THE
RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD:
A VINDICATION OF THE
LITERAL RESURRECTION OF THE HUMAN BODY;
IN OPPOSITION TO
THE WORK OF PROFESSOR BUSH.
33V! pralan }wing'lst.
Contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the sainits.-Jude
GEORGE PECK, EDITOR.
Neu-1O k: 
PUBLISHED BY CARLTON & PHILLIPS,
200 MULBERRY-STREET.
1855.




Entered, tCcording to Act of Congress, in the year 1847, by
G. LANE & C. B. ITPPETT, in the Clerk's Office of the District
Court of the Southern District of New-York




ADVERTISEMENT.
THE following pages contain the substance of a discourse on the resurrection
of the body, preached in Erie, Pa., late in
the fall of 1845. The occasion of the
sermon was the introduction of numerous
copies of a book written by George Bush,
Professor of Hebrew in the New-York
University. The avowed object of the
book is to overthrow the commonly received opinion of the resurrection of the
body. These books were extensively circulated and read. Some embraced the
new theory, others found their faith weakenid by the bewildering speculations of
the learned author.
Under these circumstances, believing
the error inculcated in the book to be fun



4          ADVERTISEMENT.
damental; that it aimed a fatal blow at the
very vitals of Christianity; that it led
directly, in all its tendencies, to infidelity;
a refutation was undertaken, and the following discourse, in three parts, delivered
during three successive sabbaths.
Immediately upon the delivery of the
sermon, the author was waited on for a
copy of his discourse for publication. But
owing to providential circumstances the
sermon could not be prepared for the press
at that time, nor during the past winter.
A few weeks since, the author learned
from his much esteemed friend, Hon.
James D. Dunlap, of Erie, that while at
Iiarrisburgh, the last winter, he had made
arrangements with the book agents at
New-York to publish the sermon, provided that, in the estimation of the agents,
ii answered the description given of it;
and forthwith he commenced writing out
the discourse, from extensive notes pre.
pared at the time of preaching it.




ADVERTISEMENT.            5
If the author were persuaded that his
humble effort to defend the Scripture
doctrine on the subject of the resurrection
would have the effect, in any degree, to
counteract the injurious tendencies of a
theory, calculated at once to unsettle the
very foundations of our holy Christianity;
if it should have the effect in any degree
to place in a clear light a great and precious doctrine of the gospel, and to rescue
a truth that is vital from the attack of a
vain philosophy, the same motive that le6
to its preparation and delivery would. now
induce him to give it a more extensive
circulation.
Alleghany Co.lege, May 27, 1846.








THE
RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD.
PART I.
WHY SHOULD IT BE THOUGHT A THING INCREDIBLE WITH
YOU, THAT GOD SHOULD RAISE THE DEAD I-ACTS XXVI, 8.
WHATEVER throws light upon the ultimate
destination of man must be matter of intense
interest to every considerate mind. That man
is mortal; that his stay upon earth is brief and
uncertain; that age, like the chilling winter,
palsies and benumbs his lirmbs; that the dark
and dismal night of death closes around him in
the midst of his pursuits, are truths within the
observation of all. But " if a man die, shall he
live again?" Is there a trans-sepulchral world?
Is the lamp of reason and intelligence, which
has been lighted up by the eternal Fountain, to
go out in everlasting darkness; or, does the
curtain of death but conceal from mortal view
its lustre, while it passes over the "gloomy
vale" into a "spirit land?"  Is the "dark valley and shadow of death" the ultimate boqndaiy




8          THE RESURRECTION.
of human prospects, or is there beyond it "a
land inhabited?" And, if so, what are the relations and dependencies between that world
and this? These are questions which press
upon the mind whose only illumination is the
light of reason, with painful interest. These
are problems belonging to a higher science than
is taught in nature's book. A revelation from
God alone can solve them.  This has been
made. The great Master and Teacher, "the
Father of lights," has explained these otherwise
inextricable mysteries, for our learning and salvation.
This revelation teaches most clearly,
I. That man's soul is immortal; that it does
not die with the body, but has a conscious existence when the body is dead.
II. That although the body is now mortal, it
was not originally so; but has become so by
transgression.
III. That the body, which has become mor
tal in consequence of sin, shall be raised again
to life, and be made immortal, through the
atonement of Jesus Christ; and,
IV. That soul and body united shall be
happy or miserable for ever, in the world to
come, according to the character sustained in
this.




THE RESURRECTION.             9
Every one of these propositions has been
denied by those who, nevertheless, profess to
believe the Scriptures. Yet not one of them
can be disproved without doing violence to
every known principle of interpretation.
But the third proposition, namely, that there
will be a resurrection of the human body, will
more particularly claim our attention at this
time. Every fundamental doctrine of the Scriptures has, by turns, been assailed by the enemies or the misguided friends of the gospel of
Christ; and the errors of these enemies or misguided friends have only been exposed by
bringing the steady light of revelation to bear
upon them, until their uncouth features and
frightful deformities might be made apparent,
and their evil and pernicious influence effectually shunned.
The time has come when in regard to the
doctrine of the resurrection it is necessary to
" contend earnestly for the faith once delivered
to the saints." Professor Bush, a man of talent,
of learning, and a minister of the gospel, has, in
a very labored treatise, used all his strength and
ingenuity to prove that there can be no resurrection of the human body, in any sense whatever. From the position Professor B. occupies, as well as from the relation his views




10          THE RESURRECTION.
have to certain other doctrines of Scripture, it
is not difficult to foresee that his opinions will
draw after him numerous followers.
A few quotations, from the work of Professor
B., will show that I have not misunderstood
him. On the first page of the preface he says:
"The resurrection of the body, if my reasoning
and expositions are well founded, is not a doctrine of revelation." Again: " The resurrection
of the same body, in any sense whatever, encounters difficulties in our view absolutely insurmountable." P. 40. Again: " How the evidence adduced may strike the reader we know
not; to our minds it is amply sufficient to establish the conclusion, that the resurrection of the
body is not a doctrine sanctioned by reason or
revelation, so far as we have hitherto interrogated the testimony of each." P. 274. Multitudes of such passages, from all parts of the
book, might be collected.
Having seen what our author positively denies, let us next see what he positively affirms;
that both denial and affirmation may be submitted to the test of the Scriptures.  On page 70
he says, " The resurrection body is that part of
our present being to which the essential life of
the man pertains. We may not be able to see
it, to handle it, to analyze, or describe it. But




THE RESURRECTION.           11
we know that it exists, because we know that
we ourselves exist.  It constitutes the inner,
essential vitalities of our present bodies; and it
lives again in another state, because it never
dies. It is immortal in its own nature, and is
called a body-a spiritual body-because the
poverty of human language, or perhaps the
weakness of the human mind, forbids the adoption of any more befitting term by which to
express it."  Again: "It would seem, then, on
the whole, from a collation of all the grounds
on which an opinion is founded, that the judgment of reason would be, that a spiritual body
is developed at death-by the development we
mean disengagement." P. 78. Again: "It is
something essentially connected with vital operations; something that is exhaled with the dying
breath, or, in other words, that goes from the
body before it is consigned to the dust." Again:
" Let it (the resurrection) be understood as an
event which transpires with every individual
believer, as soon as he leaves the body." P. 170.
" The true anastasis (or resurrection) is the dev.elopment of a spiritual body at death." P. 78.
From these passages, which might be greatly
extended, this theory maintains that all the
resurrection there is for human beings, is the
separation of the soul and body, at death; and




12         THE RESURRECTION.
the conscious existence of the soul, after death:
the participation of the body in tlhis resurrection being distinctly denied.  That Professor
B. means the same thing by his spiritual body
which others mean by the soul is further evident
firom the following quotation, p. 145: " The
prevailing sense of resurrection, in the New
Testament, is simply that of a future existence,
the future state, or immortality." Consequently
by this theory there will be no general resurrection, nor general judgment: and this he argues at length in his book. " The grand point,"
says Professor B., " which we combat throughout, is that which affirms that no resurrection
can take place but by means of the reunion of
those principles, soul and body, which constitute
our being in the present life. We maintain, on
the other hand, that neither reason nor revelation countenance the idea of any such reunion.
All the purposes of a future state of existence
and retribution we contend may be answered
without it." P. 78.
Having stated, somewhat at length, the theory
which contradicts a great, and, as we believe, a
fundamental doctrine of the Scriptures, let us
next look at the arguments by which the~:
theory is substantiated. These are drawn, firsi:
from reason; and, secondly, from revelation.




THE RESURRECTION.           13
But the argument from reason is made the
criterion by which the declarations of Scripture
are interpreted. This will be made plain by
another quotation, p. 385: " The point that will
probably be regarded as most exceptionable, is
the making our rational deductions the criterion
in regard to the meaning of the inspired word,
on a theme of so much importance as the mode
of our future existence." Such a declaration,
from such a quarter, cannot fail to startle the
pious believer, who has been accustomed to
place implicit reliance in the lively oracles of
eternal truth. It is easy to perceive in this,
though perhaps not so intended by the author,
the latent germ of infidelity. And although it
is but a smooth, round egg, a serpent is forming
within it, whose poisonous venom will be the
destruction of those who embrace him. The
following quotation will show him more distinctly: "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 reason and science? Are we to hoodwink
our faculties to do homage to revelation?" Here
the more than semi-transparent covering shows
us the snaky folds of the serpent. He is full



14         THE RESURRECTION.
blooded, if not full-grown; and ere long he will
burst the shell, and become a hideous monster,
rolling his fiery eyes, and darting his forked
tongue. I would not charge the author of the
new theory with intentionally advocating infidel
principles, for he avows his firm belief in the
Scriptures; but I do say that the legitimate
tendency of such dealing with the Scriptures is
to infidelity. What infidel would refuse to subscribe to the Scriptures, if permitted to reject,
or explain away, whatever does not suit his
"rational deductions?" and especially if he be
allowed to do what Professor B. has done,
positively contradict the inspired apostles, and
accuse them of being mistaken, when they cross
his path. It has been in precisely this way that
many of the most ruinous and soul-destroying
heresies have crept into the Christian church.
Universalism and Unitarianism owe their very
existence to this method of tampering with the
Scriptures. Professor B. rejects the doctrine
of the resurrection, because he cannot see any
use for such a doctrine; affirming that all the
purposes of a future state and of retribution
may be answered without it. P. 78. For the
same reason do Universalists deny the doctrine
of future retribution. They suppose all the
purposes of the divine government can be an



THE RESURRECTION.           15
swered without it. For the same reasons do
both Unitarians and Universalists deny the doctrine of a vicarious atonement, the divinity of
Christ, and the doctrine of the Trinity. In all
this there is such a show of philosophy, falsely so
called, such a pampering of human pride, such
erroneous notions of the true province of human
reason, as are well calculated to induce those
under the influence of such views to sit unblushingly in judgment on the ways of God.
How has Professor B. ascertained that all the
purposes of a future state can be answered without the resurrection of the human body? How
likely are we to be mistaken, and to form erroneous opinions, in regard to things immediately
surrounding us; and who, unless it be the crazy
Swedenborg, with whose writings I suspect our
author has kept company too long, shall stand
up and declare that from his knowledge of all
the relations and dependencies of a future state,
as well as from his knowledge of all the purposes of the divine mind, there is no use for
the human body in a future state?
I would not say that human reason has nothing to do in matters of religion; very far from
it. Its sphere is, first, to examine the proofs
which establish the authenticity of the Scriptures; and, secondly, to ascertain, by the estab



16         THE RESURRECTION.
lished principles of interpretation, what the
Bible does teach-not what it must teach, in
order to accord with our previous notions or
"rational deductions."
The very fact that a'revelation has been
made supposes human reason ignorant of the
things revealed; otherwise there would have
been no need of the revelation. That any particular doctrine of revelation cannot be discovered by the light of reason, therefore, is no
objection against such doctrine, but rather an
argument in its favor, inasmuch as if all the
doctrines of the Bible might have been known
without a revelation, there would have been
more grounds for believing the Bible to be a
mere human production, the result of man's
" rational deductions."
The grand error in the theory we are opposing is, that it attempts to discover the doctrines of religion independently of the only light
that has revealed them, and then requires the
Bible to sanction its conclusions. The best eye
cannot see without light. No more can the
best reasoning powers draw correct conclusions
without sufficient data. And in matters of re
ligion it is the peculiar province of revelation to
furnish this data. The optician who should
shut himself up in a dark room, in order to




THE RESURRECTION.           17
investigate the properties of light, and then
require the laws of optics to conform to his preconceived theory, his "rational" or irrational
"deductions," would not be more inconsistent
than the theologian who professes to investigate
the deep things of God, independently of the
only means that has revealed them, and then
requires the Bible, whether it will or not, to
sanction his favorite theology.
From all this it is a most "rational deduction," that human reason should investigate any
subject in the light of that science which properly embraces that subject.  What would be
thought of the mathematician who should set
himself to work to discover, by arithmetical
formula, the laws of chemical affinity? or of
the musician who should undertake to investigate the principles of geometry by tones and
semi-tones?  Can the laws of gravitation develop the principles of moral obligation? or
the rules of rhetoric explain the properties of
the rainbow? The reason is plain; these sciences are not homogeneous. They differ essentially in their nature, and the principles of the
one do not apply to the other. Chemistry must
be studied in the light of chemistry; geometry
in the light of geometry, and so of all others.
Many truths can be demonstrated only by
2




18          THE RESURRECTION.
the evidence of experience, and no previous
train of reasoning a priori could develop them.
A person takes into his mouth a little starch, a
perfectly tasteless substance: he then tastes
sulphuric acid, one of the most intensely sour
and acrid of all substances. What does he expect will be the taste of the compound of the
two? Why, inasmuch as the one was intensely
sour, and the other had no taste at all, he would
most likely conclude that the compound would
be sour still. What then becomes of his "rational deductions" when, upon tasting the compound, he finds it sugar.
Take another example. A philosopher who
has never seen a bird upon the wing, finds the
nest of an eagle. He is told that from these eggs
there will emerge animals which will move off
with great rapidity through the air. The thing
appears to him at once "incredible." He breaks
one of the eggs, examines it minutely, ascertains
its specific gravity to be even greater than water. Even if it should ever have life, of which
he sees no signs, how is it going to move off in
the air when it sinks in water? At length an
animal, different from anything he has seen,
emerges from the shell. He watches its growth
and development until it is full grown. But
yet its specific gravity is much greater than air.




