sins of the fleshy Professor Bush, in order to maintain his theory, would evidently have these two terms employed as synonyms, that he might be able to reason from one to the other; but this is entirely inadmissible.* * " SagI flesh, properly differs from a-Zy-A body, in this, that the latter denotes the entire body, as a whole, without respect to any of ii86 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY The Professor continues his remarks as follows : " By the body's being dead, therefore, in connexion with Christ's in- habitation of it, is implied an admission, that, viewed in itself, as actuated by its native propensities, it is indeed (jwlv) dead in trespasses and sins." But I apprehend that there is a wide distinction to be observed between being dead h afia^tiaii in sins; and dead 81 afia^tiav, on account of sin, of which Paul here speaks. The former cannot be predi- cated of a body in which the Holy Spirit dwells; but the latter may, as it means simply destined to death. Our author proceeds still further to confound this distinc- tion, and then gives the following explanation of the pas- sage: (p. 256.) " This principle of divine life, thus infused into the soul which inhabits a body morally dead, will gradually work outward from its centre, and quicken that body also with a divine vitality. For as this principle of life flows from Him who ' hath life in himself,' and who gave such a demon- stration of its efficacy in raising up Christ from the dead, the supposition is perfectly easy, that the same power is competent to a complete spiritual quickening of the whole man in his saints, so that they shall stand before him as in the highest sense alive, soul, spirit, and body. The text is therefore entirely analogous with Col. ii. 12: ' Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.' " But if this be the meaning of the passage, it certainly makes nothing in favour of the Professor's theory. If in this world the renovation of believers is " a complete spiritual quickening," " so that they shall stand before God as in THE HIGHEST SENSE alivc, soul. Spirit, and body," then *' the spiritual life implanted in regeneration" is something more than the commencement of the existence of a tertivm quid, which is to be eliminated at death. And if the body — the tfw/ia, thus becomes in the highest sense alive, under the saving operations of the Spirit, it would require some pretty substantial proof to make one believe that it would thereafter perish, so as to be in no sense partaker of the benefits of its conditions, whereas the former denotes the human body with re- ference to its weakness, its debility — its mortality." Tholuck in John vi. 59. ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. 287 redemption in the next world. To suppose that Christ after thus redeeming it, and making it truly alive, along with the soul and spirit, would still suffer it to perish for ever, would be to suppose what is utterly repugnant to the dictates of Scripture and of right reason. I am aware that Professor Stuart, and Mr. Barnes, and other eminent critics have supposed that the phrase " shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you," does not refer to the resurrection of the body but to its renewal and sanctification by the Spirit. Calvin also was of this opinion: " Unde colligimus," says he, " non de ultima resurrectione quae momenta fiet, haberi sermonem, sed de continua Spiritus operatione, qua reliquias carnis paulatim mortificans, cselestem vitam in nobis instaurat." Comment, in Rom. viii. 11. The same view is taken by Piscator and others: but these all admit that as the body is thus renewed, it would be a great absurdity to suppose it would not be raised again from the grave. There are, how- ever, equally great authorities who understand the passage to announce the resurrection of the body. Dr. Hodge, Pareus, Howe, Whitby, Grotius, Poole, and others, entertain this view ; and even Crellius, (whose denial of the resurrection of precisely the same body which is here possessed would have led him to take some other view,) is so pressed with the obvious antithesis in ver. 11, that he is compelled to fall in substantially with the foregoing view. " It appears," says he, " that the apostle wishes to embrace a two-fold sense in these words; the first the principal, and the other secondary. The principal is, that we should receive these words as refer- ring to the future resurrection and vivifying. The secondary is, that we receive them as refrvrring to the spiritual vivifying of our bodies," &c. Frat. Pol. III. 137. And Slichtingius on the same passage remarks, that " By the Spirit of God our mortal bodies are consecrated to immortality, nor can God desert and leave them unless he wills that his own Spirit which dwells therein should desert and leave them." Vol. V. 230. We shall, therefore, proceed to give our own view of the matter in reply to Professor Bush, who, of course, does not believe that the future resurrection of the body is here referred to. He thus proceeds : " The idea of any allusion to a physical resurrection is opposed by the following con- siderations: "(1.) The quickening here spoken of is evidently one 288 THE RESURRECTION OP THE BODY that is effected by the agency of the Holy Spirit. But a literal resurrection of the dead, even supposing it taught at all, is not elsewhere attributed to the Spirit. He is repre- sented as the author of the present spirtual life of the saints, but not of their future physical life." p. 256. This is a strange reason for Professor Bush to offer. It might do for any one else, but coming from an advocate of his theory, it borders rather on the ludicrous. He first denies that " a literal resurrection of the dead " is taught at all, in the Bible; and then, as though he had admitted that such a resurrection was to be performed by the Father or Son, he seriously tells us that the Spirit, at all events, was no where said to be '' the author of the future physical LIFE " of the saints. Have the saints, then, such a future physical life? If they have, why does Professor Bush else- where deny it? If they have not, why does he say that the Spirit is not the author " of their future physical life." The absurdity of his urging this objection is still further apparent from the fact that it is in direct contradiction to a very favourite doctrine of his theory. He says, " We must believe that the only germ in the human body answering to the germ in the plant — is the spiritual body itself ;^^ (p. 179,) and this ^^ germ" is implanted by the Holy Spirit in regeneration, says he: " The effect of the Gospel, attended by the energetic influence of the Holy Spirit, is to quicken its recipients into a new and divine life, which, as it is a virtual resurrection while they are yet in the body, issues by necessary consequence in that consummated resurrection which accrues to them upon their leaving the body^ p. 138. " The spiritual body developed at death is intimately related to the spiritual life implanted in regeneration." p. 140. And he is perpetually repeating this. Now is not this making the Holy Spirit truly and properly the author of the only resurrection for which our author pleads? And yet he says that " the quickening here is evidently one that is effected by the Holy Spirit;" and that as the resurrection is not elsewhere attributed to the Spirit, therefore this text cannot refer to the resurrection. But the syllogism might be changed, on our author's own principles, thus ; The Spirit is the author of regeneration : but regeneration is " a virtual resurrection," at which time the " germ " is " implanted," which is the resurrection-body; and therefore Rom. viii. 10, 11, does refer to the resurrection. ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. 289 Professor Stuart objects to the application of this text to the resurrection, on the ground that this would make the resurrection to be effected by the Holy Spirit, to whom it is said to be no where else attributed in the Bible. " Where," he asks, "is the resurrection at the last day, of our physical bodies, attributed to the sanctifying Spirit in believers ? Very different is the statement in Col. ii. 12, 13; Eph. i. 19, 20, and ii. 5, 6; Rom. vi. 4." Comment, in Rom. viii. 10. The passages here referred to, however, do not assert that the Spirit will not be concerned in the resurrection of believers ; but only that he sanctifies them in this life. Admitting, however, that there is no other passage, in which the Spirit is said to be concerned in our resurrection, so far from concluding herefrom that this cannot be asserted of the Spirit in the passage under consideration, I should, other things being equal, deduce just the opposite inference. The Spirit is one with the Father and Son, and acts in unison with them in every work that is not strictly personal^ or peculiarly characteristic of the several persons of the God- head as such; and the resurrection is a work which is not more characteristic of the one than the other, as will be shown presently. But before we proceed to the inference, we shall illustrate the premises. It will be admitted that to each of the persons of the Trinity belong alike the names and attributes of the Godhead. Hence dominion is alike ascribed to each: see Rom. X. 12; Luke ii. 11; Rom. xi. 34; (with Isa. xl. 13;) 2 Cor. iii. 17. The exercise of Almighty power is also attri- buted to each separtely. Eph. iii. 7. " The grace of God /given to me by the effectual working of his power." 2 Cor. xii. 9. " That the power of Christ may rest upon me." Rom. XV. 19. "Mighty signs and wonders by the power of the Spirit of God." So also the revelation of the divine will is attributed to each severally: e. g. Phil. iii. 15; Heb. i. 1, attribute it to the Father; Gal. i. 12; 2 Cor. xiii. 3, to the Son; and Luke ii. 26; Mark xiii. 11; 2 Pet. i. 21, to the Spirit. The sanctification of believers is also in like man- ner attributed to each. To the Father in Jude i.; to the Son in Heb. ii. 11, and to the Spirit in Rom. xv. 16. The commission and authority to preach the Gospel proceeded also from each severally. From the Father, 2 Cor. iii. 5, 6; from the Son, 1 Tim. i. 12; from the Spirit, Acts xx. 28. The creation of mankind is ascribed to each also. To the 25 290 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY Father, Ps. c. 3; to the Son, John i. 3; and to the Spirit, Job xxxiii. 4. " The Spirit of God hath made me." Such is doubtless the true import of the passage ""Jntrjj Vir^^'^: though it is the only passage which 1 know of where this work is ascribed to the Spirit. The resurrection of the body of Christ, is also attributed to each. To the Father, 1 Cor. vi. 14, " God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise us up by his own power." To the Son, John ii. 19, " De- stroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." To the Spirit, 1 Pet. iii. 18, " Christ — being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit." Should we not expect then to find, d priori, that the same agencies that raised the Head, would raise also the members? This expectation is certainly not unreasonable; and espe- cially may we look for some such testimony respecting the Spirit, when we find the resurrection so clearly ascribed to both the Father and Son. See John v. 21. But Rom. viii. 11, will certainly fairly admit of this construction: and if it be the only passage which can assert this truth, it strikes my own mind, that so far from this being a reason why it should be otherwise explained, it is a strong a priori reason to conclude that such is indeed its true import. There is a striking propriety also in representing the Spirit as participating in the work of the resurrection. 1. He is the author of life and he restores spiritual life to man. He renews and sanctifies the soul and body. Hence 2. the bodies of Christians are declared to be the temples of the Holy Ghost. 1 Cor. iii. 16; and yi. 19. Now the resurrection is only the revival of that life of man which death had interrupted. Who so proper, therefore, to restore and perfect that state of being, and reconstruct his own temples which death had thrown down, as the great inhab- itant of those temples? 3. We have also seen that he raised Christ. Who so proper, therefore, to raise the members, as he who had raised the Head? 4. It may be remarked fiirther that aZfia TtvBv [xatixov in 1 Cor. xv. is explained by many to mean not only a body adapted to spiritual uses, but one that will be as it were supplied (i. e. raised and changed) by the Holy Spirit himself. 5. This doctrine is also in strict accordance with other representations of the Bible, and with the sentiments of the ancient Jews. See e. g. Ezek. xxxvii. 9, 10, where referring to the resurrection of the army who had been slaughtered, and whose bones were " very dry," I ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. 291 the prophet exclaims, " Come, O Spirit, from the four winds and blow upon these slain that they may live." Now the Jews explain this to mean " that the resurrection shall be effected by virtue of the Holy Spirit." The Targum of Jonathan renders the passage, " And he said to me, Prophesy to the Spirit, prophesy, son of man, and say to the Spirit, Thus saith the Lord God, Come from the four spirits, unto these slain that they may live." I have rendered nnn " O Spirit,'' instead of " ivind,''' as it is in the English version, for, that nn here means Spirit, seems to me indisputable. I think that Professor Bush has fully demonstrated this in his " Valley of Vision," p. 22, 23, in which he well re- marks, that " The case is too clear to admit of doubt, that the Spirit here spoken of is to be understood of the Holy- Spirit." Consequently, as there is always the strictest pro- priety in all the figures employed in the revelation of God, and as this passage, though it presents a symbolical resur- rection, is descriptive of a literal one, we may truly conclude that it is the province of the Spirit to resuscitate not only the morally but physically dead. 6. And finally, such was likewise the doctrine of the primitive church, who seem to have attached this meaning to the passage. Irenseus says, " Our bodies rising by the Spirit shall be made spiritual, and by the Spirit they shall have a life which shall always con- tinue." Adv. Haer. Lib. V. c. 7. And Origen, in Rom. viii. 11, says, '* They may know that by the Spirit of him who raised up Jesus from the dead, they shall be revived, and raised from the dead after the similitude of Christ." The next exception of Professor Bush against referring this passage to the resurrection of the body is as follows ; " (2) The phrase ^vr^ta oJifxata, mortal bodies, cannot fair- ly be interpreted to mean the same as vsx^a (s^fjca'ta, dead bodies, which yet it must be, if the doctrine of the literal resurrection is here taught. By ' mortal' is signified, not dead, but tending to death, subject to death. On the theory assumed, the apostle is in reality made to say, ' God shall raise to life your living dead bodies,' which is of course an idea too extravagant to be for a moment admitted." p. 256-7. But this is a mere witticism. And even if " the theory assumed" does make Paul speak thus, it would have been wise for Professor Bush before he thus referred to it, to inquire how his own theory must make Paul speak. He must say, according to our author, " God will raise to life 292 THE RESURRECTION OP THE BODY your living bodies ;" or, if the resurrection be not referred to, as Professor Bush maintains, then, as the words are ad- dressed to Christians, i. e., those already quickened, our author's theory must make Paul say, " God will raise to life your spiritual bodies, which are already alive, and which can never die, because they shall be eliminated at death." But as to the assertion, in the former part of this ob- jection, that " dvTjTfa aJi^ata, cannot fairly be interpreted to mean the same as vex^d cfto/Aata," it is copied from Mr. Locke's paraphrase, and is worth about as much as the generality of his profound exegetical remarks. Mr. Locke did not produce any proof whatever of his assertion, and Professor Bush imitates him so closely as even to imitate him in this. But our author contradicts his own exposition. The phrase trw^a vsx^bv occurs in ver. 10, and in expound- ing it, as we have seen above, he gives it the same meaning that he here attaches to ffw^a dvTjtbv — making them both mean a body that is truly living. He also copies from Mr. Locke the criticism, that evfitbv supposes the thing joined with it to be living; and hence he has translated the phrase, " living dead bodies," taking for granted that Mr. Locke's authority settles the point. But, 1. I remark that when this term, as in this place, refers to a body to be quickened, it never means any thing else than a dead body. Professor Stuart, (against whose authority in a matter of Greek usage even Professor Bush would hardly venture to bring that of Mr. Locke,) plainly allows, that the phrase here means the same thing as owjua vsx^bv. Vorstius remarks, that " Owita is here put for vsx- ^w^Ej/fa," i. e., datum neci. But, 2. So far from evTjtbv never meaning that which is truly dead, we find Paul, in 1 Cor. XV., twice applying it as descriptive of the state of the body in the day of its resurrection from the grave. At that time, says he, this mortal^ (that is, the bodies of men, whether they shall be then living, or shall have previously died,) to Ovritbv tovto, shall put on immortality; and that, when this mortal shall have put on immortality, death shall be swallowed up in victory. 3. The analogous pas- sage in 2 Cor. iv. 14, also clearly implies that such must be the import of the phrase: "He which raised up the Lord Jesus, shall raise us up also by Jesus, and shall pre- ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. 