THE RESURRECTION.            19
How then is it going to rise and float off above
the earth? While he thus reasons and speculates, the bird spreads his wings, and mounting
above the clouds, mocks all his short-sighted
speculations.
What a pity that men will not learn modesty
from their own liability to be mistaken in matters much less mysterious than the resurrection
of the dead! And if one human science cannot
develop the principles of another human science,
how much less shall any human science develop
the great truths of revealed religion! It is true
that the sciences reciprocally reflect light upon
each other; and revelation sheds its effulgent
light upon all true science; and all science,
truly so called, reflects back the golden rays of
revelation.  But all this is incidental, and I
may add, too, providential; but it is not the
province of one science to develop another,
much less is it the province of any or all human
science to discover the great principles of divinely inspired truth.
As our author has drawn largely from the
analogies of science in order to prepare the
minds of his readers for his new theory, I now
proceed to examine a sophism, which is at the
very foundation of this new theory of the resurrection.  It is argued that all knowledge is




20         THE RESURRECTION.
progressive, as well the knowledge of revelation; as the knowledge of the sciences and that,
consequently, we may expect that different views
will be entertained on the subject of revealed
truth, in different ages, in accordance with this
view of progressive knowledge. The various
changes rung upon this idea occupy a large
space in this modern theory. Now the sophistry does not consist in the mere assertion that
" knowledge is progressive," but in the application of it. It is true that knowledge is progressive. But how does knowledge progress? By
exploding at each successive step all previous
knowledge? Most certainly not. It only progresses by ascertaining some fixed principles,
and then proceeding upon these principles, and
not by constantly unsettling these principles
themselves. Truths must exist as unchangeable
realities, before there can be any progressive
knowledge of them. The knowledge of the
sciences is progressive; but no progressive
knowledge unsettles the great fundamental principles which are at the very foundation of the
sciences themselves. For example, we may say
the knowledge of geometry is progressive. But
will any progressive knowlege of this science
unsettle its elementary principles? Will any
progressive knowledge prove that a square has




THE RESURRECTION.           21
not all its sides equal, and all its angles rightangles? or that a circle is not bounded by a
curved line, every part of which is equally distant from a common point? And when it is
fairly demonstrated that the square upon the
hypothenuse of a right-angled triangle is equal
to the sum of the squares of the other two sides,
can any subsequent progressive knowledge
prove this theorem false? Subsequent investigations thenceforth receive this theorem as an
established truth. Similar reasoning applies to
other sciences.
The case is similar with regard to revealed
religion. God has established a system of truth,
a religious science, for the salvation of mankind.
This science, like all others, contains certain
elementary and fundamental truths, which truths
remain unaltered by any progression in human
knowledge.  The resurrection of the dead is
one of these truths, and one of so much importance, that our Saviour rests upon it his entire
claim as Redeemer of the world. This doctrine
comes to us as a revealed truth, and is, perhaps,
more purely within the province of revelation
alone, than almost any other doctrine of the
Scriptures; a doctrine so entirely above and beyond the reach of unaided human reason, that
she is unable in her own name to say one word




22         THE RESURRECTION.
either for or against it; but yet a doctrine as
unequivocally taught in the Bible, the only book
that could reveal it, as any proposition can be
taught in language; and a doctrine of so much
importance in the estimation of the inspired
apostles, who understood by it, according to the
admission of Professor B., the resurrection of
the body, that they rested all their pretensions
upon it, and even the salvation of their souls
from eternal perdition; and suffered death in
the most frightful forms, because they could not
be made to renounce it. *Nay more, Professor
B., p. 167, admits that our Saviour intended
that the apostles should believe this doctrine.
If the God of truth intended that the apostles
should believe this doctrine, how does Professor
B. know but that he intends that all the rest of
mankind should also believe it? If the unchangeable God intended that this doctrine
should be believed eighteen centuries ago, how
has Professor B. ascertained that he does not
intend it still? Has there been any new revelation since?  But Professor IB. intends that
mankind shall disbelieve this doctrine. May not
his task, in this respect, be rather a thankless
one? And is there not a little danger that he
be found contending against God? If the doctrine was true when God intended it to be be



THE RESURRECTION.           23
lieved, it is true still.  If it was false, then
God intended that the apostles, who were made
the dispensatories of his will to mankind, should
believe a falsehood!!  A conclusion at once
both shocking and basphemous. How then is
the law of progressive knowledge to strike from
the bright constellation of religious truths this
central star?
The truths of revelation are not like some
machines, which require to be remodeled and
improved from time to time in order to suit the
improvements of the age; nor like some garments, that must be cut and made over every
six months to be in fashion.  If they were,
there might bee some propriety in talking about
the law of progressive knowledge, as applied to
the doctrine of the resurrection. Then, indeed,
we might send to the east every spring and fall
for our theology, as we now do for our fashions.
But the doctrines of the gospel are pure, unchanging, and eternal truths.
There is no doubt that the knowledge of the
Scriptures, like other knowledge, is progressive;
and that age after age may unfold new excellences in the word of God, as its precepts come
to be better obeyed, and its prophecies, yet
future, come to be fulfilled and better understood; but so far from unsettling the confidence




24         THE RESURRECTION.
of mankind in its great fundamental truths, this
very circumstance will but strengthen it.
We are now prepared to explode another
sophism similar in its character to the one just
examined. The principle laid down, out of
which a great deal of capital is attempted to be
made in all parts of the book, against the resurrection of the body, is, in substance, this:
The God of revelation is also the God of nature, and the revelation in his word cannot contradict the revelation in his works. And our
author cannot "hoodwink his faculties to do
homage to revelation."
This popular declaration is in the mouth of
every one who wishes to array his favorite
dogma against the teachings of God's word, and
is very well calculated to lead astray the minds
of the unwary. In this case, as in the other, the
sophistry does not consist so much in the declaration itself, as in the application of it. The
declaration has two sides to it. And conclusions
directly the reverse from those usually drawn
from it are the correct conclusions. Suppose a
particular dogma, the result of philosophical investigation, or "rational deduction," arrays itself against the plain teachings of God's word.
Before any conclusion unfavorable to the doctrine of the Scriptures can be drawn from such




THE RESURRECTION.           25
a dogma, it must be supported by an amount
of evidence superior to that which substantiates
the divine authenticity of the Scriptures. And
this we venture to affirm is a case that never
occurred. Therefore, the conclusion, in all such
cases, is against the dogma itself, and not against
the particular Scripture doctrine which it opposes. The evidences of the divine authenticity
of the Scriptures, especially to the Christian,
who, in addition to all the rest, may have the
evidence of his own experience, may be considered absolutely conclusive. We may admit,
then, and we believe, that no one truth can contradict another truth, and that
The revelation in God's works cannot contradict the revelation in his word:
But the particular dogma does contradict the
revelation in his word:
Therefore the particular dogma is not the revelation of his works.
Again: God's word is truth: but
One truth cannot contradict another truth:
But the particular dogma does contradict
God's word:
Therefore the particular dogma is* not the
truth.
Let us now apply these principles to the
theory under consideration. Are our author's




26         THE RESURRECTION.
"rational deductions" supported by an amount
of evidence superior to that which authenticates
the Bible? Is it more evident that the God of
infinite power and wisdom cannot prevent the
particles which compose one human body from
ever becoming essential parts of another human
lody, than that his word is true?  Is it more
evident that the God by whom the very hairs
of our heads are all numbered, and without
whose notice not one is permitted to fall to the
ground, cannot collect together again the scattered fragments of the human frame, than that
the Bible is a divinely inspired record? Is it
more evident that God has no use for our bodies
in the future world, than that the Scriptures
are authentic? Even our author does not pretend this: for he acknowledges on p. 235 that
his rational deductions may be false; while he
declares, in another place, that he will yield to
no man living in his implicit confidence in the
Scriptures. While commenting upon John v,
28, 29, he says: "This 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 doctrine which would imply the participation of the body in that rising again which




THE RESURRECTION.           27
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 countervail the rebutting conclusions which may be formed from this text.
All we would say is, that they have weight, and
consequently we are not at liberty at once to
dismiss them." P. 235.
Mark this concession. What then is the correct
conclusion even from his own premises? Why
that his " rational and philosophical deductions,"
being opposed to the Scriptures, and being supported by evidence vastly less conclusive than
that which authenticates the Scriptures, are
themselves irrational, unphilosophical, and false.
Thus in his haste to thrust at the sublime doctrine of the resurrection, he has seized the sword
of truth by the blade, which, when drawn to
give the blow, has pierced himself. What then
can be the use of all this flourish and parade
about "rational and philosophical deductions,"
as doing away the resurrection of the body, unless it be to entangle and bewilder the unwary,
or to captivate those whose empty heads will
echo the sound philosophy, because nothing but
the sound is in their heads?
Having wrested, as we claim, the weapon
from our opponent, we propose now to use it




28          THE RESURRECTION.
for a moment ourselves. Setting out then with
the proposition, that no one truth can contradict
another truth, we say that it is obligatory on
him who broaches a new theory whose principles conflict with established truths, to make his
theory yield to those truths, and not the truths
to his theory.  Instead of making his new
theory, as Professor B. has done, the "criterion"
by which the meaning of the " established truths"
is to be known, he is to make the established
truths the criterion by which the truthfulness
of his new theory is to be tested, bearing in
mind that the truths with which the new theory
is to be compared must be embraced in the
same general subject with the theory itself. For
example: The truths of geometry, or electromagnetism, cannot either favor or oppose the
new doctrine of the resurrection, but the truths
of revelation, especially upon the subject of the
resurrection, can.  Tried by these principles,
the new doctrine of the resurrection is annihilated at once.
From what has now been said, it is evident
that a theory, claiming to be a science perfectly
independent of all other sciences, stands or falls
according to its own intrinsic merits, without
any reference whatever to established truths on
other subjects, inasmuch as it is not of a cha



THE RESURRECTION.           29
racter to be tested by them. Such we claim to
be the Scriptural theory of the resurrection of
the human body. The Scripture doctrine on
this subject is, that the resurrection is an effect
produced by the immediate agency of God;
that it is a miraculous interposition of divine
power. Consequently we may admit that the
ordinary laws of nature are not sufficient for the
accomplishment of such a result, without in the
least degree weakening the argument in its
favor. The subject, therefore, of the resurrection belonging to the science of miracles, must
be studied in the light of miracles, and in no
other light.  For the science of miracles is
above all other sciences, and independent of
them. But a miracle being the result of the
immediate agency of divine power, above
the laws of nature, nothing can prevent its accomplishment, if God intends to perform it, but
what limits the divine power. But what can
limit the divine power? It can accomplish anything which is not in itself absurd, and this is
no limitation. For example: to say that God
cannot make a full grown man of thirty years
of age in a moment, is no limitation of divine
power, for the proposition is self-contradictory.
But that God intends to "raise the dead," in
the common acceptation of the term resurrection,




30          THE RESURRECTION.
and in the sense in which the apostles understood the term, even by the admission of our
author, Professor Bush himself would be willing
to admit but for his " rational deductions." But
I trust it has been shown that these deductions
are anything else than " rational." And to say
that God ever intended to raise the dead in this
sense, and yet that the thing itself is contradictory in the nature of the case, is to cast a reflection upon the divine wisdom. Did not God,
when he intended it, perfectly understand all
the possible contingencies of matter?
But I am willing to enter into a more particular examination of these "rational deductions," by which it is attempted to be shown
that the common opinion of the resurrection involves an absurdity, in the nature of the case.
Our opponents affirm, and we deny.
The arguments, from " reason," against the
resurrection of the body, may be summed up
under four heads.
1. That the body is in a constant state of
change, from birth to death; so that when it is
said the body shall be raised, it cannot be known
what body is meant; as the individual, if he be
an aged person, has had several entire bodies
during lifetime: and if any one of these bodies
should be raised, it would not be the body in



THE RESURRECTION.           31
habited by the soul, except for a very small
period of human life.
2. That the body becomes totally decomposed
after death, mingling with other elements, foriming various and numberless new combinations.
That parts of it pass away into impalpable
gasses; and these again uniting with other substances, and these substances again suffering
decomposition, and so on, till the identity of the
body is utterly destroyed; so that the identical
body never can be raised again.
3. That the resurrection of the identical body
implies the resurrection of every identical particle of' matter of which the body is composed,
neither more nor less: but,
4. That this is impossible in the nature of
the case, as one body at death becomes parts
of other bodies at their death; and, consequently, that two or more souls would claim the same
body, or parts of it, in the resurrection.
Now I undertake to say that not one of these
four propositions, taken as a whole, can be made
out. To begin, then, with the first. There is
no doubt but that some parts of the human body
are in a state of flux, or change; but it is not
so evident that all the parts are; no man on
earth knows it, or can know it. But whether
the whole body does thus change or not is per



32          THE RESURRECTION.
fectly immaterial to the argument, so far as the
resurrection is concerned; for the Scripture
doctrine is, that it is the body that dies that is
raised again, whether that body " sleeps in the
grave," or " in the dust of the earth" elsewhere,
or "in the sea." So that if we have had a hundred bodies during lifetime, the case is not altered. The last part of this proposition is sufficiently answered by MIr. Watson: "Rewards
and punishments have their relation to the body,
not so much as it is the subject, but the instrument of rewards and punishments." As it is
the soul only which is the responsible agent, so
"it is the soul only which pdrceives pain or
pleasure, which suffers or enjoys, and is, therefore, the only rewardable subject. Were we
to admit such corporeal mutations as are assumed in the objection, they affect not the case
of our accountability. The personal identity or
sameness of a rational being, as says Mr. Locke,
consists in self-consciousness.'By this every
one is to himself what he calls self, without considering whether that self be continued in the
same or diverse substances.  It was by the
same self which reflects upon an action done
many years ago that the action was performed."'
But the objection contradicts the common sense
of all mankind. Suppose the criminal, who has




THE RESURRECTION.           33
been sentenced to the penitentiary for fourteen
years, should demand his release at the end of
seven, on the grounds that it was another body
which was sent there seven years before; that
they were other hands upon which the chains
had been fixed; and, as proof of this, should
gravely enumerate the times he had pared his
nails, and shaved his beard, since he was sent
there; who would think his reasons sufficient to
release him, unless for the purpose of sending
him from prison to a lunatic asylum?
The second proposition assumes that by reason of the total decomposition, and dispersion,
and new compositions and decompositions,
taking place with a dead body, that it is not
possible that the same identical body can ever
be raised again. But why not? Cannot the
chemist take a piece of gold coin into his laboratory, file it to powder, dissolve it with acids,
alloy it with other metals, grind it again to powder, throw it into the fire, and mingle it with
soot, ashes, and charcoal, and yet bring out
the same fine gold?  And cannot he mold it
again in the same die, and be perfectly sure
that it is the very same gold? And is the God
of all power and wisdom, whose vast laboratory
is the universe, less skillfil than the creatures
he has made? fAnd cannot he, who is intimately
3




34         THIE RESURRECTION.
present to every particle of matter, who knows
every particle by name, and whose power has
brought every particle into being, collect together again the scattered fragments of the human
frame, although mingled with the elements, and
driven to the four winds of heaven? May we
not reply to those making this objection to the
resurrection of the body, " Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God?"
The third proposition, namely, that which
affirms that there can be no resurrection of the
identical body, without the resurrection of every
particle of gross matter composing the body, has
no relevancy to the'argument, except by connecting it with the fourth proposition: for unless it can be proved that the very same matter,
at least a portion of it, which was possessed by
one human body at death, was also possessed
by another human body at death, no argument
can be drawn from this position unfavorable to
the doctrine. It may be observed in this place,
however, that those who adopt the commonly
received opinion do not contend that just the
same amount of gross matter, neither more nor
less, which was deposited in the grave, is esseitial to the resurrection. But they do believe that
tht which constitutes the essential identity or
sameness of the body shall be raised again, not




THE RESURRECTION.           35
indeed in gross matter, but refined, purified,
and made glorious. Our bodies, during lifetime,
may vary very considerably, so far as the
amount of gross matter contained in them is
concerned, and that, too, in a very short space
of time; but who supposes that the essential
identity of the body is destroyed by this? The
proposition contains a fallacy, by putting more
into the definition of the word identity than the
opposite doctrine allows; and then drawing unfavorable conclusions from such definition. This
is contrary to all the rules of honorable controversy. But it is contended by Professor Bush,
that the very nature of identity absolutely requires all that is put into the definition. But
this is not the question. It is enough that b;i:
opponents do not so understand it. The question is not whether the believers in the doctrine
of a resurrection have used a particular word in
a greater or less extension of meaning than that
which rigidly belongs to it, but whether the idea
they would convey-by it, as explained by themselves, is correct. The dispute is not about the
meaning of a word, but the reality of a thing.
If our author had considered this, he might have
saved himself the labor he has bestowed on the
subject of identity.
Having encountered nothing formidable in




36          THE RESURRECTION.
the first three arguments, let us now examine
the fourth. This asserts that in consequence
of one body after death becoming parts of other
bodies at their death, it is impossible, in the nature of the case, that the same bodies that die
should be united again with the same souls with
which they have lived: as where human bodies
have been decomposed, and their substance gone
to support vegetation, and this vegetation nourished other animals, and these animals again
gone to the nourishment of man; or, where the
human body has gone to the support of grain,
and this grain gone to the support of other human beings; or, more directly, where one human
being has consumed the flesh of another, as in
cannibalism. WVe have stated the case in all
its strength, and are now prepared to look it
full in the face.
In regard to the first part of this position,
namely, where the decomposed body goes to the
support of vegetation, and this vegetation goes
to the nourishment of human beings, it may be
remarked, that but a small part of earth actually becomes part of vegetation at all. This is
demonstrated by the growth of plants and trees,
where the entire amount of earth to which their
roots had access has been weighed, both before
and after their growth. In this manner plants




THE RESURRECTION.          37
and trees have increased many pounds in
weight, while the earth to which their roots
had access has diminished but a few ounces;
showing that the atmosphere and water contribute very largely to the growth of vegetation.
Now, suppose a human being to have eaten
grain that had grown upon soil enriched by the
decomposition of a human body: allow that he
has consumed one hundred pounds of such grain;
not more than one part in twenty-five of this
grain ever becomes actually a part of the human body, that is, four pounds. But not more
than one part in twenty of the grain is converted
earth, that is, one-fifth of a pound. But probably not more than one part in a thousand, to
which the roots of the grain had access, was
human dust, which, by the previous calculation,
would give to the second human body but one
part in five thousand of a single pound, that is,
the one three hundred and twelfth part of an
ounce of matter which had ever been possessed
by another human being; and even this small
fraction of an ounce might go to the grosser
parts of the system, not at all necessary to the
resurrection body. And where an animal has
intervened, the ratio is immensely diminished.
Again: but a small part of the vegetation
concerned in the growth of grain is actually




38         THE RESURRECTION.
grain itself; and how easy for God, who is not
inattentive to anything he has made, and who
has adapted means to ends, with infinite skill,
throughout every part of nature, to have so ordered, in his providence, that this small part of
human dust that actually becomes part of vegetation should lodge in the roots, and stalk, and
leaves, without ever becoming a part of the
grain at all! I say, cannot HE DO IT? And
is there any contradiction in terms here? And
remember the question here is, whether the
doctrine implies anything which is palpably absurd. If it be said that nothing short of divine
interposition can bring out these results, we
grant it. But nothing short of divine interposition can effect the resurrection of the body.
The same power that can do the one can do the
other. Then "why should it be thought incredible," with any who believe in a God of
infinite power and wisdom, "that God should
raise the dead?"
But let us take the case of cannibalism itself.
PNow, no considerable portion of the sustenance
of any human being has been human flesh.
But a small fraction of the entire food, even of
those who occasionally indulge in this dreadful
practice, has been of this kind. And but a
small fraction, even of this small fraction, ever




THE RESURRECTION.          39
becomes part of the human body, allowing, for
the present, that the flesh of one human being
may become part of another human being.
And even this small fraction may go to the
grosser parts of the system, not at all necessary
to the resurrection body. So that there is nothing absurd, even here, in the commonly received doctrine of the resurrection.  But I
have a more weighty argument to offer against
this position.  We have already seen that the
resurrection of the body, belonging to the nature of miracles, must be studied in the light of
miracles. The question, then, is simply this: If
the God of infinite power and wisdom set himself to the accomplishment of this work, can he
perform it?  We unhesitatingly answer yes,
and without any contradiction in terms either.
To say that the thing is absurd, if we admit
that God has set himself to accomplish it, is, as
we have already seen, an impeachment of his
wisdom. But it may be said, " This is the very
thing we deny, namely, that God has set himself to the accomplishment of this work." But
let it be remembered that it is admitted on all
sides that this is the obvious meaning of the
Scriptures; and a meaning which all would receive, but for these " rational deductions" which
we are now examining, and which alledge that




40         THE RESURRECTION.
the thing is absurd and self-contradictory. I
say, then, we have a right to repeat the inquiry,
"If the God of infinite power set himself to
accomplish this work, cannot he perform it?"
and to answer, as above, He may so order, in
his providence, that no human being at death
shall possess a single particle of another human
being at death, even allowing cannibalism to
be ever so much practiced. There are many
ways of which we can conceive in which this
can be done, and no doubt many more are open
to the view of infinite wisdom. This may most
easily be accomplished by controlling the circumstances of the death of those who have been
guilty of this inhuman practice; and by othe.:)
methods which have already been enumerate(
even upon the supposition that one part of a
human body may become, at some period, a
portion of another body.
But we will now admit, for the sake of the
argument, what is claimed in the third proposition, that the resurrection of the identical body
requires the resurrection of all the gross materials of which the body is composed; not indeed
in gross materials; and then show that the doctrine implies nothing contradictory or absurd.
For then, examining the subject in the light of
miracles, we have only to consider the Supreme




THE RESURRECTION.          41
Being as undertaking the task of raising every
human body, entire, as it respects the amount
of matter possessed by it at death. And is it
not infinitely easy for Him so to order, in his
power and wisdom, that no part of one human
body after death shall ever become a part of
another human body, under any circumstances?
Is it not as easy that a law shall be stamped
upon the matter composing the human body,
by which it cannot become amalgamated with
another human body, as that a similar law
should exist in regard to oil and water, or iron
and clay?  And cannot He who could cause
five loaves and two fishes to nourish five thousand men, besides women and children, also'
cause the other food that has been eaten to be
entirely sufficient for the nourishment of the
human body, no matter how much the practice
to which we have alluded has prevailed? And
would he not do it before his ultimate purpose
in this respect should be thwarted? Are the
divine resources so feeble and scanty; are the
ultimate designs of the eternal Jehovah so circumscribed, that a mere pigmy can throw them
into confusion? "Well, but this could not be
done without a miracle."  Well, what then?
The whole subject of the resurrection belongs
to miracles. Why will men, professing to be



42          THE RESURRECTION.
lieve the Bible, identify themselves with rationalists and infidels, in their abhorrence of anything miraculous?  Who shall stand up to
"limit the Holy One of Israel?"  We have
seen, then, that this last and most plausible objection interposes no serious obstacle in the
way of the sublime and Scriptural doctrine of
the resurrection of the body.
The opposing theory is built upon doubtful
deductions drawn from doubtful hypotheses?
I have bestowed the more attention upon
these positions, because they contain the whole
strength of the argument against the resurrection of the body. It is admitted that the plain
letter of inspiration teaches another doctrine.
" But this doctrine," it is said, " encounters insuperable difficulties."  So then, if these "insuperable difficulties " have been fairly removed,
the argument is yielded at once; inasmuch as
these "difficulties" are all that have prevented
the Scriptural doctrine from being received.
All that is claimed, however, in this humble
effort thus far, is, that the doctrine has been
rescued from the bewilderments of a vain philosophy, and placed where we may contemplate
it in the brighter and purer light of divine inspiration. Indeed, I suppose that an appeal directly to the Scriptures, without this tedious




THE RESURRECTION.          43
examination of our author's "rational deductions," would have been all-sufficient with most
who have listened to these remarks; but it is
not so with all. And to many it will afford a
higher degree of satisfaction, if not a higher
degree of evidence, to know that these philosophical objections are themselves unphilosophical.
The light of the sun may be obscured by
fogs, and mists, and clouds; so may the light
of revelation by the bewildering speculations of
a pseudo philosophy. You are well aware, my
brethren, of the effect upon the youthful mind
of an array of the high-sounding titles, " reason," " science," and " philosophy," when an attempt to array them is made, as in the present
case, against the Scriptures.  To rescue one
youthful spirit who might be just upon the outer
current of the maelstrom, whose constant influence, " drawing inward and downward," is to
swallow up, and engulf him in ruin, were an
undertaking worthy of an angel-I hope an
anxiety of this sort may atone for what might
otherwise be somewhat tedious. If one of the
feeblest of God's children should find his faith
strengthened, or if any lingering skepticism
should be dispelled from the mind of any, then
shall I not have "labored in vain." Finally, my




44         THE RESURRECTION.
dear brethren, is there not an elevated satisfaction-a holy enjoyment, when, after following
error into its lurking places, descending its dark
and winding labyrinths, and traversing its damp,
and cloudy, and miry vale, by the aid of the
compass, we find ourselves in the clear sunshine, and see that our foundation is the rock?