293 sent us with you." See, also, Cudworih's excellent criticism. Works II., 605. The last exception of Professor Bush is the following : " (3.) This interpretation destroys the continuity and co- herence of the apostle's discourse. It supposes him abruptly to break off from a connected series of remarks relative to walking not after the flesh, but after the spirit, to leap on- ward to the resurrection of the dead, and, having simply glanced at this, to return as suddenly and resume the thread of his argument. This is, to say the least, a very violent supposition." p. 257. This, too, is taken from Mr. Locke; and a careful viewing of the passage will show it to be altogether unfounded. Paul is discoursing of the benefits and advantages of those who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit — they shall have life and peace here through the Spirit; and though the body is destined to death because of sin, yet it shall not perish; but as God raised up Christ's body, so, also, shall the bodies of believers be raised by the Spirit, and thus, their salvation be complete. And hence we are not debtors, to live after the flesh, for they who do so shall die, (penally,) but those who by the Spirit mortify the deeds of the body shall live. There is no " leaping," nor *' abrupt breaking off"," here; but the argument is logical and con- clusive. II. The next passage is v. 22, 23 of the same chapter. " For we know that the whole creation groaneth, and tra- vaileth in pain together until now : for not only they, but ourselves also, which have the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adop- tion, to wit, the redemption of the body : f^v arco^vt^Maiv tov acufidtoi ^iLtwv." p. 258. / Professor Bush offers but a very few remarks on this passage ; and to discuss it fully in its connexion, would re- quire many more pages than can be here occupied for such a purpose. We shall therefore dismiss it with a brief remark or two upon his exposition of the latter part of it; for it is to this that his criticisms are wholly confined. The sum of what he offers is the following: — After remarking that the adoption here mentioned is undoubtedly the manifestation of the sons of God, he adds, " The ' redemption of the body' evidently indicates a state identical with that of this acknow- ledged adoption which is in reserve for the heirs of the 25* 294 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY kingdom. This is to be the realized consummation of the Christian's hopes, that to which they are all to come as one redeemed, regenerated, sanctified hody. It is their common inheritance ; and as the church is often spoken of as a hody, of which Christ is the presiding head and the pervading life, we perceive nothing incongruous in the idea that this collec- tive body of the saints is here intended by Paul. Certain it is, that there is a difficulty, on every other explanation, of accounting for the use of the singular number in this con- nexion. Why, if the common view be well founded, does he not say < redemption of our bodies' instead of ' redemp- tion of our hodyV This may appear at first blush a criti- cism of little weight, but we are persuaded it is one of prime importance, and that we are entitled to demand some rational solution of the problem involved in the phraseology. Nothing certainly would be more natural than the use of the plural if he were speaking of the physical resurrection of believers. As it is, we cannot doubt that the term is to be taken in a collective sense, for the spiritual or mystical body of Christ, the whole aggregate of believers ; so that ' our body,' in this connexion, is merely another phrase for the hody to which we helong." The idea here asserted, and which runs through this whole extract, is that toy acufidto^ jj/twv, our hody, here, as a col- lective noun, refers to the Church of Christ, redeemed and saved by him ; and the criticism designed to sustain this view, and which Professor Bush thinks " is one of prime impor- tance," and which justifies him in " demanding some rational solution of the prohlem{ ! ) involved in the phraseology," is that if o^fxa here refers to the physical body of the Christian, why should not the phrase be " redemption of our hodies, instead of redemption of our hody ?" We shall attend to each of these in their order. Professor Bush, in introducing the former of these ideas, has confused his own mind more than a little, by not having noticed that the New Testament clearly announces a twofold adoption or filiation. The first takes place in regeneration, when the believer is born again. See John i. 12, 13, and iii. 3-5. And hence he is said to have the spirit of filiation, 7ivEvfji,a, vloOsalai, whereby he cries Abba, Father. Rom. viii. 14, 15. See also 1 John iii. 1, 2. This takes place while the believer is in the present world. But there is another and more glorious and manifested adoption, and which is ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. 295 referred to in v. 23 of the passage before us, at which glori- ous period the believer is raised from the dead, and }hus being a "child of that resurrection" to immortal life and bliss, which is alone the prerogative of those who on earth had been the children of God, he is made " like to the angels." Luke xx. 36. This manifestation of adoption is immediately conse- quent upon the resurrection ; (and hence this is the period for which believers are looking with groaning and anxious expectation;) nor is there any where a statement of the pro- mise of this glorious adoption, unless in this connexion. But Professor Bush makes the resurrection ile body, ''^(^tb (jwwoc t'^$ rartstrcocrsoj rjfiiivJ) Here is the same " collective noun " according to Professor Bush. ASSERTED AND DEPENDED. 297 And is the church of Christ, then, a vile body? But these references are more than sufficient to show the futility of this " prime " criticism, without wasting any more time upon the subject. III. The next passage quoted by our author is the fol- lowing: "For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven: if so be that being clothed, we shall not be found naked. For we that are in this tabernacle do groan being burdened : not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mor- tality might be swallowed up of life." 2 Cor. v. 2-4. p. 259. To have presented this passage complete. Professor Bush ought to have quoted ver. 1: "For we know, that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens." He commences his criticism on the passage with the remark that " several points having an important bearing on our theme, disclose themselves in this passage." The Jirst of these is, that "the house from heaven for which the apostle longed is the same with the spiritual body of which he speaks." 1 Cor. xv. 44. And this, says he is " the very unanimous judgment of commentators :" and he considers it not " undeserving of notice that the apostle here uses the present tense ^xoH'^v, we have, and not the future, we shall haveJ^ It may be indeed true, that the house from heaven is the spiritual or resurrection body: but there is not the least inti- mation in the passage that the apostle expected to be thus clothed at death. His earnest desire to be clothed with the heavenly tabernacle is not therefore an earnest desire to die (as Professor Bush's theory would represent it,) but an ear- nest desire for the redemption of the body, which will be effected at the resurrection. The Jews represented the inter- mediate, or separate state of the soul as an imperfect state, and speak of it as nakedness. See e. g., the Chaldee Para- phrasts on Job xxxviii. 14, &c., and this is the very idea of Paul here; 6v yvfivot sv^vjdsoofjLidajthat we should not be found naked. In Pirk. Eliezer, c. 30, and also in Midrash Cohe* leth, c. 5, the Rabbins say that a Samaritan came to inquire of Rabbi Meir (who was born under Nero,) whether the dead rise naked? to whom the Rabbi answered that " The pea which is sown naked, is raised clothed with a pod, and much more, therefore, do the dead arise clothed." The 2^98 THE RESlTRRECTION OF THE BODY idea of the apostle therefore, is, that the dissolution of our earthly house will leave us naked until we are clothed upon with our heavenly house; and therefore we desire the glo- rious period of the redemption of the body to come, so that being clothed we shall not be found naked. The criticism that is not "undeserving of notice," that Paul here uses the present, we have, instead of the future, we shall have, (by which our author would desire to inti- mate that the resurrection must take place at death,) is unWort-hy of. any one but a mere tyro. Does not Professor Bush kpow that the sacred writers often use the present tense for the future? Let him turn to John iii. 36, and vi. 47, and Matt. xxvi. 2, and xvii. 11; or let him turn to Wi- ner^s Idioms of the New Testament^ Part III. § 41. The other •' important point disclosed in this passage," ac- cording to the. Professor, is thus stated by him : " Secondly, it is clear, we think, that Paul expected to be clothed upon with this heavenly house as soon as he left the material body. This is evident from the whole strain of his discourse, "but especially from v. 6, 8: 'Knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord : we are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent froni the body, and present with the Lord.' What other inference can we draw from this, than that he expected at once to assume that celestial tenement which would capacitate him for ' being with Christ?' that is, hav- ing a .body 'fashioned like unto his glorious body,' as Moses and Elijah certainly had when they appeared with him upon the holy mount. If he did not anticipate an im- mediate entrance at death into the beatific presence, where did he expect to be? Did he count upon a long interval of dormant and unconscious repose before he awoke to the felicities of heaven? Did he believe the soul would sink into a dreary lethargy of centuries or chiliads in duration, while the body was mouldering away in the dust, and pass- ing into unnumbered new Telations?" This passage calls for several remarks. And, 1. To iri- timate, as Professor Bush here does, that those who enter- tain, the doctrine of the resurrection of the body, believe in the"dorniant or unconscious repose" of the soul ; and to pretend that there is no alternative between believing that the resurrection takes place at death, and that the con- sciousness of the soul is suspended between death and the ASSERTED AND DEPENDED. 299 resurrection, is a course of procedure not only unworthy of him, but which evinces that he felt it to be rather hard work to press this passage into the support of a theory with which it is at direct variance. 2. It is not clear, as the Professor asserts, that Paul expected to be cloth- ed upon (with this heavenly house, i. e., as he explains it, to enter the resurrection-state,) as soon as he left the body. His expression simply is, that "although his earthly house were dissolved, he should have a house not made with hands, that would never be dissolved, but continue eternally in the heavens." As to entering that house im- mediately on leaving the body, the text neither asserts nor implies it. 3. The passage, so far from sustaining the Pro- fessor's theory, directly impugns' it. Paul says, " We do not groan to be unclothed, or divested of this earthly taber- nacle, {i. e., to die) but clothed upon,". &c., ver. 4. Un-. clothing, therefore, and being clothed upon, are plainly two distinct things; as distinct in this economy as in n^iture itself. The putting o.ff the garment is one thing, (and this, says- Paul, is not, in itself, the thing which we are. so anxious for, see Phil. i. 23, 24,) and putting on another garrnent is another and a different thing. But Professor Bush makes both to be one and the same thing. He makes Paul here express a wish to retain his undergar- ment, and merely to throw off his outer one. " Even in the present life," says he, "it is the spiritual body which feels the sensations of pleasure arid, pain;" (p. 264;) and this body merely forsakes, or throws off, the outer body at death. Now if Mr. Noble, (a favourite writer of Professor Bush,) should have upon him at one, and the same time two coats, an under coat, and a " great coat;" and should, upon calling to see the Professor, throw off his over coat; and then begin the conversation by saying, '* I have had such a desire to put off this great coat, and to put on the one that I now have, and which you have seen me put on by throwing off the other;" would the Professor admit that there was either sense or reason in this?- And yet this is the way. he makes the apostle reason in the passage before us. When the putting off an over coat, therefore, is the same thing ^vith putting on an under coat, the Professor may say. that, .this passage does not pointedly condemn his theory, '. 4. The 6th and 8th verses, which the Professor quotes -in the above extract, do not prove that the resurrection takes 300 THE RESURRECTION OP THE BODY place at death. They have no reference to that event, but refer merely to the separate stale of the souls of the blessed, who after death go to the Lord, to wait for the redemption of the body. See Luke xxiii. 42, 43, and xvi. 22; Rev. vi. 9-11, &LC. And the assertion, therefore, which the Pro- fessor makes on the next page, (p. 261,) that Paul evi- dently regarded his being clothed upon, (i. e., with his resurrection-body,) as " a necessary preliminary to his be- ing with Christ," is an assertion that has nothing to sustain it. Moses, and the souls mentioned in Rev. vi. 9-11, and the penitent thief, Luke xxiii. 42, 43, in their separate state, are present with Christ, as much as are Enoch and Elijah. It is, therefore, a misstatement to attribute to Paul a senti- ment the reverse of this.* IV. The next passage quoted is v. 10, " For we must all appeal" before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad." p. 262. On this passage the Professor correctly remarks, that " The original, * for we must all appear' (tovs ya^ rtdvtas T^ixai ^avs^w^^vat 5ft), means properly, we must all be mani- fested. The idea conveyed is something more than that of the simple fact of our standing or being presented at the judgment seat of Christ. It implies the development which * I have been amused at the Professor for introducing the fol- lowing- passage in this connexion. — " No one can fail to be struck with the evangelical tone of Cicero's language on a similar subject, iri his Tusculan Questions — ' posse animos, quum e corporibus ex- cesserint, in coelum, quasi in domicilium suum, pervenire,' that souls may, when they have forsaken their bodies, come into heaven as into their own domicil" p. 260. — He has evidently quoted the passage at secondhand, for he has not given it correctly, nor does he tell in what book of the Tusculan Questions to find it. I shall not here criticise it, however, (for the reader can, if disposed, consult it in its connexion, in Lib. 1., cap. 11,) but only express my wonder that the Professor should pronounce the sentiment evangelical. That it is evangelical, 1 admit ; but how can he admit it in consistency with his theory? Cicero, in connexion with the passage, (see cap. 9, and 10, and 12,) holds to the entire destruction of the body, of which he would not leave even a tertium quid. He speaks, as Professor Bush's translation shows, merely of the " soul,''^ upon leaving the body, entering, not a spiritual body, but heaven itself, as its own permanent abode. And this, says Professor Bush, is so evangelical, that " no one can fail to be struck with it." But if this is evangelical, it must be admitted that the Professor's theory is not so. ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. 30l then is to be made of character, as the ground of retribu- tion." He then makes a long quotation from Mr. Locke, in which that philosopher denies the identity of the present body with the future wa^eriaZ resurrection body; and whose sentiments he leaves to " carry their own weight to the mind of the reader." We have, however, sufficiently discussed this question of identity, and shall pass it here without further remark. The Professor also adds, that he sees '* in the text no allusion to the resurrection of the body; and with any thing else that may be taught by it we have at present no concern. He that has sinned or obeyed in the material body may properly be rewarded or punished in the spiritual body ; as it is in that, that the true personality of every one resides. The idea that the present body must necessarily share in the punishment of the sins which it was instrumental in committing, is one that receives no counte- nance from the decisions of a sound reason. The body, as such, is no more capable of suffering than the sword, the pistol, or the bludgeon, with which the murderer may have taken the life of a fellow being. Sensations, it is true, are received through the body, but the body is no more the seat or subject of them, than the telescope is the subject of vision. Even in the present life, it is the spiritual body which feels the sensations of pleasure or pain. How much more in the life to come?" pp. 263, 264. Such is the comment of our author on the passage ; and it calls for but a few brief re- marks. 1. And ^rs^, the simultaneousness of the judgment here referred to by Paul, (compare Matt. xxv. 31-46, and Rev. XX. 11-15,) is entirely passed over by our author without notice, though it is a matter so deeply affecting his theory. We need not here dwell upon the subject, however, for it will come up for discussion hereafter. 2. As Professor Bush can see no allusion to the resurrec- tion of the body in the text as he quotes it, can he not in that important reading referred to and advocated by Grotius, (See also Bengels' Apparatus Criticus in loco, and Gries- bach's Nov. Test.) of ta I8ia tov ow/itafoj, for ta 5ia tov cfo/wafoj ? That is, that every one may receive the things proper or appropriate to the body. Besides the support of some important MSS., this reading is sustained by Origen and Theodoret, &c. The Latin vulgate gives it the same ; *^ut referat unusquisque propria corporis,''^ Grotius, in 26 S02 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY explaining the reading remarks that *' tSta, here, are those things which are due to the body; as justice is said to render to every one his own, because it is often ^"6 d^jwd^ov, or suita- ble. That every one may receive the reward or punish- ment which is due to his body,^^ Such is his view of it, though he explains corpus to mean person, or the man him- self; a criticism that will not harmonize very well with the foregoing remarks of Professor Bush. But in a pro- fessed examination of this text by a critic who announces conclusions so utterly at variance with this reading, import- ant as it is, and who was therefore bound to give it a most serious consideration, we find that he has taken not the least notice of it. Is this the way to illustrate the propo- sition that "the knowledge of revelation is progressive?" 3. But says Professor Bush, "The idea that the present body must necessarily share in the punishment of the sins ■which it was instrumental in committing, is one that receives no countenance from the decisions of a sound reason^ This assertion needs proof, and our author has offered none. And from the specimens of his argumentation which we have already had, we must be excused for expressing a doubt as to his qualifications for being an umpire as to what "sound reason" does or does not teach.* Baxter, speaking on the same subject, remarks, that " It is congruous to the wisdom and governing justice of God, that the same body which was partaker with the soul in sin and duty, should be partaker with it in suffering or felicity." Works, vol. 21, p. 331. Howe advances the same sentiment. Worhs, p. 223. The same sentiment is asserted by Hilary, the deacon. " Every one of us," says he, " shall receive at judgment the deeds of our body, but we shall not be adjudged to good or evil with- out the body." Methodius (apud QEcumenius in loco) also expressly asserts that the soul shall not receive its deserts as a separate spirit, but through the body. " 'OvSs yd^ yvf^vri ^ * " As we have advanced in the careful and candid examination of the book, (the Anastasis of Professor Bush,) our conviction has been greatly increased, not so much of the grievousness of the specific errors of the work, as of the intellectual peculiarity, may we say infir- mity, apparent on its pages. Of our men of extensive and varied learning, our eloquent writers, and our devoted and successful scho- lars, he is certainly among those who hold the fewer qualifications for appreciating and presenting ' the inevitable deductions of reason,'' " Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review, for January 1845, p. 179. ASSERTED AND DEPENDED. 