THE RESURRECTION.            45
PART II.
SCRIPTURAL ARGUHMENT —THE RESURRECTION
OF OUR SAVIOUR CONSIDERED.
Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you that
God should raise the dead?-Acts xxvi, 8.
HAvING shown, in the preceding remarks,
that the argument from the "light of reason,"
against the resurrection of the body, interposes
no serious obstacle in the way of the doctrine,
but is itself most unreasonable, we are now
ready to pursue the subject in the clearer light
of revelation.
As Jesus Christ in his human nature was the
first that rose from the dead to die no more,
and as his resurrection is both a pledge and a
sample of the resurrection of believers, it will
be our object in the present discourse to examine the nature of his resurrection.
Let it be borne in mind that the author,
whose book has been the occasion of this discourse, asserts that all the resurrection there is
for a human being " is simply a state of future
existence or immortality." That ("the disengagement of the spiritual body takes place at
the moment of death." That this principle, the
spiritual body-by which he evidently means




46          THE xRESURRECTION.
what is commonly understood by the soul-" lives
again, because it never dies." And that this is
all the resurrection our Saviour ever experienced.
That all that ever did rise of Jesus Christ, arose
at the moment of his death!!
Truly a new turn has been given to the controversy respecting the resurrection of our Lord.
The fact of his resurrection has been demonstrated over and over again, with the clearness
of a sunbeam, when assailed by the scoffs and
sneers of infidelity. But latterly a " new invention" has been "wrought out"-a new species
of infidelity has sprung up, which admits all the
evidence in favor of the fact, and yet denies the
fact itself; with how much propriety, I trust
the present discourse will show. Whatever be*comes of the author of this new theory, I cannot but believe, it would have been better for
the world if the theory " had never been born."
But " to the law and the testimony." David
prophesied of Christ's resurrection in the following words: " My flesh also shall rest in hope,
for thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither
wilt thou suffer thy Holy One to see corruption."
Psa. xvi, 9,-10. Upon this passage the apostle
Peter makes the following comment: (Acts ii,
25-35) —" For David speaketh concerning him,
I foresaw the Lord always before my face;




THE RESURRECTION.           47
for he is on my right hand, that I should not
be moved: therefore did my heart rejoice, and
my tongue was glad; moreover also, my flesh
shall rest in hope: because thou wilt not leave
my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thy
Holy One to see corruption. Thou hast made
known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make
me full of joy with thy countenance. 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 prophet, 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 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 his
flesh did see corruption. This Jesus hath God
raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted,
and having received of the Father the promise
of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which
ye now see and hear. For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself,
The Lord said unto my lord, Sit thou on my
right hand, until I make thy foes thy footstool."
Thus it is seen, that St. Peter applies this
passage in Psalms to the resurrection of Christ.




48         THE RESURRECTION.
But how could the declaration, " My flesh shall
rest in hope," be a prophecy of his resurrection,
if his flesh had mingled with the elements, as is
contended for by Professor B., and his body
never be raised from the dead? And how
could the declaration, " Neither wilt thou suffer
thy Holy One to see corruption," be a prophecy
of Christ's resurrection, unless it was spoken of
his body? For in the soul there is no tendency to corruption.  The spiritual body of the
new theory "lives again in a future state because it never dies." It is essentially immortal
and incorruptible according to the theory itself.
But Peter, in order to convince the Jews, who,
it would seem, applied this prophecy to David
himself, that they were mistaken, and that it
applied to Christ, and not to David, says that
" David is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us to this day." And again, verse
34, " For David is not ascended into the heavens." But David's soul had been in heaven
for centuries. It is as plain as anything can be,
that Peter speaks of David's body, which had
not yet ascended to heaven, in contradistinction from Christ's body which had ascended to
heaven.
St. Paul quotes the same passage from the
Psalms for the very same object, namely, to




THE RESURRECTION.          49
convince the Jews that Jesus had risen from the
dead, according to the Scriptures. The following is the quotation by the apostle Paul, together with his comment upon the passage:
(Acts xiii, 34-37)-" And as concerning that
he raised him up from the dead, now no more to
return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will
give you the sure mercies of David. Wherefore he saith also in another psalm, Thou shalt
not suffer thy Holy One to see corruption. For
David, after he had served his own generation
by the will of God, fell on sleep, and was laid
unto his fathers, and saw corruption: but he
whom God raised again, saw no corruption."
This explanation perfectly harmonizes with
that of Peter, together with the positive declaration that David saw corruption in consequence
of death in opposition to Christ, who saw no
corruption.
Can anything possibly be plainer from the
explanation of these apostles, both of whom
quote this psalm to prove the resurrection of
Christ, that the body of David had suffered corrupi;ion, or decomposition, in consequence of
death, while Christ's body had been raised before any corruption or decomposition had taken
place? But how, it may be asked, does the
new theory escape these conclusions? I answer,
4




50         THE RESURRECTION.
It cannot escape them. All it attempts to do is
to prove, what no one denies, that these passages
" allude exclusively to the resurrection of Christ."
Very well: they allude expressly to the resurrection of Christ; and this is the very purpose
for which we have here introduced them. Where
is the force of the argument of the apostles to
convince the Jews, from their own scriptures,
that Jesus had risen from the dead, according
to our author's theory? This theory maintains,
that all that ever rose of our Saviour, rose at
the very moment of death, and that " his body
was miraculously resolved into its primitive elements, while laying in the tomb of Joseph!!"
Pages 166, 167. In the light, or rather darkness, of this new theory, let us look at the argument of the apostles, to show that David was
not speaking of himself, but of Christ. 1st. David was dead; well, so was Christ. 2d. David's sepulchre was with them; so was Christ's.
3d. But David had not yet ascended to heaven.
This cannot mean his spiritual body: for this,
according to the theory, " rose at the very moment of his death." It "was exhaled with the
dying breath." Then it must mean his natural
body had not ascended to heaven; so neither
had Christ's. 4th. But David fell asleep in
death, and saw corruption in consequence of




THE RESURRECTION.           51
death; so also did Christ, with only this difference, that while David's body was suffered to
see corruption by the ordinary process of decomposition, our Saviour's body did not see corruption, by the extraordinary process of a miracle! What an overwhelming argument to the
Jew!!
The new theory will have to undergo a long
process of "progressive improvement," before
its application to these passages will make
anything but ridiculous nonsense. But Christ
himself foretold the nature and time of his own
resurrection. Let us now examine his own
prophesies in relation to this event, and see how
they agree with the notion that a spiritual body
was developed at the moment of death, and that
his natural body never rose at all. In Matthew
xvi, 21, we have his prophecy, as follows: " From
that time forth began Jesus to show unto his
disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem,
and suffer many things of the elders and chief
priests, and scribes, and be killed, and be raised
again the third day." See also the parallel
passages in the other evangelists. From this
it is manifest that he made his death and resurrection a subject of frequent conversation.
"From that time forth began Jesus to show
unto his disciples," &c. Accordingly, a short




52         THE RESURRECTION.
time after this, we have a repetition of the same
prophecy, as follows: (Matt. xx, 17-19) —" And
Jesus going up to Jerusalem, took the twelve
disciples apart in the way, and said unto them,
Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son
of man shall be betrayed unto the chief priests,
and unto the scribes, and they shall condemn him
to death, and shall deliver him to the Gentiles to
mock, and to scourge, and to crucify him: and
the third day he shall rise again." The theory
teaches expressly, that all the resurrection our
Saviour ever experienced was at the moment
of death; but Christ himself declares, that he
should rise on the third day. One declaration
or the other must be false: for they flatly contradict each other. Something was to be raised
the third day. What was it? It was not his
soul, for this did not die. It was not such a
spiritual body as the new theory contends for,
for by the theory itself, such a body is essentially immortal, and " lives in a future state, because
it never dies," and is developed at the moment
of death. What then was it? It was something
that was to be crucified-something that was to
be killed. What was it that was to be crucified
and killed? The body, and nothing but the
body. And the body, and nothing but the body,
was to rise again on the third day.  Other



THE RESURRECTION.          53
wise, how is there any meaning at all in the
language?
Take another declaration of our Saviour respecting this event: (John ii, 18-22) —" Then
answered the Jews, and said unto him, What
sign showest thou unto us, seeing thou doest
these things? Jesus answered and said unto
them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I
will raise it up. 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 of his body. When, therefore, he was
risen from the dead, his disciples remembered
that he said this unto them; and they believed
the Scriptures, and the word which Jesus had
said." Mark the language of verse twentyone, " But he spake of the temple of his body."
What else could the Jews destroy? They could
destroy his body, that is, they could kill his
body, and nothing but his body; and the same
body which the Jews could, and would destroy,
he would raise up in three days after.
Let us now see how the event fulfilled these
prophecies: (Luke xxiv, 1-8) —" Now, upon the
first day of the week, very early in the Morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the
spices which they had prepared, and certain
others with theqp.  And, they found the - stone




54         THE RESURRECTION.
rolled away from the sepulchre. And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord
Jesus. And it came to pass, as they were much
perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by
them in shining garments: and as they were
afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth,
they said unto them, Why seek ye the living
among the dead? He is not here, but is risen:
remember how he spake unto you when he was
yet in Galilee, saying, The Son of man must be
delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be
crucified, and the third day rise again. And
they remembered his words." Now let it be
remembered that these females, having prepared spices and ointments for the body of Jesus on Friday, and rested on the sabbath, (Luke
xxiii, 56,) came very early to the sepulchre, on
Sunday morning, with the spices which they
had prepared for the purpose of anointing the
body of Jesus. "And when they found not the
body of Jesus, they were much perplexed thereabout." About not finding the body of Jesus
in the sepulchre. In the midst of their grief and
perplexity, two angels appeared in shining garments, and declared that he was not there, but
had risen as he had said he should. Now, what
did they expect to find in the tomb of Joseph?
Not his viit certainly. They had witnessed




THE RESURRECTION.          55
his expiring agony upon the cross; they:had
heard him commend his spirit into the hands of
God; they had witnessed his giving up the
ghost; they had seen the Roman soldier, with
a heart as hard as the steel in his weapon, thrust
a spear deep into the side of the innocent Redeemer, after he was already dead; they had
taken particular notice of the manner in which
his lifeless body had been laid in the tomb three
days before. Luke xxiii, 55.
What, I ask again, did they expect to find
in the sepulchre? Why the body, and nothing
but the body. And therefore the answer of the
angels could not have meant anything else than
that his body, his natural body, had risen again.
In Matthew's account of his resurrection we
have some additional particulars: (Matt. xxviii,
1-9)-"- In the end of the sabbath, as it began
to dawn toward the first day of the week, came
Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary, to see
the sepulchre. And behold, there was a great
earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the
stone from the door, and sat upon it.  His
countenance was like lightning, and his raiment
white as snow: and for fear of him the keepers
did shake, and became as dead men. And the
angel answered and said unto the women, Fear




56         THE RESURRECTION.
not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which
was crucified. He is not here; for he is risen,
as he said. Come, see the place where the
Lord lay: and go quickly, and tell his disciples
that he is risen from the dead; and behold, he
goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye
see him: lo, I have told you. And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear
and great joy, and did run to bring his disciples
word. And as they went to tell his disciples,
behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And
they came and held him by the feet, and worshiped himi." Loqk at the reason which the
angel gives why the body of Jesus is not there:
"He is not here; for (or because) he is risen,
as he said."  But when had Jesus ever said a
word about a spiritual body emerging at the
moment of death? Professor B. talks about
this, but our Saviour never. But how does
the angel propose to convince these persons
that the body was not yet in the tomb? Why
by inviting them to "come and see the place
where the Lord lay." Now what had lain in
the tomb?  Why the body of Jesus: and the
reason why it was not there when these persons
came, the angel affirms, was that he had risen
again. Can anything be plainer, than that the'angel of the Lord, who had previously descended




THE RESURRECTION.          57
and rolled away the stone from the door of the
sepulchre, intended that these females should
understand that the real body of Jesus had
risen from the dead? But look at another item
in this history.  When these females, overwhelmed with astonishment, ran, with fear and
great joy, to publish these things to the disciples, Jesus met them on their way, and exclaimed, All hail. What follows?  And they came
and held him by the feet, and worshiped him.
If it is true that they held Jesus by the feet,
then had his body risen again. If the new
theory is true, then this passage is not true.
Those who believe the Bible will not hesitate
in this matter. In Luke xxiv, 33-44, we
have an account of what transpired between
Christ and his disciples, in Jerusalem, the
night after his resurrection. After two of the
disciples of Christ, though not apostles, had
been to a village, called Emmaus, and had seen
our Saviour, and he had made known himself
to them in the breaking of bread, "they rose
up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem,
and found the eleven gathered together, and
them that were with them, saying, The Lord is
risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon.
And they told what things were done in the
way, and how he was known of them in break



58         THE RESURRECTION.
ing of bread. And as they thus spake, Jesus
himself stood in the midst of them, and saith
unto them, Peace be unto you. But they were
terrified and aftrighted, and supposed that they
had seen a spirit. And he said unto them, Why
are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in
your hearts? 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. And when he had thus spoken, he
showed them his hands and his feet. And
while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any
meat? And they gave him a piece of a broiled
fish, and of a honeycomb. And he took it,
and did eat before them. And he said unto
them, These are the words which I spake unto
you, while I was yet with you, that all things
must be fulfilled which were written in the law
of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the Psalms,
concerning me."
In the history of the same event, as recorded
by St. John, we have the additional item of information relative to Thomas, who was not present with the other apostles, at their first interview with the risen Saviour: (John xx, 24-28)
-" But Thomas, one of the twelve, called
Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.