303 <\^}X^i *aX2ta fiid tov cfcjjwaT'oj xofii^stac ravfa." Theodoret, Theophylact, and Chrysostom assert precisely the same doctrine. But it is needless to refer to instances, for such is the general sentiment of the Christian church: and we are willing that the reader should decide whether the foregoing writers, at least had not some claims to the knowledge of what sound reason teaches, or whether Professor Bush has wholly monopolized that precious commodity. 4. The singular assertions in the foregoing quotation from our author, to the effect that sin may be properly " punished in the spiritual body," &c., harmonize charmingly with that leading feature of his theory, that the wicked never enter the resurrection-state, or are raised from the dead. The spiritual body, says he, belongs only to the righteous, for the wicked never rise: and yet, when pressed with a text that contradicts this, he can freely present the wicked with a resurrection or spiritual body, in order that they may be punished in it, for the sins they committed in the material body. Such is the way in which he perpetually contradicts himself. V. The next passage is one of great importance in this discussion, and we shall present both the original and trans- lation. We quote the text of Griesbach. 1 Thess. iv. 13-17. GR, ENG. VERS. Ov ^sxofisv ^e vfiag wyvoelv, But I would not have you dSsT-^ot, Tts^i, tuv xsxoifirjfi,£vuiv, to be ignorant, brethren, con- iva fjLr] %vnrja^Si xa^wj xai ol cerning them which are ^.oiTtoi ol firi £x°vtti sKrti^a, asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope. Et yd^ ftKStBvofifVt oVc 'Itj- For if we believe that Jesus cov? d7i£$avs xai aviatrj, ovtu died and rose again, even so xai 6 ^foj tov? xoLfxrj^svtai them also which sleep in 5ta tov 'ItjGov a|t6 avv avTf^. Jesus will God bring with him. TouT'o ya^ vf^lv "Kiyo^Bv Iv For this we say unto you xoy9 xv^Cov-) oti rifjiilq ol ^wvT'f j by the word of the Lord, that ol 7ts^i%£i7i6fi,£voc eii fy^v Tta^ov we which are alive and re- atav tov xv^vov, ov (iri ^^daufisv main unto the coming of the tov^ xoofirj^ivtas. Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. 304 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY "Ot'i avfb? 6 xv^ioj Iv xs^sva- For the Lord himself shall [xa-th ^v ^oivij a^xayyexov, xal descend from heaven with a iv adXTtLyyo ^sov xata^ri^Etac shout, with the voice of the an;' ov^avoii, xdl ot vsx^ol Iv archangel, and with the X^tcft'cp dvas'tYioov'i ai rt^Mtov' trump of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first: '"ETtsvta T^^sli ot ^wvT'Ej ol Then we which are alive 7i£^t%sL7t6[A.svoi^ d/xa Gvv avfoL^ and remain shall be caught d^rtayriao/xs^a Iv vs^sKavi stj up together with them in the aHavtrjiSiv Tfov xv^iov ££j ds^a' clouds, to meet the Lord in xai ovVo Ttdvtots avv xv^lc^ the air ; and SO shall we ever iaofiE^a. be with the Lord. The course which the Professor takes with this passage may be described in a single sentence. He first presents his own exposition; then candidly confesses that it is not so good as the common one; and then finally, to get rid of the testimony which the passage bears against his theory, brings in his exploded principle of accommodation, and unhesitat- ingly charges the apostle with being mistaken. As the pas- sage is a deeply important one in this connexion, we shall follow him throughout his exposition of it, though first, we shall present a brief critical view of its import. "We wish you not to be ignorant, says the apostle, of the condition of those who are asleep, (i. e. of believers who have died;) and you will then know that there is no reason why you should sorrow respecting them, as unbelievers or Pagans do, who have no hope that their friends who die will ever rise again from the dead." That this is the idea of Paul is clear from the fact that the Pagan world did believe, in the immortality of the soul. As an illustration of this the reader may refer to the quotation from Cicero, a page or two back. The Christian knowing that the separate state of the soul is an imperfect state, would sor- row indeed, if there was no hope of a reunion of the soul with the body. Hence as a ground of consolation against any such apprehensions, which the speculations of disguised Sadducees might have engendered, the apostle continues : " For if we believe that Jesus our Head died and rose again, why, this admitted fact should teach us that in like manner they who sleep in Jesus (i. e. his members who have died,) shall God raise with him the Head, because the Head can- not be perfect without the members." That ayw, here, ASSERTED AND DEPENDED. 305 means bring from the grave, and not merely from heaven, as it is constantly explained, is clear to my own mind ; for the word means to lead forth, or out of as to its primary sense, and metaphorically, to incite or quicken. Thus in Rom. viii. 14, " As many as are quickened by the Spirit of God," &c. See also Gal. v. 18, and 2 Tim. iii. 6, ''Ex- cited by divers lusts." So also the LXX. *' A fools lips awaken or quicken him to wickedness." Prov. xviii. 6. Thus also those who are asleep when Jesus comes, God shall lead forth (i. e. their souls from heaven and their bo- dies from the grave,) with him, as Jesus himself arose from the state of the dead. "And those who are alive and re- main until period of the Lord's coming," says Paul, " shall not anticipate those who are then dead," i. e. they shall neither be changed, nor rapt into the clouds before them. This he asserts by the special command of the Lord. He then continues, with a description of the advent, and a more particular description of the scenes to which he had just re- ferred. " The Lord shall descend from heaven with a shout, and the voice of the archangel and the trump of God ;* and frst the dead in Christ shall arise ; and then we who are alive and have remained until that time shall be caught up along with them (and of course, therefore, as I have just said, we shall not anticipate them,) to meet the Lord." The rendering of the phrase ol vsx^oi iv X^iat^ dvaa-f^aovtav Tt^Mtov, by *' the dead in Christ shall rise frst,^^ is plainly inaccurate: for this phrase is not contrasted with the rest of the dead (as this rendering would imply,) but simply with the clause T^fitc^ ol ^wj/fsj, we who are alive. There is no reference whatever to the resurrection of others at this time ; and there is no other antithesis than that expressed above; first the dead in Christ shall arise ; then, (that is, the next event that will take place, iTtfti'a,) they who are alive shall be caught up along with the raised saints, and there being changed, they shall ever be with the Lord. Such is a plain * This is a hebraeism for the great trumpet. See Matt, xxiv. 31. So also Job i. 16, "the fire of God," means a great fire, See also Gen. X. 9; Jonah iii. 3; Luke i. 6; Acts vii. 20; 1 Sam. xx, 12; Gen. xxx. 8; Ps. Ixviii. 16, and xxxvi. 7, and Ixxx. 11; Is. xxviii. 2, &c. The Hebrews, Greeks, &c. convoked their assemblies by sound of trumpet, and hence when God convokes men he is, in an appropriate figure of speech, said to do it with a trumpet. See Ps. xlvii. 5; Is. xxvii. 13 j Jer, iv. 5, and vi. 1; Hos. v. 8; Joel ii. 1, dtc 306 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY and brief exposition of the leading thoughts in this magnifi- cent passage, and we shall now hear what our friend the Professor has to offer in view of it. After observing that " the general scope of this passage is obviously to minister consolation to those addressed, under the grief arising from the death of Christian friends," our author proceeds to reiterate the declaration that Paul and the other apostles, with the mass of Christians, anticipated the coming of Christ here referred to, " in the lifetime of that generation." We have already refuted this assertion ; and if the reader would see it fully disposed of, and the real ten- dency of such a view exposed in a masterly manner, let him refer to Part I. Chapter II. of the " Miscellaneous Observa- tions" of President Edwards, Works, Vol. VII. pp. 221-227. He next repeats the assertion, that by the phrase " for this w^ say to you by the word of the Lord," Paul merely means to repeat what Christ had declared in Matt. xxiv. 30, 31; a sentiment as destitute of propriety a-s it is of proof; and only uttered to shield his theory from the direct testimony afforded by this passage against it. For even if a direct and present revelation to Paul of the truth here announced is not to be supposed (which is far from being the fact), there is no more reason to say that he repeats what Christ says in Matt, xxiv., than to suppose that he meant to say as Piscator remarks, " I announce this from the word which I heard from Christ himself, when I was rapt into the third heaven." 2 Cor. xii. 2. 4. Osiander (Dr. Lucas) paraphrases the passage, " This we say to you by the word of the Lord, i. e. we do not recite our own opinions in this matter, but the word of God, which you ought to believe :" and it surely is preposterous to assert that Matt. xxiv. 30, 31, contains what is here asserted by Paul in 1 Thess. iv. 13-17. Grotius expresses the precise idea of the words, " This we say hy the command of Christ, ex mandato Christi:" with which Beza (in loco) agrees, " In nomine Domini, et quasi eo ipso loqvente.^^ Our author next remarks that " in the general interpreta- tion of the passage a serious embarrassment arises from the difficulty of determining the precise import of aitt, will bring." But we have exhibited the import of this term al- ready; and if, in addition to the instances already presented, the Professor will turn to Acts xiii. 23, he will find the word translated ''raised." See also the LXX. in Zech. iii. 8. Many other instances of like usage can be specified : but if JT^ OT THE f/ -.-. * t- -r ^ «?. T T ASSERTED AND DEFENDBpi^ ^ 307 the Professor will only look at the antithesis, he will find that it requires this sense: "For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also that sleep in Jesus will God raise, or quicken, with him." Sleep, here, is the corre- lative of died; and rose again the correlative of altc, in the two cases mentioned, to wit, that of Christ and his members. He died, and they die ; he arose again by divine power, they shall also rise again by the power of God. There is no " difficulty" here, only in the attempt of the Professor to re- concile this, statement with his theory. God, who brought Christ from the dead (Heb. xiii*20), will also bring from the dead those who sleep in him, so that the members shall be quickened along with the Head. If the Professor had said that he found great " embarrass- ment" and "difficulty" in explaining the terms tov^ xoiy-rjOiv tas those who sleep, in accordance with his theory, we should have readily granted the obstacle to be insuperable. His theory-makes the dead saint not sleeping but awaking; and this he expresses in so many words in remarking on Ps. xvii. 15 (pp. 105-109), " I shall be satisfied when 1 awake with thy likeness." This awaking, says he, is the entrance upon the resurrection-stale at death. When the believer is raised from the dead, he is therefore neither dead nor asleep, but truly and properly awake. How, then, can all these saints of whom Paul here speaks, be asleep when Christ comes, when, according to the Professor, they are awake and already raised from the dead ? These remarks will enable the reader fully to appreciate the following laboured criticism of Professor Bush, in which he gives one of the most ludicrous perversions of language that 1 have lately met with. After making the following obser- vation, (founded on his erroneous view of ay«) " But here an objection would at once occur — How can they come with him, unless previously they were with him?" he says (pp. 266, 267), " This natural query the apostle proceeds to obviate in the sen- tence that follows: 'The dead in Christ (i. e. those that have slept in him) shall rise first,' i.e. shall rise, or shall have arisen, previously. That this is a probable sense of 7i^C:,tov=Tt^6'fs^ov, in this connexion, may be shown by an appeal to the vsus loquendi in the following passages: Matt. v. 24, "Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way, ftrst {rc^iZtov, previously) be reconciled to thy brother," &c. Matt. xii. 29, " How can one enter into a strong man's house and spoil his 308 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY goods, except he first (yt^wfov, previously) bind the strong . man?' Mark ix. 11, 12, ' Why say the scribes that Elias must ^rs^ (rt^w-rov, previously) come? And he answered and told them, Elias verily cometh^rsi (rt^wrov, previously) and restoreth all things.' 2 Thess. ii. ;3, ' For that day shall not come except there come a falling away first (n^^tovy pre- viously).^ 1 Tim. iii. 10, ' And let these also first (rt^Cjtov, previously) be proved.' The evidence, therefore, may be considered strong, that this is the true sense of the term in this connexion, and the clause, being thrown in for the pur- pose of meeting a tacit objection, ought to have been enclosed in a parenthesis. The whole passage will then read thus : — ' For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God (and the dead in Christ shall have previously arisen) ; then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up to- gether with them in the clouds {iv v£q>£%aii, in clouds, i. e. in multitudes, as the article is wanting), to meet the Lord in the air.' The phrase a/ta 6vv avfot j d^ytayiytjo^f ^a, shall be caught up together with them, means not on this view so properly that we shall be caught up in company with them — for how could they be caught up when they were already descending with Christ from heaven? — but simply, we shall be caught up to be with them^ We have already shown that the clause which is the basis of this huge display of criticism and learning, means simply that '■^ first the dead in Christ shall rise, then the living shall be caught up along with them in the air :" and I am most happy to be able to give the authority of the great Winer substantially in support of this criticism. He remarks that the dead in Christ are not here contrasted, by the apostle, with *' the Jewish or Pagan dead," i. e. the rest of the dead, but that " the contrasted clause is ^^f 15 ot ^wi^f ??, we who are alive. See '^Idioms of the New Testament,^'' Part IH. § 19. And yet upon the foregoing poor misconstruction of the passage, our author builds his astounding criticism. He does not, however, venture to explain how the risen saints are both asleep and awake, (as his theory makes them,) at the same time. But as a matter of Scripture criticism and New Testa- ment usage, the foregoing remarks of the Professor are most unfortunate for his repuation : for in not one instance which he adduces as a parallel usage, is the usage at all ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. 309 parallel. 1. In the passage before us, Tt^^'tov is used in enumeration — the common style of Paul's enumeration, Ti^Mtov, primum, first; and immediately following it, is the sTtsita^ deindCt then; see instances of this usage in 1 Cor. xii. 28, and xv. 46, and Heb. vii. 2, 27; compare also 1 Cor. XV. 5, 7, 23. And yet, in not one of the instances ad- duced by Professor Bush, is sTtsita found 1 2. And then again : In the instances before us, 7ie,^tov is simply used in enumeration, as above remarked; but in the instances* ad- duced by our author, it is used for Tt^otf^ov, or pro com- parativo. Professor Bush ought to know better than to in- dulge in such preposterous criticism. It might have done five hundred years ago; but it is in this age a most un- happy illustration of the proposition, that " the knowledge of Revelation is progressive." Upon such a basis the Professor follows up his conclu- sions to the end of his exposition on p. 268 ; and, after as- serting that aytatj in Jude 14, must refer to raised saints, instead of holy ones or angels, agreeably to the repeated announcements of the Saviour himself. Matt. xiii. 41, and xvi. 27, and xxiv. 31 ; Mark viii. 38, and xiii. 27; Luke ix. 26, and xii. 8, 9, (and agreeably, also, to the reading of some MSS. ixv^tdaiv dytov dyyiT^w, or dyye'xwv without the adjective, as others have it,) he caps the climax as follows : " With these prophetic intimations familiar to his mind, it was not unnatural that he should speak of Christ's being accompanied on his return to earth with these glorified legions of saints ; and if this view be admitted as sound, it will perhaps afford the true key to his language, 1 Cor. XV. 35: '' How are the dead raised, and with what body do they come?'' i.e., not with what body do they come up out of the ground, but with N^'hat body do they come down from heaven?" What the reader will think of this, in connexion with the Professor's note, p. 265, in which he admits that all the apostles and primitive Christians believed that the resur- rection would take place at the second advent, is easy to imagine; but we pass it to make a single remark upon his use of the passage in 1 Cor. xv. Paul asserts that the * All except the last, in which it is used in enumeration with the corresponding term iIta. The proper rendering of the passage is, «' And, Jirstj let these be proved, then let them, &c., if found blame- less." 310 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY language here quoted by the Professor is the language of "a fool,''^ and the Professor very obligingly makes Paul himself the author of it, and thinks he has found " the true key to his language." This would appear to be something more than charging the apostle with being mistaken, espe- cially as the Professor is serious in attributing it to him. In § 3, sub-section IV., above, we have fully explained this passage, and have shown that the Professor's view is a sheer perversion from the fact, 1. that the questions here are one, the bh being used simply to give force to the repe- tition of the interrogation, and not to connect together two distinct queries. Observe with what force it clothes the repetition of the interrogation in 2 Cor. vi. 14-16. And, then, 2., as we have shown above, the Professor's view cannot be the import of the question of the a^^ov or fool, for, though Paul professes to answer the query, he no where states what bodies the dead will have " when they come down from heaven ;" and hence, it is clear, that such a question is not here proposed to him. And, finally, the Professor makes the question to be, " with what bodies do the dead come down from heaven?" It is strange that even the wording of this did not show him its absurdity, according to his theory. For according to the Professor, when the dead come down from heaven, they are not dead, any more than we are, and not as much; for they have been raised from the dead, says he. And to call them dead, therefore, is preposterous. But the Professor is not satisfied with his exposition of this text as he very candidly admits in the following pass- age, to which we invite the special attention of the reader. He says, " The foregoing interpretation, it will be seen, de- pends upon the correctness of the idea assumed in the outset, that alft, iDill bring, refers to the descent of Christ at the era of the second coming. That this is not a violent suppo- sition we are well persuaded ; and yet, at the same time, we are constrained to acknowledge that, taken in the connexion, it does not strike one as quite so natural and obvious as that which is involved in the common rendering, which repre- sents it as a mere continuous announcement of the order of events. There is, perhaps, a more unforced air of proba- bility in the construction, which makes the writer to say that, as God intends to have his people ultimately with him, as well as Christ their head, so one great object of his second ASSERTED AND DErENDED. 311 coming might well be represented to be to gather home his sleeping and living saints in one united company, the first class to be reclaimed from the power of the grave in which they had been resting, and the other to be translated, which would of course bring them into the same condition with that of the risen dead. Accordingly, in pursuing the thread of the announcement, he may be considered as saying, that the first step will be to raise the sleepers in the dust, and invest them with their resurrection bodies. When this is accomplished, he will immediately proceed {luei'ta', then) to work that stu- pendous transformation upon the iiviug saints which shall fit them for entering into a spiritual kingdom; and this effected, both classes shall be caught together (a/' the judg- ment here described is a visible judgment in the natural sphere, the subjects of which are men restored to life and reinvested with bodies;^"* and supposes that the stupendous transactions here described, occur only in " the spiritual world." The heavens and earth, therefore, according to this critic must be spiritval, and the great while throne also, and the sea, and hades» and the lake of fire, &c. Such is the amount of this attempt at evasion. The remark, however, that "ftorfies" are not mentioned in this passage is a most unscholarly remark. Suppose they are not expressly mentioned, and what then? Where is "6o6?2/" mentioned in connexion with the resurrection of Lazarus, or of Jairus' daughter, or of the son of the widow of Nain, or of Dorcas, or of those raised by Elijah and Elisha? They are spoken of as dead, just as the dead are spoken of in this passage; and they were said to be raised 324 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY from the dead without any mention of their bodies. And what would Professor Bush say of a man who should decide upon this ground that the resurrection of Lazarus, &c. was a spiritual resurrection? He would have the same kind of feeling for such a man, as he has, by this criticism ex- cited in behalf of himself As to the time in which the events here mentioned are to occur, Storr correctly remarks that " according to Rev. xx. 12, (conf. V. 11,) the resurrection of the dead will fall within the time in which the earth shalf vanish before him that sits upon the throne, tq>vysv ^ ytj. After the resurrection, there will be a new earth, xaivri y^." Theol. B. III. §. 61. The passage itself clearly proclaims this truth, whatever mysterious meaning Professor Bush may try to attach to " earth and heaven" in this connexion. And therefore, as neither the old earth has yet fled away, nor the new one been created^ the inference is plain that the resurrection of " the dead, small and great," is yet to occur. It is equally clear loo, that these dead were truly, dead, and had not therefore been raised from the dead previous to this event : hence they are yet to be raised. It is equally clear that it is a resurrection of the bodies of both the righteous and the wicked. A part of them came fro7n the sea, and therefore their bodies were raised, for Professor Bush himself would hardly say that the sea is a receptacle for spirits or tertium quids. And then the dead who were raised, were judged out of the books, that is, the book of life, and the other books. Hence the wicked are also raised because they are here judged, and the book of life pertains only to the righteous. And this further appears from the fact that all of these raised dead who were not found written in the book of life, were cast into the lake of fire. Hence the wicked dead are also raised. Thus clearly and fully does this passage announce, as the testimony of God the Holy Ghost, the very doctrines, which, it is the express design of Professor Bush, in his Anastasis, and more recent works, to impugn. 11. Then there are many classes of passages to be found in. the New Testament, which either declare or imply the same truths. All those passages, for example, which speak oil quickening the dead,, and which of course imply that the quickening does not take place at death, but after it; for they are not dead until after death. See Rom. iv. 17; 1 Pet. ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. 325 iii. 18; John v. 21, &c. &c. The very application of this phraseology to the spiritually dead, illustrates its import. The spiritually dead are not quickened at their spiritual death, but after they have thus died. 12. All those passages also, which speak of believers being dead, contradict a theory which asserts that they are raised from the dead " even before they are consigned to the tomb." See Rom. vi. 7. Thus says Christ to the Jews, " Your fathers ate manna in the wilderness and are dead^ John vi. 49, 58; and viii. 52. Now among these fathers were Moses, and Aaron, and Phineas, &c. Moses is also said to be dead in Josh. i. 2. And yet Professor Bush says he had entered upon the resurrection state; that is, was no longer dead. Thus too, " righteous Abel" is still declared to be dead, Heb. xi. 4. See also Acts ii. 29; Rev. i. 5. Now Professor Bush in so many words asserts that these persons are as truly and properly alive, as Enoch and Eli- jah, and are as fully raised from the dead as they will ever be. Would it be proper, therefore, to say of Enoch and Elijah that they are dead? Or of the saints after the con- summation of all things that they are still dead? And yet according to Professor Bush, they will then be no more raised from the dead than they are now ! 13. All those passages which assert that the dead shall arise, contradict the theory of Professor Bush, which asserts that man rises at death; for all such passages clearly assert that it is only after death that the dead arise, because they declare that the present dead shall arise. John vi. 40, 44 45; Luke xx. 35, &c. 14. All the passages also which teach that those already dead shall receive a recompense in the day' of judgment, conflict with this theory ; for they announce the judgment to be still future, and therefore the dead are to be raised to re- ceive their recompense. See e. g. Matt. x. 15, and xi. 21-24, and Mark viii. 38. So also Acts x. 42, and 2 Tim. iv. 1, i*efer to those who will be living when Christ comes — and yet at the same time all who had lived previously are there called the dead, who are to be judged at this same time. And if they are not raised from the dead till Christ comes, they certainly did not arise at death, for many of them will have been dead thousands of years. See also 1 Pet. iv. 5. 15. All passages which clearly distinguish between death and the resurrection likewise conflict with a theory which 28 326 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY confounds death and the resurrection as Professor Bush's does. The Professor has not noticed this point in any of the passages which he quotes. See Mark xii. 23; Luke xx. 33; Acts xxiii. 8 ; 1 Cor. xv. 12 ; Matt. xxii. 31 ; Acts iv. 2, &c. In fact the very phrase " resurrection of the dead^^ evinces a distinction between death and the resurrection which is en- tirely fatal to this theory. 16. Finally. All those passages which speak of men as dead, making no distinction in this respect between the righ- teous and wicked, (i. e. all are alike dead,) evince the false- ness of a theory which asserts that one part, to wit, the righ- teous, are not dead, but have been raised from the dead. See Rom. vii. 2, 3, and v. 15 ; 1 Cor. vii. 39, and xiv. 9. 15, pas- sim, and Rom. iv. 17; 2 Cor. i. 9 ; Luke vii. 15, and xvi. 30,31; Acts xxvi. 23; Rom. x. 7 ; Col. i. 18 ; Heb. xi. 35, &c. &c. Jt will be seen from this catalogue of passages that even had Professor Bush succeeded in explaining away the texts which he has cited and criticised, he would have but half completed the work before him. But we have followed him patiently and fully through his long array of passages: and of all that he has examined there is not one but gives its tes- timony directly against him. The evidence of this is before the reader. We have found his attempts at exegesis a full half century at least behind the present advanced state of the science of criticism. And we have not only exposed the fal- lacy of these attempts, but have disproved his asserted facts ad nauseam; while his principles of criticism have been shown to be false in their assumption, neological in their na- ture, and destructive of all true religion in their tendency. The truth of God requires us to speak thus plainly, and we rejoice to find the great doctrine of the resurrection unharmed by this assault upon it, and still retaining all its long-asserted claims to be regarded as divine. ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. 327 CHAPTER IV. THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST CONSIDERED. The transcendent importance of the doctrine of Christ's resurrection cannot be overrated, and can scarcely be esti- mated. " If Christ was raised from the dead," says Presi- dent Dwight, (Theol. Ser. 61,) "he was certainly the Mes- siah; or, in other words, whatever he declared himself to be. His doctrines, precepts, and life, were all approved by God ; possess Divine authority ; and demand, with the obU- gatlon of that authority, the faith and obedience of mankind." If he has not arisen, he is not the Messiah ; his doctrines are not divine; the apostles were deceivers, or deceived; and those who are fallen asleep in Christ, have perished. With whatever allowance we may therefore look upon errors relating to other subjects, there can be no allowance here. To compromise one jot or tittle of what God has said on this subject, is to peril the everlasting well-being of souls, and to prove ourselves apostates from the Gospel which he has re- vealed. To no subject, more pointedly than to this, does the awful language of the apostle apply, that *' should we, or an angel from heaven, announce to you any thing contrary to what we have announced to you, let him be accursed." Gal. i. 8. (See Greek.) And under whatever inducements we may suffer ourselves to be influenced by any such opposing announcement, we thereby enter the path to death, and risk the imminent danger of making eternal shipwreck of the soul. Compare 1 Kings xiii. 17, 18. The Professor commences his discussion of this subject with the remark that " The resurrection of our Lord is in so many instances and in such a variety of ways, brought into connexion with the resurrection of his people, especially as a pledge of theirs, that the consideration of this event is impe- ratively urged upon us in this part of our discussion. As he in his risen body stands at the head of his risen saints, so the fact of his resurrection occupies a like relation to the fact of theirs. The fact itself of his emergence from the sepulchre on the third day is of course admitted. The nature, circumstances, and bearings of the fact, are all with which we at present have to do." p. 151. And he goes on 328 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY to admit that if Christ arose in the self-same material body in which he was crucified, " it doubtless affords some coun- tenance to the idea that his people are also to rise in like manner in the bodies which they laid down at death." He attempts also to make a difference between Christ's resur- rection being the pattern and the pledge of the resurrection of his people. As to the term pattern, we shall not dispute about it in this connexion : for Professor Bush freely grants all we here ask on this point, that Christ's resurrection is a pledge that his people also shall rise. But how, I ask, can his resurrection be such a pledge, on the theory of Professor Bush? A pledge is something given in security for the per- formance of any thing: but Professor Bush makes the per- formance half done before the pledge is given, for he asserts that all believers who died before Christ, were raised from the dead before Christ arose. The reader will also please to take notice of the Profes- sor's admission that Christ " emerged from the sepulchre, (i. e. arose from the dead,) on the third day>" and of his admissiori, also, that if Christ arose u\ the body that was crucified, i* e., "the self-same material body," it affords " some countenance to the idea" that his. people will arise in their bodies which died. The Professor could not help refer- ring to this last point, for it would have been too gross to omit it; but he has not stated it in its full strength. The argu- ment fimounts to perfect demonstration", that if Christ arose corporeally, and ascended to heaven corporeally, his mem- bers shall arise and ascend also in like manner. To prove that Christ's body was raised, therefore, is to prove the dqc- trine of the resurrection of the body. The Professor saw this and felt it, but, as above remarked, would not state it; and by an absurd evasion has attempted to throw over it an air of uncertainty. He says that Christ's body did not see corruption, while the bodies of his people do: and that " there is a heaven- wide difference between -the case of a body that is resuscitated on the third day," and one that "has been dissolved to dust." But what has all this to do with the point? In what way does it affect it? If believers enter upon the resurrection state at death, this certainly is before the third day after they are dead. And what difference does it make, therefore, on Professor Bush's theory, whether their bodies are subsequently dissolved or not? This whole assented difference, therefore, so far as it ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. 329 relates to the subject before us is unphilosophical and foolish. Death is death; whether it last a day or a thousand years; and it is no more difficult for God to restore one to life in the latter than in the former case. But as a matter of curio- sity, and that it may be seen how far Professor Bush is wil- ling to wander, (for a child can see that if there is any force in his speculations on this subject, it tends to cast doubt over the question as to whether Jesvs was truly dead,) I will here present an extract from the celebrated Valentine Smalcius, (reputed author of the Racovian Catechism,) on the same subject; and let the reader see how much more sound and philosophical is the Socinian than the Orthodox Professor. He speaks as follows: "He is as truly dead, who is dead one hour, as he who has been dead ten thousand years; and truly we are to believe that Jesus Christ, at the time when he was dead, was as truly in the same condition in which all the other dead are, as if he had been dead many years. For if this is not carefully regarded, ovr hope cannot be firm and sure: because we do not die to arise the third day, and yet we have hope of our own resurrection from the resurrection of Christ itself.''^* But let us now attend to the Professor's proofs that the body of Christ did not arise. "1. It is peculiarly worthy of note," says he, " that it is nowhere explicitly affirmed in the narra- tive of the evangelists, or any other part of the Scriptures, that the identical material body of Christ arose :^' (p. 152,) and he proceeds to remark that the language which refers to this subject may be consistently understood without implying that his material body arose. That is, Per fas, per nefas; rem, rem, quocumque modo rem. Professor Bush ought to have taken this for the motto of his book, or at least of that chapter of it which is now under consideration. But I reply to the foregoing allegation. 1. That it is puerile. Suppose it is true that the Bible nowhere mentions that " the identical material body of Christ" arose, and what would it prove? The Bible " nowhere mentions that the identical material body of Lazarus arose, or of Jairus' daughter, or of the young man of Nain, or of Dorcas, or of Eutychus — and what then? Did not their identical material body arise? Mahomet said that Jesus was not crucified, but that the Jews took and crucified a Jew that strongly resembled him. And * De Ditinitate Jesu Christi, Parte II., Cap. XIII. Racoviae, 1608. 28* 330 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY where is it said in so many words that " they did not take and crucify such a Jew in mistake ?" Even if the assertion of Professor Bush were true, therefore, it would amount to no more than the assertion of Mahomet; and it is fit to be put in the same category. 2. But the assertion of Professor Bush is utterly unfounded; and the contrary is aiffirmiod in every variety of form of which the subject is susceptible. First, In John ii. 18-22, we read as follows: " Then answered the Jews and said unto him, what sign showest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things 1 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days / will raise it up. Iv t^volv Ijut^atj 'ErEPa avtov. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days ? But he spake of the temple his body. 'Exftroj 6s sxsys Tts^i tov vaov tov SQMATOS ovfotj. When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them: and they believed the Scripivre^ and the word which Jesus had said." To attempt any elucidation of this clear announcement, would be to hold a candle to the sun to assist it to shine. The " identical material body " of Jesus is here mentioned as the subject of the resurrection; the pledge of Jesus is given that he will raise it up if destroyed; and when he is risen the disciples not only brought this his pledge to mind, but believed the Scriptures, which of course had taught therefore that the body of Jesus should arise. Se- condly. The Old Testament (as the passage last quoted clearly announces,) declares the same truth. This has been shown already in our examination of Ps. xvi. 9. 10; con- cerning which Professor Bush is himself compelled to admit that " from the inspired comment of Peter, Acts ii. 29-31, it is clear that it is a resurrection predicated of the body OF CHRIST;" (p. 104,) and as we have remarked in loco, the terms "itt'jj in the Psalm, and ca^l in Acts can refer to nothing but to his " identical material body." Then third- ly, Jesus says in John x. 17, 18, " Therefore doth my Father love me, because / lay down my life that I may take it again." &c. What life did he lay down ? Would Professor Bush say on his own theory that it was the life of his spiritual body? Pressed as he is for evasions, he would not hazard such a declaration. Jesus laid down his cor- poreal life; and he therefore took it again: and by con- sequence, his "identical material body" that was slain, ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. 331 arose. FourtJily. After his resurrection he bore the same clear testimony. He had announced repeatedly that lie would raise his body if he were slain, and now says he to his disciples, ^^ Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me and see; for a spirit hath not flesh AND BONES AS YE SEE ME HAVE," oto jtviv/iia ad^xa xai odtia ovx szef'i xadui £>£ ee(^^svts txovta, as ye see me having. Here is the clearest possible assertion, and one made by Jesus himself that he had flesh and bones, and of course, then, his "identical material body" arose. Fifthly. The testimony of angels is given also in confirmation of the same truth. " I know that ye seek Jesus that was crucified. He is not here : he is risen as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.''"' Malt, xxviii. 