THE RESURRECTION.          59
The other disciples therefore said unto him, We
have seen the Lord. But he said unto them,
Except I shall see in his hands the print of the
nails, and put my finger into the print of the
nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will
not believe. And after eight days, again his
disciples were within, and Thomas with them.
Then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and
stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.
Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither
thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be
not faithless, but believing. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my
God."
In our examination of the preceding scriptures, it appeared most evident, that the angel
of the Lord intended that those who came early
to the sepulchre should believe that the real
human body of our Saviour had risen from the
dead. In the passages now under consideration it is equally evident that our Saviour himself intended that the disciples should believe
that his veritable body had risen. His disciples had been his daily and familiar companions
for more than three years. They were familiar
with his countenance, with his voice, and with
all the circumstances of his person. Probably




60         THE RESURRECTION.
there was no person upon earth whom they
could identify with more unerring certainty.
But yet his sudden and unexpected appearance
among them, when the "doors were shut" at
night, excited their fears, and they supposed
they had seen a spirit. But, after calming
their fears, and soothing that perturbation of
spirit which his sudden appearance among them
had occasioned, he then appeals to their own
senses in proof of the resurrection of his real
body: "Feel me, and see that it is I myself:
handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh
and bones, as ye see me have." He then showed
them his hands and his feet. Did he not intend by this, that they should understand that
his human body had risen again? For what
other purpose did he require them to handle him? For what other purpose did he
show them his own hands and feet? For what
other purpose did he declare that a spirit had
not flesh and bones as he had, and as they saw
him have?  Was it true that our Saviour's
resurrection body possessed "flesh and bones?"
Was it true that he showed them his hands, his
real hands, and feet? Is it true that they saw,
and felt, and knew that he had flesh and bones,
and hands and feet, after his resurrection? To
say they did not know this, is to accuse our




THE RESURRECTION.          61
Saviour with falsehood. To say they did know
it, is to ruin the new theory. Who but an infidel can hesitate, for a moment, what course to
take? I would not say that the author of the
new theory is an infidel, so far as to deny the
Scriptures as a whole; but on this particular
doctrine his views are infidel to all intents and
purposes. But our Saviour went still further
in his design to convince the disciples that his
body had risen: he ate in their presence. And,
in the midst of these demonstrations of his real
resurrection, our Saviour says to the disciples:
"These are the words which I spake unto you,
while I was yet with you, that all things must
be fulfilled which were written in the law of
Mloses, and in the prophets, and in the Psalms,
concerning me." Luke xxiv, 44. Now one of
these things which was "written in the Psalms
concerning him" was that his flesh should rest
in hope, and his body should not see corruption.
But Thomas was not present on this occasion;
and, when the other disciples related to him
what they had seen, it seeemed to him "incredible;" and he declared he would not believe
it, unless he should put his fingers into the
prints of the nails, and thrust his hand into his
side that had been pierced by the soldier's spear.
Is it not perfectly evident from this, that Thomas




62         THE RESURRECTION.
understood the other disciples to affirm that the
real body of Christ had risen from the dead?
Why else should he speak of the " prints in his
hands," and of his side that had been pierced?
The conclusion is irresistible. Bearing this in
mind, mark what follows. Eight days after
this, the disciples were again together, under
circumstances very much like those of their first
meeting, the "' doors being shut," and Thomas
was with them. And now Jesus appeared in
the midst of them, as at the first time; and, addressing Thomas, says, " Reach hither thy finger, and put it into the prints of the nails; and
reach forth thy hand, and thrust it into my side:
and be not faithless, but believing." Our Saviour knew that Thomas had avowed that he
would not be satisfied without this test; and he
appeals to this test itself. Thomas had understood the disciples to affirm that Christ's natural
body had arisen. This he disbelieved, unless
he should have evidence of a particular character. Our Saviour furnished the identical evidence he had called for; and then tells him to
be no longer faithless, but believing. Is it not
as clear as the light of the sun, that our Saviour
intended to convince Thomas that the very same
body that had hung upon the cross, the very
same hands and feet that had been nailed to the




THE RESURRECTION.           63
wood, the very same side that had been pierced
with a spear, had risen again? The evidence
is absolutely conclusive to any sane mind.
The advocates of the new theory are driven,
then, irresistibly, to one of two conclusions:
either to accuse the Saviour of the world
with deliberate falsehood, or RENOUNCE their
theory.
And our Saviour's intention, in regard to
Thomas, had the desired effect; for, while
Thomas gazed upon the well-known countenance
of his Master, and listened to his familiar voice,
and saw that look of mingled reproof and compassionate kindness, without, I imagine, waiting
to thrust his hand into his side, he rushes to the
embrace of his Redeemer, and exclaims, "My
Lord and my God."
Professor Bush says of the resurrection body
of his theory, p. 70, " We may not be able to
see it, to handle it, to analyze, or describe it,
* * * * it lives again in a future state, because
it never dies." But Christ's resurrection body
could be "seen," "felt," "analyzed," and "described;" and it was both dead and buried, and
" lives again, because it" has risen from the dead,
and not because it never died. Therefore, the
resurrection body of our Saviour is not the resurrection body of the new theory; consequent



64          THE RESURRECTION.
ly, the theory is false, so far as its application
to this case is concerned.
But there is yet another class of scriptures
which ruins this modern doctrine of the resurrection.  I allude to those which represent
Christ as the first that should rise from the
dead.  In Revelation i, 5, he is called "the
first begotten of the dead." In 1 Cor. xv, 20,
he is called the "first fruits" of the resurrection. Both of these passages most evidently
mean that Christ was the first who rose from
the dead; that is, who rose immortal. But in
Acts xxvi, 23, it is declared expressly, that he
was the first that should rise from the dead.
Hlow could it be true, by the new theory, that
Christ was thefirst to rise from the dead, if the
resurrection body is developed at the moment
of death, and " is simply a future state or immortality?"  Men had been rising, in this
sense, according to the theory itself, for four
thousand years.
I have not adduced all the Scripture testimony on this subject of Christ's resurrection
which might have been brought; but if what
has already been adduced fail of establishing
the truth of a literal resurrection of our Saviour's material body, we may despair of proving anything by testimony.




THE RESURRECTION.          65
Let us now see how this mass of cumulative
evidence is disposed of by our author.
1st. "It is nowhere expressly affirmed in
Scripture that the identical material body of
Christ arose." P. 152.
We answer, it is nowhere expressly affirmed
in Scripture that our Saviour had any " identical
material body;" nor that anybody else ever
"had any identical material body."  Indeed,
neither the word "identical" nor "material"
occurs anywhere in the "Scriptures," in any
connection whatever. Why not deny, then,
that our Saviour, or anybody else, ever had
any "identical material body?" There is the
very same evidence that our Saviour's identical
material body rose from the dead, that we have
to prove that he had any "identical material
body" at all: the very same.
May we not expect, that in the subsequent
progressive improvements of this new theory it
will be denied that our Saviour had any material
body? The system will then have the merit of
being consistent with itself, at least; and that is
certainly much more than it can claim, with any
show of truth, at the present stage of development.
But we affirm, and are ready to stake our
reputation upon the issue, that the evidee is
5




66         THE RESURRECTION.
even stronger from Scripture to prove the literal
resurrection of our Saviour's body, than it would
have been had the expression " identical material body" been substituted for the expressions
actually employed. These Scriptural expressions constitute what logicians call a real definition-a definition of a thing by enumerating the
principal attributes of that thing.  Thus, the
body of our Saviour, which rose from the dead,
according to the Scriptures, was the body which
had been "killed" by being "crucified;" the
body which had "hands," and "feet,"' and
" side," which " hands," and " feet," and " side,"
still bore the prints of the nails and spear which
had pierced them while hanging upon the cross.
This definition is more specific, as every man
of Professor Bush's celebrity knows, or ought
to know, than merely the expression, " identical
material body."
2d. "It seems to be a fair presumption, that
the same body which rose, also ascended. But
the evidence is certainly conclusive, that it was
not a material body which ascended to heaven."
P. 153. Pray where is this "conclusive evidence" to be found? We deny it utterly, and
call for the proof. We admit " that the same
body which rose also ascended," and conclusions
the very reverse of our author's follow inevita



THE RESURRECTION.           67
bly. Our author's argument reduced to form
stands thus:
1. The body which rose also ascended.
2. But the body which ascended was not a
material body.
3. Therefore the body which rose was not a
material body.
Now the professor has not produced a particle
of evidence to substantiate the minor proposition, and we challenge him to produce any. The
very reverse is positively and unequivocally
proved in the Scriptures; consequently his conclusion is false.
Let us begin then, as he begins.
1. The body which rose also ascended.
2. But the body which rose has been proved
to be material, by the prints of the nails and
spear, in the hands, feet, and side.
3. Therefore the body which ascended was
material.
Logic must undergo a vast "progressive improvement," before it can ever sanction the conclusions of our author.
3d. It is argued that the circumstances connected with our Saviour's appearance to Mary
at the sepulchre-to the two disciples on their
way to Emmaus-and also to the disciples the
following evening, are incompatible with the




68         THE RESURRECTION.
notion of a material body. Let us see if this
objection is any more reasonable than the last.
1. Mary mistook the Saviour for the gardener.
From this it is argued that it could not have
been his material body which had risen. Now
let it be remembered, that she came to the sepulchre "very early in the morning," (Luke
xxiv, 1,) " as it began to dawn, toward the first
day of the week," (Matt. xxviii, 1,) but "was
yet dark." (John xx, 1.) And where is there
any difficulty in the case? When it was not sufficiently light, to distinguish one person from
another, Mary mistook our Saviour for the
gardener!
2. In regard to his appearance to the two
disciples as they were going to Emmaus, it is
said, " Their eyes were holden that they should
not know him." Luke xxiv, 16. Our Saviour
chose to make himself known to them at the
breaking of bread, and in this act their eyes
were opened, and they knew him. Verse 31. Is
there any difficulty in the way of a material
body here? Our Lord chose not to make himself known unto them, until their journey was
finished, a journey of only a little more than
an hour, preferring to do it when they were
quietly seated at the table, and on this account
their "eyes were holden."  Are not these very




THE RESURRECTION.          69
flimsy objections to be arrayed against a doctrine supported by such a mass of evidence as
we have examined?
3. Let us now examine the circumstances of
his appearance among the disciples when the
" door was shut." The objection is, that a material body could not suddenly appear in a room
having the doors closed and bolted, without a
miracle. P. 153. Well, what then? Suppose
a miracle was wrought? Was not our Saviour
once found walking on the sea in the midst of a
dreadful storm? And can a material body walk
upon the boisterous waves of the sea without a
miracle? What then is the conclusion? Why,
according to our author, that our Saviour never
had any material body!!  But he argues in
this very connection, that our Saviour wrought
a miracle in assuming the appearance of a material body, with hands, and feet, and side, that
had been pierced, and still bore the prints. And
all just for the purpose of making Thomas and
the other disciples believe that his material body
had risen, when, according to his own theory, no
such body had ever risen at all, and concludes,
finally, "that a miracle must have been wrought
on either view." That is, if his body was material, a miracle was wrought in suddenly entering a closed room; and if his body was not mao




70          THE RESURRECTION.
terial, or rather if he had no material body, a
miracle must have been wrought in assuming
all the appearances of one. So say we; with
just this difference, that by our " view," a miracle was wrought to make the disciples believe
the truth, and by his "view," a miracle was
wrought to make them believe a falsehood. For
he admits, and even argues, on p. 167, that our
Saviour intended that the disciples should believe that his material body had risen i! and
"that the apostles believed the doctrine, and
preached it," p. 165; that such were their
crude conceptions, " that they could not at once
come to a sudden recognition of a spiritual presence."  However, he thinks that "subsequently they may have come to entertain more correct notions on the subject."  "At all events,"
says he, "there is no reason why their knowledge should be the limit of ours." Strange! I
wonder what we know about it, except what we
have learned from them?
But let us go on and see the measure of absurdity filled to the very brim.
4. It is maintained that our Saviour's pretended resurrection on the third day was only
" the putting forth of a visible effect;" that his
showing his hands and his feet to his disciples,
as well as his eating in their presence, were




TIE RESURRECTION.           71
"OPTICAL" " ILLUSIONS."  It is true, he does
not join these two words together, so as to form
the phrase "optical illusions:" but says his
showing his hands, &c., were "optical acts,"
pp. 154, 155, and then says, "When we consider
the object to be attained by such an illusion,
we see nothing inconsistent or unworthy the
divine impersonification of truth in having recourse to it"!!! P. 155.  So then we have the
earthquake, the descending of the angel, to roll
away the stone from the door of the sepulchrethe announcement of the angels that our Saviour
had risen on the third morning, all resolved into
a solemn farce; the mere "putting forth of a
visible effect," and " the appearance " of our Saviour's body still bearing the prints of violence,
all resolved into an " optical" "illusion."  Yea
more, and the Saviour of the world perpetrating
a deliberate falsehood, and that too, in regard to
the most important event that ever transpired
in our world!!! I ask, is not the measure of
absurdity full? The God of eternal truth joining with angels to practice a pious fraud-a
kind of miraculous juggling —a species of optically miraculous and illusive legerdemain!!
Such are the monstrous and abominable absurdities of a system which sets up enfeebled human reason against the plain teachings of God's




THE RESURRECTION.
word. Mr. B. thinks such an "optical illusion"
is worthy the character of God, "considering
the object to be attained by it."  But what was
this object? Why to make the disciples and the
world believe what was not true, that the material body of our Lord had risen from the dead.
Such "optical" farcical illusions are worthy the
system which has resorted to them, but let them
not be charged upon the God of truth. Will
our author's notions of "progressive improvement" help him in this extremity? If so, he
is desired to tell us, by what progressive improvement in the laws of optics, in the sense of
seeing, hearing, and feeling, the stupendous
scenes of our Saviour's resurrection, together
with many of the bodies of the saints which were
uncovered by the previous earthquake, and which
arose after his resurrection, and went into the
holy city and appeared unto many, are all resolved into an " optical illusion;" a mere phantasm-an illusive spectral nonentity!, And by
what "progressive improvement" in the ioral
character of God has it now become consistent for
Him who, amid the terrible thunderings of Sinai,
said in a voice that shook the earth, Thou shalt
not lie, to lend the influence of his own lofty
example to the most glaring falsehood?
5. It becomes necessary for this system, after




THE RESURRECTION.           78
denying that the body of our Lord ever rose
from the dead, to tell us what became of it.
Well, here you have it: " The body which hung
upon the cross was miraculously resolved into
its primitive elements"!!  We shall cease to
be astonished hereafter at anything our author
shall say. The measure of absurdity already
full, is now "pressed down, shaken together,
and running over." Why did not the angel say
to the distressed disciples, who were perplexed
and overwhelmed with grief, at not finding the
Saviour's body at the sepulchre, "Behold, he
is not here, he has been miraculously dissolved
and resolved to his primitive elements;" _aind
not say what was not true, that he had risen
again? This, if it had been true, would have
been a sufficient reason for his body's not being
there. But the angel says, " It is not here, for,
or because, it is risen again, as he said." Was
a falsehood better than the truth? Our author
thinks so, " considering the object to be attained," namely, to make the disciples and the toorld
believe a false doctrine.
But let us look at this position in the light of
the prophecy of David, which prophecy, as we
have already seen, both Peter and Paul apply
to the resurrection of Christ. Our Saviour is
represented as addressing the Father, and say



74         THE RESURRECTION.
ing, " My lesh shall rest in hope, for thou wilt
not suffer thy Holy One to see corruption."
"My flesh shall rest in hope."  Hope of what?
Why speedy dissolution in the tomb of Joseph.
It shall "hope" to be "dissolved, and resolved
to its primitive elements," within less than three
days after death. And how was the other part
of the prophecy fulfilled, namely, "Neither
wilt thou suffer thy Holy One to see corruption?" Why, it was not only not fulfilled at all,
but a miracle was wrought to prevent its fulfillment. He saw corruption, and that too so rapidly that it took a miracle to accomplish it. If
the author of the new doctrine had deliberately set himself to work to get up a system
which would destroy all confidence in tile Bible,
I see not how he could have more effectually
answered his purpose. If the apostles, and the
world through the apostles, have been deceived
in the matter of our Saviour's resurrection, who
can tell in how many other things they have not
been deceived? Well may the pious Christian
exclaim in reference to such miserable theories,
in the language of weeping Mary, "They have
taken away my Lord, and I know not where
they have laid him."
If the new theory was a mere matter of opinion, in regard to matters of minor importance,




THE RESURRECTION.           7'5
the case would be different. But it strikes at
the very heart of the Christian system.  It
lays the ax at the very root of the tree
of life.  It seeks to banish from the earth
a truth upon which hangs the hope of the
world. And such is the tenacity with which
it clings to a position once taken, that heaven
and earth must give way before it. It robs
man of all confidence, either in the Bible or the
God of the Bible; it is a system which aims a
fatal blow at the great and fundamental doctrine
of the atonement, because, " He that hath ears
to hear let him hear;" it sets forth the Saviour
of the world as an impostor, and the God of
eternal truth as practicing falsehood. The resurrection of our blessed Lord is truth too
precious in its character and bearings to be
mangled and murdered in this manner. It takes
too deep a hold upon our deathless interests to
be thus fretted away to nothing. The resurrection was the grand crowning miracle in the stupendous scheme of human redemption, and the
one upon which our Saviour himself chiefly relied to substantiate his claim as Redeemer of
the world. To destroy confidence in this doctrine, therefore, is to unsettle the very foundations of our holy Christianity. All our fondly
cherished hopes perish. All our bright pros



76         THE RESURRECTION.
pects are blasted for-ever. All our most cherish.
ed anticipations are to realize only a gloomy
wilderness of dreary desolation. What we fondly imagined was the sun shining in his strength,
was but the " illusive " blaze of the meteor whose
momentary glow is succeeded by a dark, moonless, starless night, when the chill-dews of despair for ever lower over our future destinies.
Is this saying too much? Then hear the apostle Paul: "If Christ be not risen, then is our
preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea,
and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up
Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the
dead rise not. And if Christ be not raised,
your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ
are perished." 1 Cor. xv, 14, 15, 17, 18.
Verily, we must have something more substantial than mere appearances on which to rest
our hopes of heaven. Our crimes are too heinous-our depravity is too deep and damning,
to be cleansed by such means. Our hearts are
too "deceitful and desperately wicked" to be
saved by deceit and falsehood. The imperishable interests which cluster around the scenes
of eternal retribution are too vast and important
to be trusted to mere "optical illusions," whose




THE RESURRECTION.           77
laudable "object" is to deceive. I repeat it, we
must have something better. And blessed be
God we have something better. "Now is Christ
risen from the dead, and become the first fruits
of them that slept." If our hearts are ready to
die within us, when we contemplate the last
mysterious agony of our dying Lord, our hearts
also leap with overflowing gratitude and joy,
when we see him rise again, all glorious and
immortal. It is true he suffers the death of a
malefactor. The innocent Jesus submits to a
wicked and unlawful sentence. He yields his
back to the scourges-his temples to the " crown
of thorns "-his cheeks to the hand of violence
-his hands and feet to be torn by the nails that
fasten them to the cross; and all this is nothing
compared to the unutterable agony his spirit
endures while a world's guilt presses upon him,
and like myriads of poisoned arrows pierces his
very soul. There he hangs upon the cross: the
Creator of the world! his blood flowing down
upon his body till it stains all his raiment.
There he hangs, bleeding, agonizing, dying; his
friends at a little distance weeping, and his enemies insulting and deriding him. When the
great purposes of his suffering are accomplished, he cries, " It is finished," and meekly bows
his head in death. His enemies now triumph,




78        THE RESURRECTION.
and his friends give up all for lost. How little
do they understand that his death, which for the
present blasts all their prospects, is nevertheless
the hope of the world!
The sabbath draws near, and his friends, having obtained permission, take down his body from
the cross, and carefully inter it in the tomb of
Joseph. The sabbath comes, and again all is
quiet in Jerusalem. His enemies enjoy a kind
of infernal satisfaction in the belief that they
have now rid themselves of one whose holy life
and pointed reproofs exposed their own moral
deformity. They are now confident that they
have seen an end of the obnoxious Nazarene,
and shall soon see an end of the despised sect
of his followers. His friends, alarmed for their
own safety, retire in lonely groups, and in plaintive silence mourn over the sad catastrophe.
But does the scene end here? No, no! When
the time came which had been fixed in the
counsels of eternal wisdom, to put an end to the
triumphs of earth and hell-the God-head that
had dwelt in him-the divinity which had commanded the raging elements into calm submission, stood forth in the "greatness of his
strength," and said to these storms of hellish
wrath, " Thus far shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be




THE RESURRECTION.           79
stayed." "In a moment, in the twinkling of
an eye," the bands of death are sundered,-the
"king of terrors" is vanquished; and with immortal and God-like energy Jesus rises from'
the dead: thus "life and immortality are brought
to light through the gospel " by the resurrection
of our Lord from the dead. Thus he proclaims,
as well by deed as by word, " I am the light of
the world." And now "'he ever lives" not only
"to make intercession for us," but to hold up
the lamp, that lights the pathway "through the
dark valley, and the shadow of death," to the
regions of unfading glory.
Then let our hearts' most cherished affections
entwine themselves around this blessed doctrine
of the resurrection. And may the Spirit of
him that raised up Jesus from the dead so
dwell in us that he who raised up Christ from
the dead shall also quicken our mortal bodies
by his Spirit that dwelleth in us. "Who shall
change our vile body, that it may be fashioned
like unto Christ's glorious body."




80          THE RESURRECTION.
PART III.
THE SCRIPTURE ARGUMENT CONTINUED-THE
RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD GENERALLY
CONSIDERED.
Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you that
God should raise the dead?-Acts xxvi, 8.
HAVING seen that the Scriptures affirm clearly and unequivocally the " literal" resurrection
of our Saviour's "material body," let us next
examine the Scriptural evidence in favor of the
literal resurrection of mankind generally.
And here, as before, we have the testimony
of both the Old and the New Testament; al-'though life and immortality are more fully
brought to light in the New. The following
passage from Job is both a prophecy of the
Messiah, and of his own resurrection: (Job xix,
25-27)-"For I know that my Redeemer liveth,
and that he shall stand at the latter day upon
the earth: and though after my skin, worms
destroy this body, yet in myflesh shall I see
God: whom I shall see for myself, and mine
eyes shall behold and not another, though my
reins be consumed within me." I am aware
that Professor B. finds a great deal' of fault
with this translation, and this is characteristic




THE RESURRECTION.           81
of almost all who maintain false doctrines.
Those who are not satisfied with the doctrines
of the Bible, are generally dissatisfied with the
translation, and always find a meaning by a different rendering which suits their theory: and
more especially if they avail themselves of what
I believe our author denominates the " elasticity of import;" that is, a capability of being bent
during the experiment with them entirely out
of their original positions-or pressed entirely
out of their proper proportions, or stretched till
they have as little body as the resurrection he
contends for.
There are several considerations which go to
show that Job in the scripture just quoted prophesies of the resurrection of the body. 1. It
is connected with his knowledge that his Redeemer, who was then alive, should stand upon
the earth in the latter days-alluding probably
to Christ's coming to suffer, and to rise from the
dead. 2. It is an event which will take place
after worms will have consumed his body.
3. He is to see God in his flesh, that is, in his
material body-his eyes shall see him when he
comes to judge the world, and when " every eye
shall see him." 4. This event cannot be hindered even by a total decomposition of his body,
"'Though my reins be consumed within me."
6




82         THE RESURRECTION.
Isaiah prophesies of the resurection in xxvi,
19  "Thy dead men shall live, together with
my dead body shall they arise. Awake and
sing, ye that dwell in dust, for the dew is as the
dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the
dead."
In this passage Professor B. labors to show
that " my dead body means my dead body." Correct for once. And how does this show that it
is not a literal resurrection? Answer who
can.
1. Dead men should live. 2. They shall
rise with the dead body of the person speaking.
3. They that dwell in dust are to awake and
sing. 4. Because the "earth shall cast her
dead."
In Hosea xiii, 14, we have another prophecy:
"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, I will be thy destruction!" That this passage alludes to the resurrection is made certain by the fact that St. Paul
quotes it in a discourse expressly on the resurrection, in 1 Cor. xv.
In Daniel xii, we have a prophecy still more
distinct. 1. " And at that time shall Michael
stand up, the great prince which standeth for
the children of thy people; and there shall be




THE RESURRECTION.          83
a time of trouble, such as there never was since
there was a nation even to that same time: and
at that time thy people shall be delivered, every
one that shall be found written in the book.
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 contempt." 3. " And they that be wise shall shine
as the brightness of the firmament; and they
that turn many to righteousness as the stars for
ever and ever."  Here the expression "many
of them that slept in the dust," &c., is equivalent
to, as many as, or all that slept in the dust of the
earth. Some would be still alive when this
event should happen.
We have an example of a similar use of the
word "many" in Rom. v. The apostle is showing that the benefits of the atonement are coexistent with human depravity. In ver. 12, he
says, "Death passed upon all, for all have
sinned."  But in the 15th verse he says, "For
if through the offense of one, many be dead,
much more the grace of God, and the gift by
grace, which is by one man Jesus Christ, hath
abounded unto'many."' Then again in ver.
18, " Therefore as by the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation, even
so by the righteousness of one the free gift came




84         THE RESURRECTION.
upon all men," &c. But again in the very
next verse he says, " For as by one man's disobedience'many' were made sinners, so by
the obedience of one shall'many' be made
righteous."
Prof. B. thinks the prophecy just quoted from
Daniel has the same or a similar meaning as
Ezekiel's vision of 1" the dry bones," and consequently, that it cannot be a literal resurrection
which is spoken of.  That the resurrection
spoken of by Ezekiel, in the vision referred to,
was figurative all admit: for it is expressly said
at the time, and in the immediate connection,
" Son of man, these dry bones are the whole
house of Israel." But the prophecy of Daniel
will not admit of such a figurative signification for
the following reason. Wherever the terms life
and death occur, in the same connection in the
Scriptures, they are exactly the opposite one of
the other. If, the death spoken of is literal
death, then the life opposed to that death is
literal, or natural life. If the death is a moral
death, or a death in trespasses and in sins, the
life opposed to that death is a moral life, or a
life of faith and holiness. If the death is a political death, or political adversity, the life
opposed to that death is political prosperity. If
the death spoken of is a death to sin, the life