6. " Ye seek Jesus of Nazareih who was crucified: he is risen; he is not here; behold the place where they laid him.'''' Mark xvi. 6. What was it that Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus had " laid there?'''' — laid in the place pointed to by the angels] It was the body of the crucified Jesus — "the identical mate- rial body." Here, then, is the clear and unambiguous testi- mony of angels that it had arisen. Finally. The apostles after they had received the Holy Spirit tesiify to the same. A single extract will suffice. " Him God raised up the third day, and showed him openly; not to all people, but to wit- nesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.''"' Acts x. 40, 41. The " adaptation to the outward senses of the apostles," on account of the weakness of their faith, immediately after the resurrection of Christ, (upon which preposterous principle Professor Bush would attempt to evade the evidence from Christ's eating and drinking,) cannot apply to this passage: for the apostles were now weak in faith no longer. They were endowed with the Holy Spirit; and under his influence and guidance thus affirm that Christ arose in his " identical material body," and as a full evidence hereof appeal to the fact that he ate and drank after his resurrection as he did before his death. The second proo/" of Professor Bush is as follows: 2. It seems to be a fair presumption that the same body which arose also ascended. But the evidence is certainly conclu- sive, that it was not a material body which ascended to heaven." p. 153. I fully grant the "presumption that the same body which arose also ascended:" and I demand this 332 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY ^^ conclusive evidence''' that "it was not a material body that ascended." Where is this evidence? Professor Bush has offered none: — and to bring the matter to a fair issue, I affirm that he has no such evidence. The third proof of Professor Bush is as follows: " 3. The circumstances of his appearance to his disciples, in repeated instances, subsequent to his resurrection, are far more con- sistent with the idea of his possessing a spiritual body than the reverse." In confirmation of this the Professor quotes John XX. 19, 26; and Luke xxiv. 36, 37; and adds " We have hero the evidence of a body divested of the conditions of matter, at least as matter is commonly and philosophi- cally defined. It is one endowed with the power of entering a room when the doors were closed, and all the ordinary avenues of access precluded. Such a body must be spir- itual^'" &c. p. 153. But the Professor has hardly gone far enough in the statement of his premises ; he ought to have put thereinto the passage in Matt. xiv. 25-30, respecting walking on the sea, and so prove that our Saviour (and Peter also) had only a spiritual body before his crucifixion; and he might have brought in Malt. xvii. 2; and Luke iv. 1, 2, as confirmatory evidence; for certainly walking on water is as perfect " evidence of a body divested of the con- ditions of matter," as entering a room whose doors are closed. The same argument would do to prove also that Elisha's borrowed axe was spiritualized iron. But further: The implication of Professor Bush that Christ must have come through closed doors, or through the wall, has no foundation in the words of the texts to which he refers. It is not said that " Jesus came through the closed doors,''^ but that he ''entered when the disciples had closed the doors," i. e. after they had, for fear of the Jews, barred them. The words are t-wv dv^uv xixxarsfiivw, when the doors were closed, which is a very different thing from saying that he entered through closed doors. The expression is intended merely to signify that the doors were opened by Jesus, in some ex- traordinary way unknown to his disciples; that he might enter to them. The Professor continues, by remarking that it is no refu- tation of his " conclusion''' (that " such a body must be spi- ritual,'^) to refer to the fact that the disciples came and held him by the feet, and of his commanding them to handle him and see that he had flesh and bones, and his commanding ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. 333 Thomas to put his hands into his wounded side, and of his eating a piece of broiled fish, and an honey-comb — for, says the Professor, " In all this we have no difficulty in recog- nizing a miraculous adaptation of the visible phenomena to the outward senses of the disciples, who were to be fully assured of the great fact of their Lord's resurrection, and of Ihe identity of his person." p. 154. Were we not anxious to dissipate every thing in the shape of objection to the great foundation of our hopes for time and eternity, we should pass this without serious notice. He follows it out with the remark also, that " the act of eating was an optical act, like that of the three angels that came to Abraham," one of which he supposes was Messiah in his pre-existent state. He also quotes Josephus to prove that they did not really eat. As to Abraham and the angels, however, the case can in no way apply here, for we have shown demonstrably that the body of Christ truly arose from the dead. But even this case given by him for illustration, is not so clear as he would seem to think. He has not proved that the act of eating predicated of the angels was a mere optical act, or illusion. (See Gen. xviii. 1-8.) Parens says of it " Come- disse angeli 6'\cun.t\ir non appar enter ^ sedvere; non tamen necessitate sed dispensatione quadam," {in loco.) Lightfool, and Theodoret affirm also that they did eat. The same is allowed also by Poole, Osiander, Luther, Cornelius aLapide, and others ; and it might have occurred to Professor Bush that it would not have been very difficult for Abraham to dis- cover whether the provision which he set before his guests was all on the table after they had- finished their entertain- ment. If it was, the optical illusion was of little account. So much for the illustration. But as to the principle itself which Professor Bush has asserted above, if it be allowed, we may safely challenge him to furnish one solitary proof that Jesus Christ ever appeared in the flesh. — Every proof of it is completely enervated by these speculations, if they be granted. As to the testimony of prophecy, why may it not have been merely a merciful adaptation to the fears and hopes of men to allure them to obedience. As to the testi- mony of the apostles why may they not have been mis- taken on this point as well as on the others mentioned by Professor Bush? Or at least, why may not his incarnation have been only " a miraculous adaptation of the visible phenomena to the outward senses" of mankind, of John the 334 THE RESURRECTION OP THE BODY Baptist, the Jews, &c. Now a principle which would give currency to such speculations cannot be treated as a light andindifferent error. It strikes at the very foundation of our hope of salvation itself. The aspect in which these speculations present our adora- ble Redeemer cannot fail to bring upon them the decided reprehension and detestation of the Christian world. They represent him as assuring the disciples of the truth of his resurrection, by — a falsehood! He had neither flesh nor bones, says Professor Bush, and yet tells the disciples to handle him and see, assuring them that he has. He asserts before his death that he will raise his body, and yet never raises it. To assure his disciples that he had truly arisen, according to his own previous announcements, and those of the Scriptures, he repeatedly eats before them; and yet it was only an " optical act^^^ that is, he pretended to do — and made them believe he was doing, what he did not do. This truly, as Ullman remarks, (respecting the principle of accom- modation,) " would imply that the origin of Jesuitism may be traced back to Jesus himself."* Language fails in the attempt to describe the atrociousness of the mere supposi- tion involved in the assertion of this principle. Hcbc censeo esse ver^ profunda SatancB. In addition to these considerations, there are two others to which I will briefly refer before passing on. i. All the appearances of Christ during the forty days subsequent to his resurrection, and his eating, &c., says Professor Bush, were a mere " adaptation of the visible phe- nomena to the outward senses of the disciples, who were to be fully assured" — of what? Why, that by natural laws his spiritual body had been eliminated, just as the spiritual body of every believer, who had previously died, had been, and just as the spiritual body of every believer who should there- after die should be! for this is the full amount of all that he has offered on this subject. Christ did all this merely to con- vince his followers then, and to the end of time, that he had been raised from the dead just as all good men had been since the fall! And what ought to be thought of a theory which presupposes this? But 2. All that is said by prophets and apostles concerning ^ * " Sinless character of Jesus," see Park's and Edward's " Selec tions from German Literature," p. 449. ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. 335 the resurrection of Christ, evinces that his case, whatever it might be, was different from that of every one that had pre- ceded him — that there was something wonderfully remarka- ble about it. See Luke xxiv. 26; 1 Cor. xv. 4; Matt xii. 40, and xvi. 21, and xvii. 22, 23, and xx. 18, 19, andxxvii. 62- 64; Ads ii. 24; 1 Cor. xv. 14, 20; Rom. i. 4; John ii. 18-22, and xx. 26-29; I Pet. i. 21; Rom. vi. 4; John x. 18; Acts v. 30; Col. i. 18; Acts xxvi. 2, 3; Rom. xiv. 9, and viii. 11; Acts i. 3, Acts xvii. 30-32. These are some of the passages which announce this event as something won- derful and stupendous. But Professor Bush tells us that he arose in a spiritual body, just as Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob did, and all believers who had died before him. Where then is the ground for any thing thus wonderful and re- markable? What is the fact on which such declarations are predicted concerning his resurrection? The Professor next propounds a dilemma to the effect that if Christ's " risen body was material, it must have been miraculously rendered spiritual when he suddenly appeared in a room closed and barred, and when he suddenly van- ished from sight. If it was spiritual, it must have been miraculously made to assume material attributes on the same occasion." But the dilemma is very harmless, as any one will see by applying it to the Saviour's walking on the water, which he did without rendering his material body spiritual. As to the other passage referred to respecting his ^^ vanishing, ^^ (Luke xxiv. 31,) Professor Bush knows very well that the words here employed by the Evangelist convey no such meaning as he would attach to the word " vanish^ The Greek is xal avto? a^avto^ syivsto drt' avtuv; and simply means that he ceased to be seen by them. And if any one should refuse to admit that drt' avtfiii and a7io7.a/xj5dvoi for Xa/i/3avw, 6z;c., &c. These remarks will serve, not only to show how baseless is the criticism of Professor Bush, but to justify also the re- mark of Tholuck on John, (xiii. 19, and xiv. 7,) that it is admissible to take dnd^tv in the sense of d^to ; and, in fact, in the former of these passages he directly says, that "it has the force ofdi^tt:" and hence to insist on translating the drto is quite inadmissible without more substantial reasons than those offered by Professor Bush. Many commentators have mistaken the force of the word ; but this is no justification of one who comes before the public with the highest pro- fessions of scientific and philological attainment, and pro- poses to illustrate, that " the knowledge of revelation is progressive." There is no evidence, therefore, to prove that the word means to express the idea of " from now," or an " almost immediate occurrence." It means no more than that the occurrence referred to would certainly take place at some future* time, and leaves this time wholly indefinite. So the parallel place in Mark xiv. 62, expresses it : "And ye shall see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of Power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." And in Luke xxii. 69, the same idea is expressed. And even drto tov vvv, (allowing the remark of the scholiast referred to by Kuinoel,) cannot be tortured to express any thing of more speedy occurrence than 'taxv in Rev. xxii. 7, 12, 20, which refers to a coming of Christ which is still future, for the Apocalypse was writ- ten after the destruction of Jerusalem. This *' tower of strength" to the Professor's " main position," therefore, is a tower that sadly lacks a foundation.* * If the reader wishes to investigate the usage of aTrdg U in the New Testament, let him turn to Matt, xxiii. 39, and xxvi. 29, 64; ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. 357 His next chapter, in which the same subject is continued, he begins with remarking, " We now proceed to avail our- selves of the principle and results brought to view in the preceding chapter, by applying them to a passage shrouded in the thickest folds of symbolical darkness, with some hopes to ' pluck out the heart of its mystery.' We allude to the twentieth chapter of the Apocalypse," &c. — p. 300. His remarks, however, on this whole chapter, exhibit only a futile effort to obscure its testimony on the very subject on which the clearness of its testimony has ever been next to universally acknowledged, to wit, the future resurrection of the dead and general judgment. When we come to treat of the passage itself we shall notice what he has said respect- ing it, as well as what he has offered on a number of other passages, with which his dissertation closes. There is one point, however, to which I must refer in this connexion, before I proceed with the argument. What will the reader think when I assure him, that notwithstanding all that our author has said to prove his "Twam position'^ that the "judgment runs parallel with the kingdom," and that there is no such thing as a future re-judgment (as he would call it) of the dead, that he yet, before he closes, virtually recalls all this, and directly contradicts the whole of it, and yet with his singular inconsistency still maintains it all to be true, — that is, he maintains it to be both true and false. The evidence of this will be given to the reader; and it would afford a sufficient justification of our procedure, if we had passed over the whole of the Professor's remarks on this subject, as unworthy of serious notice. We have, pre- ferred, however, to follow him regularly through his lucu- brations, and to examine the criticisms and statements on which he professes to rely with the most implicit confidence. But to the point. The Professor had already inadvertently, though repeat- edly admitted the impossibility of making all the passages which speak of Christ's coming, to refer to the mere fact of his being a Judge in the daily administration of his kingdom, or to the destruction of Jerusalem itself. Hence he con- stantly admits a future great crisis at which Christ will per- John i. 51, and xiii. 19, and xiv. 7; and Rev. xiv. 13. In this last place, however, the dim should not have been translated ; for, as in the other places, it simply means hereafter. 358 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY sonally appear, and at which all the living saints are to be changed; and which he terms "our Saviour's ^/la/ mani- festation;" (see pp. 190 and 266-268,) and therefore Christ is personally to appear, at the period in which the living saints are changed. But the Professor has not seen proper here to state in this immediate connexion what the design of this final manifestation is, other than to effect the change of the living saints, (which is a most imperfect view of this stupendous event,) and yet he has in other parts of his book disclosed another view of the subject, and actually admitted at this time also a judgment of the dead. Speaking of Rev. xx. 11-15, he remarks in relation to it that the time of the events there referred to " is certainly not the end of the world, as popularly understood ; for the New Jerusalem state, which is gradually to be developed on earth, is yet to ensue. The precursor to this state is the sounding of the seventh trumpet, which we have already seen is syn- chronical with this judgment of the dead.''"' " The chain of disclosures in the Apocalypse lands us, in the 20th chap- ter, at the Saturday evening of the world's great week, to which this ^judgment of the dead'' is more especially to he referred, for the next chapter opens with the introduction of the new heavens and the new earth," &c. — p. 325. This, surely, looks like any thing else than the judgment of the dead running parallel with the kingdom, and taking place as each individual dies. And we may return the query of Pro- fessor Bush, referred to on a former page, and ask him if the dead are to be judged twice ? If they are, then why does he object to the doctrine of the whole Protestant church on this subject, as we have seen that he does ? And if not, what then is the meaning of this " judgment of the dead" which & JO immediately precedes the introduction of the New Jerusalem state ? On pp. 334-5, the same sentiment is repeated even more unambiguously still ; for he announces his firm conviction that this '-\jvdgment of the dead takes place at the lime of the passing away of the old heavens and the old earth, and it is the introduction of the new heavens and the new earth, which constitutes the New Jerusalein; and the announce- ment of this is the closing theme of revelation. We have no account of a judgment or any thing else consequent to it." Here then is a definite point of time assigned for this judg- ment of the dead. The same idea is still more strongly as- ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. 