THE RESURRECTION.          85
opposed to that death is a life in sin. Every
person at all acquainted with the Scriptures will
readily call up in his mind numerous verifications of this principle, and he will not find
an exception if he search the Scriptures from
beginning to end. This use of language grows
out of the very nature of the case; as everybody
knows that natural life is the very reverse of
natural death, and all other uses of these terms
are borrowed from their literal import.
Let us now apply the principle just stated to
the "vision of the dry bones."  The death spoken of was both political and spiritual. The
children of Israel at the time of this vision were
in bondage. Their temple had been destroyed,
and they themselves in consequence of their
sins had been carried away captive to Babylon.
Under these circumstances the vision was shown
to Ezekiel. And after he had prophesied upon
these bones, and bone had com.qto bone, and
sinew, and flesh, and skin had covered the bones,
and life had entered the bodies of the vast multitude, so that they stood up a great army,
then the Lord said to Ezekiel, (ver. 11-14,) "' Son
of man, these bones are the whole house of
Israel: behold they say, Our bones are dried
and our hope is lost: we are cut off from our
parts. Therefore prophesy, and say unto them,




86         THE RESURRECTION.
Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, 0 my people,
I will open your graves, and cause you to come
up out of your graves, and bring you into the
land of Israel. And ye shall know that I am
the Lord; when I have opened your graves, O
my people, and brought you up out of your graves,
and shall put my Spirit in you, and ye shall
live, and I shall place you in your own land:
then shall ye know that I the Lord have spoken
it, and perfirmed it, saith the Lord."
Here is 1st, a moral death. The life which
is set opposite to this is expressed in verse 14,
"3And I shall put my Spirit in you, and ye shall
live." And 2d, a political death. The life opposed
to this is expressed in verses 12-14, "I will
open your graves, and cause you to come up
out of your graves into the land of Israel, and
I shall place you in your own land." 1. Their
hope was lost. And 2, they were cut off from
their parts, verse 11. But God would give
them his Spirit; and 3, he would restore them to
their own country. The language is figurative,
but the reality in which the figure has its origin
is a literal death, and a literal resurrection; so
that the passage, after all, affords an argument
in favor of the resurrection of the body.
But is the passage which we have quoted
from Daniel figurative? If so, what does the




THE RESURRECTION.          87
sleep or death in the dust mean? Whatever
it means, to awake and come out of the dust
must mean the very reverse. Well then, suppose it means political death-political degradation and adversity. Then to come forth from
this death would be to enjoy a life of political
prosperity. But "some awake to shame and
everlasting contempt."  What kind of political
prosperity is this? Political shame and contempt are just what the political death signifies.
Are the death and the resurrection from death
the same thing? Then it cannot mean a political death. Let us see whether spiritual death
will do any better. If the death is a death in
trespasses and sins, then awaking from this
death is coming forth to a life of purity and
holiness. But some that were dead "awake to
shame and everlasting contempt." What kind
of holiness and purity is this? How hard it is
to make God's word teach false doctrines!
These passages are sufficient to account for
the prevalence of the belief in this doctrine
among the Jews, both before and after our Saviour appeared among them. And that this
doctrine did extensively prevail is abundantly
evident from the history of the times, both sacred and profane. Herod's views of John the
Baptist show this.  A sect of the Sadducees




88          THE RESURRECTION.
disbelieved it, but all the rest of the Jews were
firm believers in the doctrine. Paul, in his defense before Felix, declared, that "the Jews
acknowledged that there should be a resurrection, both of the just and the unjust." Professor B., while commenting on this passage, says,
" The Jews did not believe in the resurrection
of the unjust."  Well, Paul says they did, and
all who think him the better authority of the
two will believe his testimony. That the Jews
believed this doctrine is still further evident
from the conversation which passed between
our Saviour and Martha in regard to Lazarus.
Jesus says unto her, "Thy brother shall rise
again. Martha saith unto him, I know he shal
rise again in the resurrection of the last day.;
Our author varies the translation here, an,:
makes Martha say, " I know he shall rise again
in the consolation," and contends that the Greek
word anastasis sometimes has this signification.
Now the same word occurs four times, in three
consecutive verses of this conversation, with
only this difference, that in two places the noun
is used instead of the verb; a noun that has
the same signification with the verb, and the
same orthography, so far as the derivation will
permit, and the noun and verb have the same
relation to each other, as permit and permission,




THE RESURRECTION.            89
or as baptize and baptism. Why then select one
word in the connection for consolation, and let
the others have their proper signification? Let
the criticism be consistent with itself, and then
we have Martha, as soon as she heard that our
Saviour had arrived, going out to meet him, and
saying, "If thou hadst been here, my brother
had not died..... Jesus saith unto her, Thy
brother shall console (anastesetai) again. Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall console(anastesetai) again in the consolation (anastasei)
at the last day. Jesus said unto her, I am the
consolation (anastasis) and the life." To fairly
state such criticism is to refute it.  From these
scriptures then, and many others, it is most
certainly evident, that the Jews in our Saviour's
time did believe in the resurrection of the body,
and they used the term anastasis, which is rendered resurrection, to denote it.  Bearing this
fact in mind, let us examine our Saviour's testimony on this subject, as recorded in John v,
28, 29: "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."  No ingenuity can
ever prevent this passage of Scripture from




90         THE RESURRECTION.
teaching both a future resurrection of the body,
and a future retribution.
Professor Bush thinks this passage is a
"reference  of some" sort to the passage
from Daniel which has been quoted. Well,
suppose it has a reference of some sort to
that prophecy. We have seen that that prophecy itself refers to the resurrection of the
body. But there is no evidence that our Saviour had his eye particularly upon the passage
from Daniel. He gives no intimation that what
he utters was a quotation. He doubtless speaks
of the same event, and his teachings, as might
be expected, perfectly agree with those of
Daniel. Our author has not given his views
of the meaning of this passage except by implication, as we shall see more fully from the sequel. However, we can gather from what he
has said, that he would have us believe that it
is a moral resurrection here spoken of; because
it refers in some way, he thinks, to the prophecy of Daniel,and Daniel's prophecy he thinks
refers to Ezekiel's vision; and Ezekiel's vision
teaches a moral resurrection. But let us see
if the passage under consideration teaches a
moral resurrection. As we have already seen,
the death and resurrection here must be exactly
the opposites the one of the other. If the re




THE RESURRECTION.           91
surrection here spoken of is a moral resurrection, then the death which is opposed to it is a
moral death; that is, a death " in trespasses and
in sins."  To come forth from this death is
to come forth to a life of purity and happiness.
Well, then, "the hour is coming, in the which
all that are in the graves of sin and moral death
shall come forth; they that have done good!"
What! done good?  Dead and buried in sin,
and yet been doing good? Is a man when dead
and buried, alive in the very same sense in
which he is dead? Dead in trespasses and
sins, and yet the condition of their coming forth
unto the resurrection of life (that is, holiness
and purity) is their having done good, that is,
having been holy and pure, while dead and
buried in sin. But look at the other part of
the verse. "They that have done evil, to the
resurrection of damnation." Of course all that
were dead, had done evil, if the death was a
death in trespasses and sins% To come forth
from this death is to come forth to a life of holiness and purity, and yet this holiness and purity is the resurrection of damnation!  May the
good Lord deliver us from such holiness and
purity. Such a construction resolves the whole
passage into a mass of absurd nonsense. But
let us see if the word " consolation," in the place




92         THE RESURRECTION.
of c" resurrection," will not answer a better purpose. Then the last clause will read, "They
that have done evil shall come forth to the' consolation' of damnation." A poor consolation, I
am thinking.
But it is argued that the death spoken of in
verses 24, 25, preceding the passage under
consideration, is evidently a spiritual death,
and the life a spiritual life. 1. We deny that
there is any evidence that the death mentioned
in verse 25 is a moral death; and 2. Admitting that it is, we deny that it affords the least
evidence, that the death spoken of in verses 28,
29, is such. The whole connection goes to
show, that the death and life mentioned in verse
25 have their literal import. Our Saviour had
just healed a man of an " infirmity" with which
he had been afflicted for thirty-eight years.
The Jews found fault with him because he had
done it on the sabbath. He justifies himself by
asserting his divinity, and declaring, that "as
the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth
them," that is, brings them to life, " even so the
Son quickeneth, (s-oo7rotC,) brings to life whom
he will." Verse 21. There is no evidence that
previous to this period our Saviour had raised
to life any that had been dead; but he says,
(verse 25,) "The hour is coming, and mow isa"




THE RESURRECTION.          93
the period was just at hand, when the dead
should hear his voice, and they that heard should
live. And this was literally fulfilled when he
tried aloud, " Lazarus, come forth."  But they
marveled at this. Was there anything very
marvelous in the declaration, that those who
should hear his voice, that is, who should listen
to, and obey his precepts, would thereby cease
fiom their sins, and live holy lives?  These
were the very precepts he uttered, and which
commended themselves to the understanding andthe conscience of all who heard him. It appears
to me, that the scope of our Saviour's argument
with the Jews was this: that he being the Son
of God, and being " equal with God," had power
and authority not only to raise up the sick and
infirm, but to raise up even the dead body,
when life was extinct: that the Jews should not
marvel, that he, being God, should restore life
to a dead body, while its organization was yet
comparatively perfect: for the time would come
when'all who had been dead for ages, and their
bodies mingled with the elements, should be
restored again to immortal life by his Almighty
power.  I say that this appears to me the obvious scope of the argument, but others may
view it differently; and I will not insist upon
this interpretation;. but will now admit, for the




94         THE RES URRECTION.
sake of the argument, that the death spoken of
in verse 25 is a moral death, and then show
that the death and resurrection, in verses 28, 29,
are not figurative, but literal.
1. If the death spoken of in verse 25 is
a moral death, all the subjects of it were dead
in sin, and of course none of them had been
doing good;. but some of those mentioned in
verses 28, 29, had been doing good, and consequently were not; dead in sins, but were dead
literally, before the resurrection.
2. If the death in verse 25 was figurative,
then those who came out of a death in sin to a
life of holiness and purity, did not come forth to
a resurrection of damnation: but some, mentioned in verses 28, 29, shall come forth to the resurrection of damnation; therefore, the death
and resurrection, in verses 28, 29, are not a
figurative or moral death and resurrection.
3. To suppose that verse 25 speaks of a
moral resurrection, and that verses 28, 29 refer
to the same thing, is to make our Saviour give
a very strange reason why the Jews should not
marvel at what he had said in verse 25. His
argument would stand thus: "Do not marvel
at what I have said, namely, that the morally
dead, who hear the voice of the Son of God,
shall live, for the morally dead who hear the




THE RESURRECTION.           95
voice of the Son of God shall live i" Does this
sound like the reasoning of Him'" who-spake as
never man spake?"
4. But there is a difference in the time of
the two events. The one was then present, the
other was future. But it may be said, that the
contrast in the two cases, and that wherein the
second was more marvelous than the first, consisted in this, that in the first case only a tew
comparatively were raised, but in the second a
great many. But why make this distinction
between these passages, if both refer to the very
same thing? Besides, is it any more marvelous, that a great number should be raised than
that a few should, if they were all raised in the
very same sense?
5. If the death in the first instance was a
death in sin, the coming forth, or rising from this
leath, would of itself be a sufficient description
of the condition of those who had been the subjects of this moral death; for as the death was
a death in sin, the life from the dead would be
salvation from sin. And in verse 25 it is simply said, "They that hear shall live."  But in
verses 28, 29, the condition of those who rise is
still further defined: " Some to the resurrection
of life, and some to the resurrection of damnation."