359 serted, if possible, on p. 339: "We have shown, we think," says he, " that the only judgment of the dead of which the Scriptures speak as occurring at any particular epochs is to be located at the commencement of the Neto Jerusalem stated Surely, then, we may ask, that if these dead are to be judged at a " particular epoch," what becomes of the " main position" that their " sentence is pronounced before their graves are dug;" and that therefore they are judged at no particular epoch, as " the judgment runs parallel with the kingdom?" If these "dead," therefore, are not judged as soon as they leave the body, then the Professor's " main po- sition" is false ; but if they are thus judged, why are they re-judged ? and what becomes of his previous objections to this re-judging] We repeat the question, therefore — Why are these dead summoned from " the region in which they abide after death,^^ and thus judged, (see pp. 317, 319, 320,) seeing that they are judged immediately on leaving the body ? And how is it that there can be no future judgment, and yet be a future judgment when these dead are to be judged? Nor is this all that the Professor has to offer respecting these dead ; for he assures us that they are those who died during the thousand years mentioned in Rev. xx. And as this thousand years begun (according to his treatise on the Millenivm, pp. 101, 102) about A. D. 450, and ended in A. D. 1453, they either were not judged during that period, as they left the body, or they were judged then, and are yet to be judged again. But in his Anastasis, p. 321 , he says that they were judged as they died during the thousand years, and he thinks that it is only by a figure that their "judgment is here represented as concentrated to a point." The Pro- fessor finds it vastly convenient, at times, to see a figure in a passage when he wishes to appropriate it, and also to deny that there is a figure in a passage where an opponent sees one. But even this convenience will not assist him here. For though it is only by a figure that their judgment is said to be concentrated to a point, yet their judgment does take place " at a particular epoch" without a figure, for his argu- ment requires that it should occur synchronically with the commencement of the New Jerusalem state; and it is at this time, says he, emphatically, that " this judgment of the dead takes place," — p. 344. And this is the way in which my friend perpetually contradicts and refutes himself, and then, 360 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY with an assurance that is as astonishing as it appears to be d priori incredible, asks us to resign our long-cherished views of this and its correlative doctrines, and receive his self-subversive statements as truth; assuring us, at the same time, with a gravity which, viewed in this connexion, is irre- sistibly ludicroys, that "/lo two truths in the universe can be inconsistent icith ehch other." Such then is the amount of what our author has produced for the purpose of impugning the received doctrine of a judg- ment to come, and of supporting his own theory — if that can be called a theory, the features of which are so glaringly at war with each other that one cannot exist without destroy- ing the other. It is a realization of Horace's boar painted in the sea and a dolphin in the woods. But the reader will be at no loss how to appreciate the Professor's attempts, and we shall now proceed briefly to establish our position stated on a former page, that at some definite period of time, still future, Christ will personally appear as the Judge of the world, and judge both the living and the dead. SECTION II. Direct arguments for a future General Judgment. 1. There are multitudes of passages in the Bible which speak in general of a great crisis, entirely difl^erent from any which have yet occurred in the history of the world, and which is to take place at the conclusion of some great era. We shall here merely refer to a few of these passages, and leave the reader to infer from a comparison of them with other passages which we shall hereafter produce, whether this crisis is not the general judgment itself. Such an event is clearly referred to in Ps. cii. 25-26, (compare Heb. i. 10-12,) " Of old hast thou laid the founda- tions of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands. They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed." The principal theme of these words is a comparison between God and the creature for the purpose of exhibiting his greatness, and the creature's littleness: and God's immutability is directly con- trasted with the mutability of the creation. And in this con- trast the express statement is made that the heavens and the ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. 361 earth shall perish, or be changed. There is a similar pas- sage in Luke xxi. 33: *' Heaven and earth shall pass away , but my word shall not pass away:" (compare also Matt. v. 18, and 1 John ii. 17.) The word here for pass away is Tta^i^x^f^^h the sense of which can hardly be mistaken ; see it as used in Matt. v. 18, and xxiv. 34, 35 ; Luke xvi. 17, and xxi. 32; 2 Pet. iii. 10, The same grand crisis is also un- doubtedly referred to in Rom. viii. 19, 23: *' For the earnest expectation of the creature (creation) waiteth for the mani- festation of the sons of God. And not only they, but our- selves also, which have the first-fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, wailing for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body." In whatever way xtlat? may be expounded, the argument which the passage fur- nishes is equally conclusive. See also 2 Pet. iii. 10, IS; Rev. xix. 7, and xx. 11-13; Luke xxi. 27, 28, and Ps. xi. 5-7, and xcvi. 13, and xviii. 8-16, and 1. 1-4. 2. The names by which this great event is designated clearly establish the truth of our position, and the falseness of the notion of Professor Bush. In Matt. x. 15, and xi. 22, 24, and 1 John iv. 17, it is directly called the "day of Judg- ment." In Jude 6, " the judgment of the great day." ** In Luke X. 14, simply "judgment." Rom. ii. 5, "the day of the righteous judgment of God." John vi. 39, " the last day." Matt. vii. 22, " that day." Phil. i. 6, and 1 Cor. i. 8, " day of Jesus Christ." And 1 Thess. v. 2, declares, if accurately construed, that " the day of the Lord so comes as a thief comes in the night," compare ver. 3, 4. Now none of these passages can refer to the mere fact of a judg- ment taking place at the death of each individual — a pro- cess which had been going on ever since the fall. The coming of Christ to judgment is also called " The revelation of the Lord," 2 Thess. i. 7; 1 Cor. i. 7, and iii. 13; and "The appearing of Jesus Christ," 1 Tim. vi. 14; 2 Tim. iv. 11; Tit. ii. 13; and in 2 Thess. ii. 8, "the ap- pearance of his coming," (see Greek ;) and in 1 Cor. xv. 23; 1 John ii. 28 ; 1 Thess. iii. 13, " coming" simply. In 2 Pet. iii. 12, it is also called " the appearing of the day of God." None of these passages can refer to any past event, much less can they be made to refer to the judgment which takes place at death. We shall again refer to some of these passages, when we come to state more fully the argument which they contain. 31 362 THE RESURRECTION OP THE BODY 3. The events which will then transpire, agreeably to the scripture testimony, demonstrate that their accomplishment is still future. The advent of our Saviour is to be by sound of trumpet which shall wake the dead. 1 Thess. iv. 15, 16; 1 Cor. XV. 52. He is to appear with angels, Jude 14, 15; Matt. XXV. 31, who themselves have then a duty to perform in relation to man. Matt. xiii. 41, 42, 49, 50; Mark xiii. 27; Matt. xxiv. 31; (1 Thess. iv. 17, and Matt. xxv. 32.) All are to appear before the tribunal of Christ, 2 Cor. v. 10; Rom. xiv. 10; Matt. xxv. 32; Jude 15; the living and the dead are then to be judged. Acts x. 42; 1 Thess. iv. 15-17; 2 Tim. iv. 1, and 1 Pet. iv. 5; and angels also, 2 Pet. ii. 4; Jude 6; 1 Cor. vi. 3; Matt. viii. 39, (compare xxv. 41.) And as these events are all to be public and visible, so the coming of our Saviour is not only to be at a specific and appointed time, but visibly. 1 Thess. iv. 14; Matt. xix. 28; Luke xxii. 30; Rev. xix. 11-16. 4. But we shall now proceed to take a brief view of the argument as presented in a few passages, to which I shall refer in the order in which they occur. There are many declarations in the Old Testament, in relation to this subject, which remain to be fulfilled : as, e. g. Ps. xi. 5-7, " Upon the wicked he shall rain snares, fire and brimstone," &c. See also Ps. xcvi. 13; Is. Ixiii. 1-6; Joel iii. 1, 2, 13, 14. Daniel, (vii. 9, 10,) in the most di- rect manner announces the occurrence of such an event. He describes the Judge as appearing in awful majesty, and attended by myriads, and assembling mankind before him. But to omit other references (for there is scarcely a prophet who has not in some way spoken of it,) the following from Malachi, (iii. 17, and'iv. 1, 2,) is decisive, " And they shall be mine, saith the Lord of hosts, in that day when I make up my jewels;''^ &c. — " Behold the day cometh that shall hum as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up," &c. The declaration in Matt. vii. 22, " Many shall say unto me 171 that day, Lord, Lord," &c., still remains to be ful- filled, for no such occurrences as are here described took place during the destruction of Jerusalem. In no way, therefore, can the passage be referred to that event ; and much less can it be referred to the judgment which takes place at death. ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. 363 The judgment spoken of in Matt. x. 15, "Verily I say unto you, it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city,"* has never taken place. It cannot be made to refer to the destruction of Jerusalem, for Sodom and Gomorrah had nothing to do with that event. See, also, chap. xi. 22-24. This day of judgment is, therefore, yet to come. The distinct announcement in Matt. xii. 41, 42, of a future resurrection and judgment, can refer to nothing but a general resurrection and judgment to come : " The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it ; because they repented at the preaching of Jonas," &c. " The Queen of the South shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it," &c. In both these passages the article is put before judgment, and hence. Professor Bush being umpire, some future spe- cific time must be referred to. The preposition used in these passages is fista with the genitive, which properly means, in the midst of, among, (see Mark ix. 24, and x. 30,) and can leave no doubt as to their clear import. Winer has adduced this text itself in illustration of the force of this pre- position ; and as his remarks have a direct bearing on the subject under discussion, I will here present them. He says: *' Kuinoel, also, in Matt. xii. 41, translates fieta with the genitive incorrectly by cow^ra. The signification with is as appropriate here as elsewhere, (see Bengel, in loco:) av6^8 5 Nivsvbtai avadtriaovtai ev i*^ x^last, fist a trj^ ytvsd^ tavtrji xat xatax^ivovGiv avtr^v signifies, the Ninevites will appear at the last judgment with this generation, {i.e., as true witnesses against them,) as Grotius rightly interpreted. The interpretation of Fritzsche, they will rise with them from the dead, adds to these words a superfluous thought, (which is self-evident.") Idioms, Part III., §.51, (A.) » Professor Bush, on page 344, makes a futile attempt to invali- date the force of this passage, and several others, on the ground that day {iv YifAi^a K^ia-icec) is destitute of the article. Such a criticism is unworthy of my friend. Does he not know that the article is fre- quently omitted, when a noun denoting an object, of which the individual referred to possesses but one, is clearly defined by means of a genitive following it ? or when a preposition stands before the noun? Let him turn to Winer's Idioms, Part III., §. 18, for a host of examples, (among which Rom. ii. 5, «y »//egA og^JJc is given) from both sacred and profane writers. 364 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY As the Ninevites and the Queen of the South, therefore, have never been raised from the dead, nor appeared in judg- ment with the generation referred to, the day of judgment spoken of is yet to come. See also, verse 36 of the same chapter. The events mentioned in Matt. xiii. 40-43, 49, can only be explained in reference to the same matter; " So shall it be in the end of this world. The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; and shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." As to the phrase translated ^^end of the world'''' here, {rj cwtt'Khla I'ov dtiivoj) I am willing cheer- fully to admit that it refers not to any supposed destruction of the x6(stio(; (see ver. 38,) but to the closing up of the dis- pensation of mercy to sinners, which is to take place imme- diately antecedent to the New Jerusalem state. For the sake of the argument I admit this, for, at that time, the Pro- fessor has allowed, (in utter subversion of his theory,) that there will he a judgment of the dead, (see pp. 325, 339.) Now this period has not yet arrived, nor have the events transpired to which the text refers. The Son of man has not thus descended, his angels have not gathered out of his kingdom them that do iniquity, and cast them into a furnace of fire, and, therefore, these things are yet to occur. Matt. xix. 28, refers also to the future coming of Christ, and the day of judgment. And it is self-evident that it has never been fulfilled. We shall not remark upon it, however, but pass on to Matt. xxiv. 36-51, "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be." — " Then shall two be in the field ; the one shall be taken, and the other left. — Watch, there- fore," &c. Let the reader refer to the whole passage. I shall not enter into a critical examination of this passage, but merely refer to one or two particulars. The events re- ferred to have never transpired, nor any thing like them. The word for " coming" 'is Tta^ovala, a word which is never used metaphorically but always literally in the New Testa- ment. It is important to notice this, as it has often been here ex- plained by commentators of a mere spiritual or invisible com- ing to destroy or judge Jerusalem. It occurs twenty-four times in the New Testament, and in v. 27, 37, 39 of this chapter. ASSERTED AND DEFKkDED. In 1 Cor. xvi. 17; 2 Cor. vii. 6, 7, and x. 10; Phil. i. g#, and ii. 12, it denotes the personal coming of Paul and others to the churches. And it is used, according to Wahl {sub voce,) in 2 Thess. ii. 1, seq.; Matt. xxiv. 3, 39; 1 Cor. xv. 23; iThess. ii. 19; Jas.v.7, 8; 2Pet.i.l6; iJno. ii. 28, to de- note the adventus Jesu Messias ad regnum suum gloriose in- augurandum futvrus, which of course can only be a visible and literal coming. See also Bretschneider, sub voce. In the LXX. also it is used to denote a literal coming. See 2 Mace. viii. 12, "the coming of Nicanor;" so also in Jose- phus, Ant. III. cap. 8, §. 4, and De Bell. IV. cap 5, ^. 5, and in Vita Josephi, §. 17. Nor is there a place in the whole New Testament where it should not be literally understood. In addition to the places above noted, it occurs 1 Thess, iii. 13, and iv. 15, and v. 23; 2 Pet. iii. 4, 12. Now Christ has never thus appeared, and made a separation among men^ &c., and therefore the time of his appearing and of the judgment is still future. Compare also v. 27-31. The next passage to which we shall refer is Matt. xxv. 31-46. " When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: and before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them,^^ &c. (See also the parables in v. 1-30.) If we had not already given specimens ad nauseam of our author's exegesis, in which he piles one huge absurdity on another, as though he expected thus to scale the walls of the citadel of truth, (like the old giants piling Pelion upon Ossa, in order to conquer heaven,) I should here present a full view of his laboured attempt to evade the testimony of this strong passage to the doctrine of Christ's personal appearance at the judgment of the great day: for in this attempt he has even transcended himself in inconsistency. But our discus- sion has already been too protracted to admit of quoting him in full. He asserts, without any attempt to prove it, that this passage " is a designed explanation of a prophecy which does not refer to a general Judgment, but to an elongated judicial process which flows on commensurate with the kingly domi- nion of the Messiah in this world." p. 288. And hence the judgment in Matt. xxv. 31-46, he affirms, " to be a pro- longed process of judgment, going on from age to age in the boundaries of the Christian kingdom or church," and this he attempts seriously to prove by quoting several clauses 31* 366 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY of the passage, and referring to his exploded criticisms on Matt. X. 27, &c. &c. Curcellseus, I believe, was the first who asserted that the judgment here spoken of, is the future judgment of profes- sors of religion, and not of all men. See his Diss. III. de Necessitate Cognit. Christi, 0pp. p. 921. He is, however, refuted by Witsius, (Econ. Feed. lib. I. c. V. p. 53. Turre- tine also fell in with the view of Curcellseus, as may be seen by referring to his Dissertatio de Concord. Pavli et Jacohi, in his Tractatus de Satisfactione Christi; and says that Christ in this passage appears to allude (not to Daniel as Professor Bush so roundly asserts, but) to Ezek. xxxiv. 17 " Ezek. xxxiv. 17, ad quern locum alludere videtur Christus.' Dr. Duffield, also supposes that this passage teaches a per sonal and literal return of Christ to judge the nations ante cedent to the millennium. But in no sense do these views though not in accordance with the commonly received expo sition of the passage, involve the theory of Professor Bush And even his own exposition of the passage conflicts with his doctrine that man is judged at death; for if this were true, then those who died before Christ, must have been thus judged; and if so, of course the judgment which he asserts is taught in this passage, instead of beginning at the time in which he makes Christ here assert, begun thousands of years before. This one consideration is a thorough refutation either of his theory, or of his explanation of this passage ; and he is at liberty to make his choice. But when, we ask, has the Son of man been seen in his glory? iv tvj 8o^^ avfovi or as it is in chap. xxiv. 30, with power and great glory? Where has he gathered the nations before him, and separated them? When have his angels appeared — " all the holy angels with him?" Until these, and many other questions of similar import, can be satisfac- torily answered, the inference is plain and undeniable that the events here referred to have not yet occurred, and the predictions here uttered have not been accomplished. As we have already considered Matt. xxvi. 64, we pass it here to notice briefly Mark xiii. 26, 27. " And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory. And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven." See also Luke xvii. 34-36. It is impossible to ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. 367 refer the events here mentioned, to the destruction of Jeru- salem, or to the judgment which takes place at dealh, or to any thing which has yet transpired. Their fulfilment is therefore to come. And if Christ is yet to appear in the clouds, with his angels, and to gather his elect, &c., the day of Judgment is still future. We have already discussed John v. 28, 29, (which clearly implies the doctrine of a general judgment,) and shall there- fore here only refer to it in passing. See also chap. vi. 39 ; and xiv. 3; which clearly point to the great event of the Saviour's coming and the resurrection as still future. The testimony of Acts is very full and explicit. We have already discussed several passages herein, which, though they speak primarily of the resurrection, yet clearly imply that the judgment is still future. There are several others which we might discuss, as, e. g. Acts i. 9-12, (compare Dan. vii. 13,) which is still unfulfilled. See also chap. x. 42, and xxiv. 25, but we pass them, and confine our remarks to a single declaration found in chap.xvii. 31. " Because he hafh appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righ- teousness by that man whom he hath ordained ; whereof he hath given assurance to all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead." In this passage Paul urges upon his Gentile hearers the duty of repentance, from the consideration that God hath determined to judge the world {-triv olxovixfvrjv, orbem terra- rum, not each individual simply as he dies,) in righteous- ness, lest they should be found unprepared for that event: and he informs them that God hath given assurance to all that such is his purpose, by having raised from the dead Him whom he hath appointed to be the judge. The phrase 7ta^aax<^v Ttiativ Tidat, is very strong, and means an argu- mentum inmctum ac irrefragabile, quo svffi-cienter convinci possent de constitutione ilia divina, a moral demonstration that such is the divine purpose. The resurrection of Christ, therefore, is here affirmed by Paul to be an assurance to all, that God has constituted him to judge the world in righteous- ness on a day which he has appointed.* It is not an as- surance that he does noiv judge the world, as Professor Bush supposes, but that he will do so on a certain day — a period * See this argument excellently stated by Lightfoot, in Works, Vol. II. p. nOl Jolio. 368 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY of time yet future — and not judge the Jewish nation only, (for what had the Athenians to do with them?) but all man- kind: (compare the word as used in Rev. xii. 9; Matt. xxiv. 14; Acts xi. 28; and xix. 27; and xxiv. 5;) and hence this assurance is given to all — Jew and Gentile; and this uni- versal judgment is to be at an appointed day. We have already shown the connexion between Christ's resurrection and ours; and this is the ground of the assurance here spoken of by Paul. — Christ is raised to be the judge, and therefore mankind must be raised in order to be judged. This one passage is therefore of itself, abundantly sufficient to settle the whole controversy, even if the Bible was else- where silent on the subject. Professor Bush seems perfectly aware of this, and has made a prodigious effort, (see p. 340-343) to get rid of its testimony. In the investigation of the passage he has made a discovery, which he takes for granted, (and justly,) will surprise the reader, and which he confesses has greatly sur- prised himself, (p. 341.) And this extraordinary discovery is that " the established rendering — ' hath appointed a day' — is entirely without proof." Though Bretschneider in this very verse gives it the sense of prxjigo; and Wahl gives it constituOf festsetzen, (see their Lexicons sub voce,) and Schleusner defines it in a similar manner, all pronouncing its import here to be, to Jix, or appoint, beforehand, yet it all has no influence to lessen our author's confidence in the greatness and value of his discovery; for he announces that he is " fully prepared to evince" that the word in such a connexion has no such meaning in holy writ. " The ori- ginal word," says he, " is satrjas, which, as every Greek scholar is aware, comes from the root va-trjixi, (he means, I suppose, the root (jT-aw,) signifying in its primitive and intran- sitive sense to stand, thence in its active import to cause to stand, to place, to settle,''^ &c. &c. Then afler a very labori- ous effort to establish these meanings of the word, he adds, (p. 343,) as follows : " To what conclusion then are we brought in regard to the passage before us, * God hath appointed (satfjas) a day in which he will judge the world?' Is it not inevitable that the sense to be assigned is, that God esta- blished at the present time such a day? — that it is even now current — that it is brought in — and that in this fact lies the great motive to repentance which the apostle urges upon the Athenians? We cannot for ourselves get over the evidence ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. 369 that the term, in its genuine import, denotes the establish- ment in the present time of the designated day; nor will it of course be possible to convict this view of error except, in the first instance, on i)hilological and not on theological grounds;" and he concludes by adding a self-complacent remark or two in view of the great effort which he has achieved. Were I to follow Professor Bush through the whole of his criticism on this passage, it might be supposed that I take delight in exposing his glaring and perpetual errors in phi- lology: but reference to a single point will be amply suffi- cient to show how shallow is the evasion by means of which he expects to save his theory from the death-blow which this passage cannot but give it. He has written as though he thought that the sense of the whole passage depended upon the import which was attached to £(jt'»;c(£; whereas, it is the connexion in which it is here found, which has compelled Schleusner, Wahl, Bretschneider, and other lexicographers and critics to attach to that word the unusual signification of prtBjigo, or constituo. And yet this is a point, of which Professor Bush has taken no more notice than the sleeping rocks. Did he not know that bioTH eati^aev ijjiis^av, iv ^ IjLiVKsi x^Cvsiv triv olxovfxhyjvy &c. Stands in this connexion? and that fii^.U(> x^Cvnv is future ? and that therefore, how- ever he might translate sa-tvies, whether appointed, or may or does appoint, or noiD appoints, still, the will judge — fie%%si, x^Cvsiv, announces the judgment itself to be future? and this, not a judgment of men as they die, but of the oixov/xivfj the world of mankind? All this is in no way affected by his criticisms on satvjas, and yet these are the things which bear directly against his theory. It would really seem as if the Professor had forgotten the idioma- tic use of |U£X?Lco. Let him look at it again as illustrated by Wahl and Bretschneider, or by Glassius, in Philol. Sacra, Lib. III. Tract. III. Can. 38, or by Winer, Idioms of the Greek Language of the New Testament, Part III. §. 45, 8, and I feel assured he will see that it was purely on phi- lological, (and not theological) grounds that Wahl and Bretschneider, &c. &c., have assigned to eatr^ns here the meaning they have. It would have rendered them ridicu- lous throughout Germany had they attempted to define it otherwise in this passage; for every boy who had been but 370 THE RESURRECTION OP THE BODY a year at the Gymnasium could have told them that in such a connexion it could mean nothing else. The next important passage, and one which Professor Bush has passed over without remark or allusion, is Rom. ii. 1-16, one of the sedes themselves of this doctrine, and contains not only clear announcements that the day of Judg- ment is future, and that all men are then to be judged, but an exhibition of the principles upon which the world of man is then to be judged. The passage is too long to admit of its being here fully quoted, but that the judgment is to be at an appointed time, and consequently does not take place at death, and that it is to be universal, comprehending both "Jew and Gentile," and that it is still future, is clear from the following extracts: " But after thy hardness and impeni- tent heart treasurest up to thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; who will render to every man according to his deeds." " For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;" (and then after a parenthesis, Paul adds,) " in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men (Jews and Gentiles) by Jesus Christ according to my Gospel." See also Rom. xiv. 9-12. In 1 Cor. iv. 3, also, Paul remarks, " But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man's judgment; (^ vho avO^oiTtivrii ^i^^'^as* or of man's day;) yea, J judge not mine own self." He here contrasts man's day, which is now, with the day when the Lord will judge; and man's judgment with the judgment which the Lord will pro- nounce when his great day of judgment shall arrive. Crel- lius (whom I have opened since writing the above,) takes the same view of the passage. " The apostle," says he, " ap- pears to allude to that day of the Lord in which he will pro- nounce the final judgment; and to oppose the human day or judgment to that day and judgment." We have already commented on 1 Cor. xv. 23, 51, 52, which fixes these events as synchronical with the coming of Christ, the sounding of the last trump, and the resurrection of the dead : and for the same reason we shall pass over 2 Cor. V. 10, with a single remark. It announces that all are to appear before the judgment-seat of Christ to receive ac- cording to their deserts: and the phrase tov^ yae, rtdvta? r^ftaj ^avs^uidTjvai fist, can mean no other than a universal and si- ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. 371 multaneous arraigning, at which time each one {exaatoi) is to receive his reward. Nothing of this kind has yet occurred, and therefore the declaration remains yet to be accomplished, Phil. iii. 20, 21, has already been discussed in relation to the resurrection. It also announces that at the great day of Jesus Christ (see ch. i. 6) he will descend from heaven. Of course, therefore, the judgment cannot, any more than the resurrection, take place while he is in heaven, as our author imagines. The testimony in the epistles to the Thessalonians is very full and explicit; we have room, however, only to refer to it briefly in passing. 1 Thess. iv. 16» and its context, has been already noticed in our remarks on the resurrection. It also announces (see context) that the coming of the Lord to judg- ment is to be with the sound of the trumpet and the raising of the dead in Christ, and the rapture of them and of the living saints. These are the preludes to the judgment: and they are all yet to occur. See also chap. v. 2, and iii. 13; and Col. iii. 4. The following passage needs no comment; its overwhelm- ing testimony can never be set aside, and Professor Bush has thought it wisest to pass it in silence. Nothing can be more full or decisive of the point under discussion. "And to you who are troubled," says Paul, " rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in faming fire, taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; when he shall come to he glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.'''' Another express affirmation that Christ will come visibly to judgment is found in 2 Thess. ii. 8: "And then shall that wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, ancZ shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:''^ irti^avsia trj^ Tta^ovaia^, brightness of his ap- pearing. The Greek language has no phrase which can more fully than this convey the idea that Christ will person- ally and visibly appear at the time here referred to; and this appearance will be in Judgment, as the text declares. But the whole context is worthy of consideration in view of Professor Bush's theory. In vs. 1-8, Paul assures the 372 THE RESURRECTION OP THE BODY Thessalonians that the day of judgment was not near at hand. This, of course, cannot refer to the judgment which takes place at death; for such an idea would turn the whole passage into nonsense. Nor can it refer to the destruction of Jerusalem: for, 1. Christ did not visibly and personally appear at that time. 2. The destruction of that city was near at hand when Paul wrote, and actually occurred some twelve or fifteen years after this. 3. The Thessalonians had no particular interest in knowing when the Jewish city should be sacked. 4. But v. 3 shows the impossibility of referring this passage to that event. " That day," says Paul, " shall not come unless there be a falling away first.'''* What fall- ing away is here referred to? Not a falling away of Chris- tians before the destruction of Jerusalem; for such an apos- tasy was in no way connected with that event. Nor could it mean a falling away of the Jews : for they had already sufficiently fallen away to insure their destruction; Luke xix. 40, 41. The event of the Saviour's coming, here spoken of, has therefore not yet occurred. The passage in 2 Tim. iv. 1, is equally explicit: "I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall Judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and kingdom.^'' The word for appearing is here sTtt^avfta, and is never employed figuratively in the New Testament; see ver. 8, and 1 Tim. vi. 14; 2 Tim. i. 10; 2 Thess. ii. 8; Tit. ii. 13, which are the only places in which it occurs. Now Christ has not yet personally appeared to judge the living and the dead, and therefore the event here referred to (as well as in most of the texts just named,) is yet to occur. The next passage to which we shall refer is Heb. ix. 27, 28 : " And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation." This passage has been often supposed to refer only to the judg- ment which takes place upon the soul immediately after death, as in the case of Dives and Lazarus, in Luke xvi. This, however, is not in accordance with the text. For oi^t'co xal in ver. 28, is plainly illative, and refers to the particles of comparison xa^' baov in ver. 27. The argument of the apostle is that " as it is appointed to men once (arta|) to die, and after this (fistd -tovifo) it is appointed that they should be judged; so also Christ having died once (arta|,) will ap- ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. 373 pear again to be the Judge.'''' The judgment, therefore, to which man is appointed after death, is thejudgmentofthe great day! for which great transaction he awaits either in paradise or hell: and this judgment is to take place when Christ the Judge appears^ the second time (personally and visibly as he appeared the first time,) not, however, as a sin-offering, but to the saving of those whom he had redeemed with his blood. See also 1 Pet. i. 7, 8, and 1 Johniii. 2, (compare Ps. xvii. 15,) and 1 John ii. 28, which last passage clearly implies that some will be " ashamed before him at his coming,*" and who, of course, will receive according to their deserts. The apostle in 2 Pet. ii. 4, announces that the fallen angels are to be judged at the great day: " For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be re- served unto judgment," or to " the judgment of the great day;^'' (see Jude 6, compare 1 Cor. vi. 3, and Matt. viii. 29, and xxv. 41.) This protasis, it is true, has no gramma- tical apodosis; but a reference to the previous verses will show that Peter intended to convey the idea, that " If God did not spare angels, much less will he spare these false tejchers.^^ But there can be no mistaking the import of rtagiSwxEv ftj x^laiv trj^ov/xivov^ he delivered them over as those who {now) are kept for (or until) the judgment — even the judgment of the great day. And, as we have re- marked already, if angels are thus reserved to judgment, though already confined in hell, the same is doubtless the case with sinners who die impenitent : and if there is to be a day for judging sinful angels, there is also to be a day for judging sinful man. And this judgment in the case of man, can no more be resolved into the sentence which he meets with at death, than the future judgment of angels can be resolved into the sentence which was formerly passed upon them when they fell. The argument in 2 Pet. iii. 3-17, respecting the " coming of the day of God," ver. 12, and of the " coming" of the judge, (ver. 4,) which the skeptics derided, might be here discussed, did not our limits absolutely forbid. It is a serious consideration, however, that Professor Bush virtually justifies these scoffers, who say, " Where is the promise of his coming?" and who seem to think that Christ will never come to judgment: for, as if in answer to this very query 32 374 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY of theirs, his theory replies, that there is no such promise, and that Christ will not thus come to judgment, &c. Omitting other passages, we proceed to Jude 14, 15; *' Behold the Lord cometh with ten thousand of his saints, to execute judgment upon all,^^ &c. The meaning of this passage cannot be mistaken ; for, whatever may be the im- port of saints here, it is evident that the Lord has never ap- peared thus attended, nor has he ever thus judged the world, or all mankind. The prophecy, therefore, is yet to be ful- filled. The term saints (ayt'aij) has occasioned some little dis- cussion ; and Dr. Dufiield, in his late work on ^'Prop/tecy," has egregiously misapprehended its import; and to sustain himself, would even translate dyys^oj by messenger, and refer it to mankind in Matt. xiii. 39, &;c. But this is wholly inadmissible; nor did his argument require any such harsh dealing with the Scriptures; a mode of dealing which must involve the whole doctrine of angels in inextricable confusion. This mode of translation is a discovery claimed by the edi- tors of the " Improved Version,''^ who have given us many ludicrous specimens of it; (see e. g., their rendering of Gal. iii. 19; 1 Tim. iii. 16, and v. 21; Heb. i. 4, 5, 7, and ii. 2, and xii. 22; 1 Pet. iii. 22; 2 Pet. ii. 4, &c., and their an- notations thereon,) but they have, as yet, left Matt. xiii. 39, 49, &c., undisturbed. We have already shown that when our Saviour appears in judgment, he will be attended with all the holy angels. Their appearance will characterize his second advent, and, had he wished it, they were ready to attend him during his first. (Matt. xxvi. 53, compare Heb. i. 6.) 'Ayt'oj is a fre- quent name for angels; see Matt. xxv. 31; Mark viii. 30, 38; Luke ix. 26; Acts x. 22; Rev. xiv. 10; 1 Thess. iii. 13; (compare 2 Thess. i.7;) and in the LXX., Dan. iv. 14, 20, and viii. 13; Psalm Ixxxix. 5; and Job v. 1. And even in our text, a number of the old authorities read fiv^tdaiv aylmv dyyl^cov, and fiv^idaiv dyt'aij dyy£7.wv, and jxv^idaiv dyyfxcoi/. Now Christ has never yet appeared thus attended to judgment, and, therefore, the prophecy is still unfulfilled. There are a number of passages in Revelation, as for example chap. vi. 12-17, and xix. 11-16, which might be made the subject of remark in this connexion ; but we omit them, in order to refer to Rev. xx. 11-15, in conclusion. ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. 375 The passage has been already quoted on a former page, and we therefore need not quote it here. Professor Bush, as we may easily suppose, has been exceedingly perplexed by it; but a few observations will be sufficient to show how utterly he has failed in his attempt to set aside its testimony. His remark, that " bodies" are not here spoken of, we have already considered ; and a single quotation will serve to show the nature of his attempts at evasion. Says he, in relation to this passage: "The true doctrine of the resur- rection affords the true key to the symbolic problems before us." p. 317. We have seen what his " true doctrine of the resurrection" is — that man rises from the dead at death — and the fact that he attempts to explain this passage in ac- cordance with this notion, will, of itself, evince what must be the nature of his attempts at exposition. And it is while making this effort, that he contradicts himself so strangely, by first asserting that the judgment spoken of occurs at a stated and definite period, and then that it occurs at no such period, but merely takes place at death. He asserts, that " the judgment here described is not a visible judg- ment in the natural sphere," and, of course, tlie great white throne, and the heavens and earth, and the sea, are not " visible in the natural sphere." The sea giving up its dead " occurs," says he, " prior to the act of adjudication just mentioned above," i. e., prior to this judgment of the dead, which he speaks of: and, of course, if this " act of adjudi- cation" is the one which takes place at death, then the sea must have given up her dead before the first of Adam's race died. But to pursue this subject would be to tritle with the patience of the reader. I may remark, however, that the reason why the sea is here specifically mentioned as giving up its dead, appears to be, because, as the resurrection of all who are in their graves, or in the dust of the earth, had been spoken of by the Spirit of inspiration, the resur- rection of those in the sea is here expressly mentioned, that all may perceive that the resurrection of the whole human family will be complete, and that even the disso- lution of the body which takes place in the waiers,, will present no impediment in the way of him who is the resur- rection and the life. So that even though through Adam all die, yet through Christ shall all be made alive. 376 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY CONCLUSION. Thus I have completed my investigation of the views of the resurrection and judgment asserted by Professor Bush, in common with Swedenborgians and others. I have care- fully examined every position which he has advanced, and every attempt which he has made to impugn the received doctrine, or to sustain his own. He has in the last chapters of his book attempted to criticise at great length Acts iii. 19- 21, and 1 Cor. xv. 24-28; but as these passages have but an incidental reference to the main issue, I shall not follow him therein. I am not sorry that there is no necessity for doing so; for in his attempts to criticise them, he has fallen into not a few grievous philological errors, affecting, too, the very core of his exposition; and it would afford me no pleasure to expose them, as they do not seriously affect the fundamental doctrines of the Gospel. Yet crude and inconsistent with scarce a parallel, as are the Professor's views, he cannot, without the highest degree of self-complacency, survey his efJbrts to establish them. In the conclusion of his remarks on the resurrection and judg- ment, he exclaims, with no little transport — " What then becomes of the scriptural evidence of the resurrection of the body 1 Does it not evaporate in the crucible of logical and philological deduction? And is it not inevitable that a great change must come over our estimate of the doctrine, viewed as a disclosure of holy writ? Can it hereafter pre- sent the same aspect to the refecting mind as formerly^ when conceived to involve the averment of the requickening of the inhumed relics of the corporeal structure? Especially, are we not presented with a neiv and all-important view of the central fact, our Saviour''s resurrection? Can the evidence be resisted ?" — p. 347. I have sometimes half doubted whether the Professor could have been really serious when he wrote this — for of all things in the world it appears the most unaccountably strange that a man should soberly expect to effect an entire revolution in the views entertained by the Christian church on the most momentous subjects, by means of such efforts as this of Professor Bush. He has ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. 377 offered not a single objection to the doctrine he opposes, but has been a thousand times refuted before he was born; not a new fact or principle has he adduced from science or philo- sophy; not a single text has he been able to produce which in any way countenances his theory ; and not only this, but his views are crude and unformed on many of the most im- portant points which he has attempted to discuss, and in multitudes of places they are totally and irreconcilably dis- cordant and subversive of each other ; and to crown all, they are wholly destitute even of the attraction of novelty, as we have shown at the commencement of this treatise : and yet, notwithstanding all this, our author announces that he seriously expects the Christian church will, by virtue of what he has presented, abandon the views which she has ever entertained, and the truth of which her sons have de- monstrated ten thousand times twice told, and around which cluster her dearest hopes for time and eternity; and receive as truth some of the wildest chimeras which ever entered the mind of man ! The work of Professor Bush has excited much interest in many minds, particularly the young and inquiring ; and no small degree of apprehension among some of the friends of evangelical religion. Yet I cannot doubt he will deeply re- gret ever having written it. His bold sanction of the neo- logical principles of hermeneutics, will be hailed with joy by those in our country who are endeavouring to clothe them- selves in the cast-off garments of the German school of Semler; his effort to explain away the doctrine of a judg- ment to come, will find favour among our Universalists; and the Swedenborgians, Shakers and Rationalists will rejoice in the support and countenance of one who, with no small amount of reputation as a biblical expositor, has come to their assistance with such a parade of learning and science: but the ark of God will still remain unshaken. In this country, truth cannot suffer in its conflict with error. Professor Bush has, in this discussion, spoken plainly, and, occasionally, with no little contempt of the doctrines he im- pugns. I too have spoken plainly, under the firm persuasion that "these are not the times to concede any thing either to timid integrity among ourselves, or fluctuating doubts and scruples among our milder opponents. It is necessary that the truth should be spoken, not only out, but aloud."* Of » British Critic for January, 1800. 378 THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY the author himself, I have endeavoured to speak, as I truly feel, kindly; but such errors as he has advocated cannot be treated in a way which would lead the reader to infer that the writer deemed them to be at best but trivial, without a clear compromise of fundamental truth. I am not the one who can, without the utterance of stern rebuke, permit a brother (however highly valued) to charge the apostles with mistake, and the Saviour with direct connivance at gross and grievous errors. The man who asserts these things under whatever pretence, has openly taken sides with the declared enemies of Christ and his religion. Still, he may not design it so, and the error may be one of the head and not of the heart. But this in no way cancels our obligations to assert, plainly and fearlessly, the radical difference between truth and error. Nor can one particle of this difference be com- promised, should ten thousand such men as Professor Bush assume the position which he has taken. I should siill say, amicus Socrates, amicus Plato, sed magis amica Veritas, and should feel bound to declare that they had clearly made a compromise with the enemy. I am aware that this is "bigotry" in our modern vocabulary, nor am I unwilling that on such grounds it should be so regarded. I can truly say (if I may be pardoned for speaking so often in the first person,) that I always rejoice when any doc- trine of revelation becomes the subject of more than special attention and inquiry, whether it be by means of believer, errorist, or infidel. Let these doctrines be " interrogated " — and the severer the scrutiny the better; but let the principles upon which this is attempted be reasonable and philosophi- cal. Revelation cannot be injured thereby. But the man who will attempt such a scrutiny on false principles, or on those which are wholly arbitrary, or even preposterous in their application to any other subject, had better present his lucubrations to other readers than the people of our Ameri- can republic, if he calculates upon either profit or lasting fame. Error may appear to triumph for a season on Ameri- can soil, but that moment her triumph has appeared to be the proudest, has ever proved to be the signal for her over- throw. The contemplation of the momentous themes which form the subject of this discourse, cannot but force upon the mind the impressive reflection that both writer and reader are rapidly passing onward to the world where the character ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. 379 we have formed in our present slate will receive the innpress of eternal immutability. May we be prepared for the scenes which will then open upon our view, and for that awful as- size to which reference has been made so frequently on the preceding pages, and at which ice are not to be mere spectators; but where our principles and feelings and actions must all undergo the severest scrutiny! And Oh, thou glo- rious Redeemer, who art ordained to be the Judge of the living and the dead! mercifully pardon the imperfections of this book, which was written for the promotion of thy glory; and grant that its perusal may be attended with thy blessing in leading souls to prepare for thy coming! Look down upon thy Zion in this land, (for she is thy blood-pur- chased possession!) and save her from those errors which have retarded thy triumph, and desolated thy inheritance in other lands. Let her still prosper under thy protecting and nurturing hand; and may thy people become more like thee, and possess more sympathy with thee in thine efforts to recover this apostate world to thy sway. THE END. PERKINS & PURVES, No. 142 Chestnut Street, PHILADELPHIA, Publish the following new and valuable worh: PARISH PSALMODY. A collection of Psalms and Hymns for Public Worship. This book is the result of years of uninterrupted labour. It has been prepared by a clergyman admirably qualified for the task, and with unusual facilities afforded him to make the work of the very best character. The publishers beg leave to call the attention of clergymen and others to the following characteristics of the Parish Psalmody. I. It contains Dr. Watts' versification of the Psalms, entire and unaltered^ except in a few instances of allusion to the British nation and government. Versifications by Dwight, Montgomery, and others of the Psalms omitted by Dr. Watts', and some choice versifications of other Psalms, have been inserted, but in all such instances the name of the author is given at the close of the piece. II. The Parish Psalmody contains also a selection of Hymns, nearly seven hundred in number, which, (according to the numerous testimonials above referred to,) will be found copious, adapted to a great variety of topics and occasions, and suited to the evangelical and active spirit of the age. Nearly two hundred of Dr. Watts' hymns, embracing, it is supposed, all that are used in public worship, will be found in this volume. The standard productions of Doddridge, Cowper, Newton, Mrs. Steele, and others, have been scrupulously retained. III. The classification of subjects is more minute than usual, and is methodical, easy, and corresponding with the best arrangement of systematic theology. In the running title over the left-hand page is found the general subject, as, for instance, "Christ," while over the right-hand page is found the subdivision of this general subject, as "Advent," "Atone- ment," "Resurrection," "Ascension," " Intercession," «fec. A complete table of the "Classification of Hymns" is given. The " Index of Subjects," and that of " Passages of Scriptures alluded to in the Hymns," is also very full. In the size designed for the pulpit, a table of the " First lines of every Stanza" in the book is given, so that the recollection of the first line of any stanza of any Psalm or Hymn in the book, the piece to 33 which it bclong's may be readily found. The copiousness of the index and tables has been often mentioned by many of the pastors who are using the book, in different sections of the country, as afford- jng them greater facihties than any other book they have ever seen. IV. In addition to its other excellencies, there is included in the volume the Confession of Faith of the Presbyterian Church, and the Shorter Catechism, but congregations choosing to dispense with these can be supplied with copies in which they are omitted. Pastors and churches are earnestly desired to examine the Parish Psalmody before adopting any other book. It is published in the three sizes, in .S2mo., 18mo., and 12mo., all in very clear, new type, and will be sold very low to churches. *^* We have appended to the Parish Psalmody the Confession of Faith of the Presbyterian Church, and the Shorter Catechism. Con- gregations choosing to dispense with these, can be supplied with copies in which they are omitted. RECOMMENDATIONS. BY THE SYNOD OF PENNSYLVANIA. Resolved, That the Parish Psalmody, which has already been adopted extensively by the churches in our connexion, is a Book of Psalms and Hymns of great excellence. The collection is large, various, and evangelical, replete with lyric beauty, and admirably adapted to the wants and spirit of the age. Embracing also the Con- fession of Faith and Shorter Catechism, it supplies a desideratum, which has been wanting heretofore in the Hymn Books in use in the Presbyterian Church. Resolved, That we recommend its adoption, as speedily as possible, by all the churches in our care. BY THE SYNOD OF WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA. Resolved, That we recommend its adoption, (Parish Psalmody) by all the churches 'under our care. BY THE PRESBYTERY OF PITTSBURGH, PA. Resolved, That the Parish Psalmody, which has been adopted by two of our churches, is a collection of Psalms and Hymns of great excellence; and we recommend its use in all the churches under our care. Resolved, That we consider it a strong recommendation of the Parish Psalmody, that appended to it, are the Confession of Faith, and the Shorter Catechism ; thus giving a wide circulation to those venerated standards of Presbyterianism, and making all our members familiar with the system of doctrine, held and taught in our church. Resolved, That we overture the Synod to take action on this sub- ject, so that we may, if possible, secure uniformity of Psalmody throughout the churches. Extract from the Minutes of the Third Presbytery, Philadelphia. The committee appointed to examine the "Parish Psalmody," published by Messrs, Perkins & Purves, of Philadelphia, respectfully report, That they have given due attention to the book, and find it to pois. sess more excellencies, and fewer defects, than usually attach to works of this character. It contains the Psalms of Dr. Watts entire from the original copy, except in a few instances of national allusion, together with a versifi- cation of the Psalms of David which he omitted, by other and approved authors. Most of the Hymns of Watts also are given with sparing and judi- cious alterations^ To these are added about five hundred of the most choice hymns in the English language, adapted to every variety of occasion. The index of subjects is full and well arranged, and one also of Scripture passages on which the hymns are founded, is added. The book is truly Presbyterian in its character, containing the Con- fession of Faith and Shorter Catechism. The execution of the work is admirable, both for appearance and durability. They would recommend the following resolution for adoption: — Resolved, That the Presbytery recommend to the churches under its care the " Parish Psalmody," published by Messrs. Perkins &, Purves, of Philadelphia, as admirably adapted to interest and edify our churches and congregations, in this department of public worship. The foregoing is a true extract from the minutes of the Presbytery, Attest, Robert Adair, Stated Clerk, , Extract from the Minutes of the Presbytery of Bethlehem. Resolved, That we highly approve the collection of Psalms and Hymns, entitled "Parish Psalmody," published by Perkins & Purves, and regard it as decidedly the most judicious selection with which we are acquainted. Henry B. Elliot, Clerk. From the New York Evangelist. This is a work evidently prepared with care, and by one who is a theologian and a man of taste, though we are not informed who he is. It has some distinguishing features, which will probably commend it to the favour of many of the churches. ******* The alterations and abridgments of those hymns of Watts which are given, are sparingly but judiciously and tastefully made. They are by no means too frequent; in our opinion, they might have been more frequent, without injury to the cause of good psalmody. The selection from other authors is copious, varied, and in good taste. The whole number of hymns is little less than seven hundred ; and those adapted to special occasions and subjects are quite as numerous as in any collection we are acquainted with. The classification of subjects is more minute than usual, and is methodical, easy, and cor- responding with the best arrangement of systematic theology. Some may think it carried to far, but it gives the work an appearance of symmetry and order which is pleasing and desirable. It is very iiandsomely printed, with fair, open type, and fine paper — has convenient indexes of subjects, first lines, &.c., is well bound, and sold at a moderate price. We doubt not it will strike a large portion of the religious public with favour, and find its way to the acceptable use of many churches. The followingr recommendation has been received from several of the Pastors of the city of Philadelphia, who have adopted the Parish Psalmody: The undersigned have introduced into their respective churches the "Parish Psalmody," recently published by Perkins &. Purves, of this city, and which has received the approval of the Third Presbytery of Philadelphia, and other ecclesiastical bodies. The following are some of its excellencies, viz : 1. It contains Dr. Watts's versification of the Psalms, entire: and the Hymns by the same author are retained, with sparing and judi- cious alterations. To the Hymns by Dr. Watts are added about five hundred of the best in the English language. 2. The classification and the index of subjects are full and well ar- ranged: and an index of Scripture passages, upon which the hymns are founded; and (in the large size) an index of the first line of every stanza, give it a completeness which is seldom to be met with in simi- lar collections. 3. It includes the Confession of Faith and the Shorter Catechism of the Presbyterian Church, which gives the book much additional value. We cordially recommend the " Parish Psalmody" to our brethren in the ministry and the churches in our connexion, for their adoption, believing it to be the best collection of Psalmody now in use. John L. Grant, Pastor of the Uth Presbyterian Church, Phila. Charles Brown, Pastor of 1st Presb. Church, Fair mount, Phila. Ezra Stiles Ely, D. D. Pastor Elect of 1st Presb. Church, N. L. Phila. Robert Adair, Pastor of 1st Presb. Church, South wark, Phila. William Ramsey, Minister of Cedar street Presb. Church, Phila. M. La Rue P. Thompson, Pastor of the 5th Presbyterian Church, Phila. George Chandler, Pastor of 1st Presb. Church, Kensington, Phila. From the New York Observer. We have examined this book with some attention, and we are pleased with all that we have yet seen in it ; the selection appears to be made with taste, and the variety is so great that songs suitable for any occasion, and adapted to almost any subject, may be readily found. Another feature we admire much in this book — the Confession of Faith and the Shorter Catechism of the Presbyterian Church are added in an appendix. The propriety and usefulness of this addition will be very apparent. For other than Presbyterian churches, which adopt his book, an edition is published without the appendix. l^/fi rn-cdt^iy . lf(,,W' 4 ^ rf /W^^« .. /X^-. YB 72503 A3 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA UBRARY