96          THE RESURRECTION.
This one passage of Scripture is an everiasting iRefutation, both of Universalism and of the
new theory of the resurrection. I have classed
these two doctrines together here, because they
both criticize and torture this passage of Scripture, as they do most others relating to this subject, in precisely the same manner; and to refute the one is to refute the other, so far as this
passage and many others are concerned.
But while this passage declares that all that
are in the graves shall come forth, Professor
Bush says multitudes of the dead are not in
their graves at all. But who does not see that
the general expression, "all that are in their
graves," means all the dead? This I must say
is a most puerile objection.  What if some are
not in their graves?  Perhaps they "sleep in
the dust of the earth" elsewhere. Daniel saw
all such come forth. Perhaps some are in the
sea. But John saw the sea give up the dead
which were in it. But if there are others who
are neither "in their graves," nor "in the dust of
the earth," nor " in the sea," they are within the
empire of death somewhere. But the revelator
saw death itself give up the dead which were
in it.
It is evident that our author had strong
misgivings in regard to his theory when he




THE RESURRECTION.          97
compared it with the passage from John, just
examined.  Hear him: "This passage is undoubtedly the strongest in the New Testament,
in favor of the common view of the restxrection." And why should it not be, when our
Saviour set himself expressly to state the doctrine?  He continues: "It is unquestionable,
that our Lord speaks in this passage in stronger
terms than he usually adopts in regard to the
resurrection of the dead." P. 234. Again, he
says, " 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 doctrine 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 countervail
the rebutting conclusions which may be formed
from the present text. 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." P. 235.
Really, this looks more like coming to himself than anything else I have found in his
book. But he soon falls back upon his old
7




98         TIE RESURRECTION.
train of thinking, and says, on p. 237, "So far
as we are capable of forming a judgment, the
evidence from reason preponderates in favor of
an immediate entrance, at death, upon the resurrection state. This evidence we have seen to
be confirmed by a multitude of passages, which
yield this more readily and naturally than any
other sense. But in the text under consideration, and perhaps a few others, the doctrine of a
future simultaneous resurrection seems to be
explicitly taught. Here, then, we are reduced
to a new dilemma. [It appears he has been
reduced to dilemmas before.] The character
of the difficulty is changed. It is not so much
now a conflict between reason and revelation,
as an apparent conflict between one part of
revelation and another." And now our author
applies himself, with commendable zeal, to reconcile these descrepancies.
Let us now examine the process by which
the passages of Scripture, alluded to in the preceding extract, are made to "yield this [the author's] sense more easily and naturally than
any other."
In the first place, he has made his " rational
deductions the criterion of truth, in regard to
the meaning of the inspired word." Then com.
mencing with passages which contain the word




THE RESURRECTION.           99
resurrection, without particularly defining and
defending, in every case, a literal resurrection,
he concludes that they must teach his notions
of the doctrine, because they are so consonant
with his "rational deductions."  Now, it is not
to be supposed that after the doctrine of the
resurrection had been fairly explained by Christ
himself, and fully exemplified in his own resurrection, which was made a pattern and a proof
of the resurrection of believers, every one who
alluded to it would always stop and define it,
and prove that it was a real bodily resurrection.
They knew that the people to whom they spoke
understood it to be a literal resurrection, and no
other.  Such passages, therefore, are not the
passages to be relied on as proofs of a particular
doctrine, merely because that doctrine suits our
notions, and the particular passages do not contradict the doctrine. In this way every doctrine
of the Bible could be disproved, and every false
doctrine that was ever thought of could be established. Suppose some other to start up, full of
"progressive improvements" and "rational deductions," and assert that men have neither soul
nor body after death.  He could find a "multitude- of passages" where the words "soul,"
"body," and "death" occur, which, in their particular connection, would not contradict his pecu



100         THE RESURRECTION.
liar doctrine. Indeed, if he made his " rational
deductions the criterion of truth, in regard to the
meaning of the inspired word" in relation to
these passages, he would be very likely to conclude that "they yielded this sense, [his new
doctrine,] more easily and naturally than any
other." And so of any other false notion.
We shall now see how Professor B. makes
those passages, whose object is to treat of the
resurrection, " yield" his own particular " sense"
of the doctrine.
While commenting upon the last part of the
fifteenth chapter of I Corinthians, and 1 Thess.
iv, 17, both of which are brought in before the
passage from Johnr v, 28, 29, which gives him
so much trouble, he says, " But we here encounter a great difficulty in view of our previous
position, that the resurrection of every believer
takes place at death, when he emerges from a
material into a spiritual body. Is it not clearly
implied, not to say expressly asserted, in this
passage, that the resurrection of all the righteous is simultaneous, and that the 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, of course, have no
object in denying or disguising the fact, that
these words have very much the air of directly




THE RESURRECTION.           101
contradicting the general tenor of our interpretation of the preceding portions of this scripture.
Still, if our previous train of reasoning be sound,
if our conclusions be fairly sustained by the
evidence adduced, it is certain that the words,
rightly understood, cannot be in conflict with
them. 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 in nowise shaken by the literal rendering of a passage which seems, at first view, to'enforce entirely another theory." P. 191.  This is the
manner in which passages of Scripture, which
speak expressly on the subject of a literal resurrection, are made to "yield" his peculiar
" sense" of the doctrine. If the doctrine of inspiration flatly contradict his theory, the doctrine
of inspiration must yield: that is all: for these
" rational deductions" must not be contradicted!
He concludes finally upon these passages, that
the apostle Paul was mistaken in supposing that
the second advent of our Saviour was just at
hand, when he supposed the wonderful things
which he had mentioned in these passages, relative to the resurrection, would take place;
and quotes two authorities to prove it, Voltaire




102         THE RESURRECTION.
and Dr. Watts.  Well, it is some comfort to
know that the apostle was sincere, only mistaken.
His intentions were good, no doubt. When I
come to comment upon the passages alluded to,
I shall produce better authority than either
Voltaire or Dr. Watts, to prove that the apostle
labored under no such mistaken apprehension.
We can now understand how a "multitude
of passages yield" his own peculiar " sense" of
this doctrine more naturally and easily than any
other.
1st. He makes his "rational deductions the
criterion of truth, in regard to the meaning of
the inspired word."
2d. Setting out in the light of this criterion
of truth, every passage of Scripture he meets
must yield the " sense" required by his " criterion," namely, his "rational deductions."  He
meets the account of our Saviour's resurrection.
The evidence of a literal resurrection, in this
case, he finds is the strongest that can possibly
appeal to the understanding.  The account,
if true, ruins his theory for ever. The whole
affair must be resolved into an "optical illMusion."
3d. Proceeding onward, in the light of these
"rational deductions" and " optical illusions," he
meets the positive declaration of the apostle




THE RESURRECTION.           103
Paul, that the resurrection of the dead is a
future simultaneous resurrection of their bodies.
1 Cor. xv, 51-53; 1 Thess. iv, 17. This doctrine, if true, overturns every part of his
"sense" of the resurrection, which is, that it is
neither a future nor a simultaneous event, nor is
there "atny participation of the body in it."
What now is to be done? Here is another
"' dilemma." Either his or the apostle's doctrine
is false.  "Optical illusions" will not apply to
this case, because it is a prophecy yet future.
What then? Why, the apostle must have been
mistaken! and he was led into these erroneous
views by an opinion that the second advent of
our Saviour was just at hand. Is any one so
stupid as not to perceive how "easily" and
"naturally" Paul's doctrine yields our author's
" sense" of the resurrection? That is, no resurrection at all? These passages, having been
conquered, have now fallen in the rear, and become recruits: and, from their having embraced
the views of their new leader so " naturally and
easily," they may be expected to do valiant service, in case of another engagement.
4th. Advancing again, in the light of his "rational deductions," " optical illusions," and mistaken apostles, he comes across the declaration
of our Saviour, in John v, 28, 29, which sweeps




104        THE RESURRECTION.
to the winds his miserable theory. And now
he acknowledges that his "rational deductions"
may be false; that "they are not sufficient of
themselves to encounter the opposing doctrine
of this text." But now his concern is to harmonize this text with the others he has commented
upon, "which teach a contrary doctrine!"  A
doctrine, however, which he has forced upon
them by his "rational deductions," which he
has made the "criterion of truth, in regard to
their meaning;" but which "criterion of truth"
he now acknowledges may be false!/ There
never was a more perfect sophism. It hardly
has the merit of being an argument in a circle.
If the rational deductions had been brought to
prove the doctrine of Scripture, and then th'~
Scriptures brought to prove the rational deduc.
tions which had been made the criterion of truth,
in regard to the meaning of the Scriptures, then
it might have amounted to an argument in a
circle. But, as it is, these deductions are made
the criterion of truth; and yet the Scriptures
contradict them so positively, that it is acknowledged they may be false, and yet the doctrine
is insisted on! Our author has laid his foundation in "rational deductions."  Upon this he
rears his superstructure. The current of in
spired truth sweeps away this foundation utterlj




THE RESURRECTION.          105
And now, forsooth, the edifice stands firm as
ever, because it has been so well put together!
If it does, it is because, like the dry and faded
blossoms of some noxious weeds which float in
the air, it has not weight enough to fall when
the foundation is swept away.
Our author was right when he talked of being reduced to a new dilemma, while commenting upon this passage. But the real dilemma,
as we have seen, was not a conflict between this
passage and others, but of a character sufficiently
apparent from what has already been said.
The final comment upon the passage, which
has cost the author of the new theory immense
trouble, is thus given by him, in form of a paraphrase: (John v, 28, 29)-" Marvel not at what
I have just said: for the time is coming when
the event predicted by Daniel, whatever or
whenever it shall be, shall be accomplished;
and that, too, through my agency, to whom the
Father hath given a quickening power, however
lightly my claims may now be regarded!!"
P. 240. What a perfectly non-committal affair
is this! I submit whether a system driven to
such ridiculous extremes can rightfully lay
claim either to Scripture or reason.
I shall now adduce a class of Scriptures
which connect the resurrection of the dead with




106        THE RESURRECTION.
the resurrection of Christ, in such a manner as
to make it certain that a literal resurrection is
meant. And here I need not repeat the proofs
which have been adduced in favor of the literal
resurrection of our Saviour's body.  To him
who believes the Scriptural account, these proofs
are as strong as ever were brought, or ever can
be brought, to establish any fact whatever:
proofs that were continued forforty days; that
were exhibited under a variety of circumstances,
appealing to all the senses that could be brought
to bear upon the case; and before hundreds of
witnesses at a time. Indeed, an inspired apostle declares that they were INFALLIBLE; and
not only so, but that there were many infallible
proofs of this fact. Acts i, 3. And proofs the
denial of which, as we have already shown,
impeaches the veracity of GOD, ANGELS, AND
MEN!!!
The first passage of Scripture which we shall
adduce, of the class above alluded to, is in Matthew xxvii, 50-53: "Jesus, when he had cried
again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
And behold, the veil of the temple was rent in
twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth
did quake, and the rocks rent; and the graves
were opened; and many bodies of the saints
which slept arose, and came out of the graves




THE RESUJRRECTION.         107
after his resurrection, and went into the holy
city, and appeared unto many."
Here it will be observed, that although the
graves were opened at the moment of the Saviour's death, yet the bodies of the saints did
not arise and go into Jerusalem till after his
resurrection. So, even in regard to these, our
Saviour's resurrection was the "first fruits."
The resurrection of the bodies of these saints
went directly to confirm the doctrine, that our
Saviour's resurrection was both a pledge and a
pattern of the resurrection of believers. If the
evangelist had had his eye directly upon the
theory which we are opposing when he penned
this account, his language could not have been
more explicit: " The graves opened: the bodies
which had slept in them arose, and came out of
the graves. Now, what bodies were these which
had slept in the graves, and which arose and
came out of them? Certainly not such bodies
as the new theory contends for; for, according
to this theory, the "resurrection body is exhaled with the dying breath, and goes forth
from the body before it is consigned to the dust."
P. 178.  "It lives again, because it never dies."
A strange reason, to be sure, for living again!
Consequently, the resurrection body of the new
theory never "slept," "because it never dies."




108         THE RESURRECTION.
It never was in the grave, it never came out of
the grave. Indeed, it never had any body at
all. " It is called a body, because the poverty
of human language, or perhaps the weakness
of the human mind, forbids the adoption of any
more befitting term by which to express it."
P. 70.
Therefore, while this passage positively establishes the doctrine of a literal resurrection, it
positively contradicts every feature of the opposing theory. But our author, nothing intimidated, boldly applies his doctrine of "optical
illusions" to this case, as well as to that of
Christ himself. "It was an appearance;" "the
putting forth of a visible effect;" "they had
really arisen long before." All these deceptive
"appearances" and "optical illusions" having
the same laudable "object in view," namely, to
deceive mankind into the belief of a palpable
falsehood!  But Professor B. has discovered
the cheat!!
A man needs more than an ordinary amount
of grace, while dealing with a theory which resorts to such shameful expedients.
I have already quoted, while speaking of the
resurrection of Christ, those passages which declare that he was the first " fruits of the resurrection," "the first born from the dead," "the




THE RESURRECTION.            109
first that should rise from the dead." But it is
not true that Christ was the first to rise from
the dead, unless the resurrection spoken of was
of his body; for " simply," in the sense of " immortality or a future state of existence," as the
theory contends, men had been rising for thousands of years. And it is not true that Christ's
resurrection, being that of his body, was "the
first fruits of the resurrection of mankind, unless their resurrection is that of the body. Here,
then, as well as in a score of other places, it is
seen that both the Bible and the new theory
cannot be true. The theory positively denies
what the Bible positively affirms: "But if the
Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead,
dwell in you, he that raised up Christ again
from the dead, shall also quicken (bring to life)
your mortal bodies." Rom. viii, 11.
Now, what body is it which is mortal? Not
the body which the new theory contends for,
because that "never dies."  Where in Scripture or in reason does "mortal bodies" mean
anything else than mortal bodies?  The only
difficulty here is, that there appears to be a condition in the resurrection spoken of. On this
account, this passage, and a few others of lindred character, came near making our author
believe that " the resurrection was the exclusive




110         THE RESURRECTION.
privilege of the righteous," in which case he
would have denied, as indeed he may hereafter,
on the principles of " progressive improvement,"
that any but the righteous have either souls or
bodies in a future state. But a little attention
to this very condition will show that in this pas3:age it is only the resurrection of the righteous
which is spoken of —a resurrection effected by
the Spirit of God which dwells in them; that is,
the spirit of love, which will raise up their bodies like unto Christ's glorious body, making
them suitable to be the companions of holy and
glorified spirits, in contradistinction from the
resurrection of the wicked, which will not be
like " Christ's glorious body." So that if our
author speaks of the resurrection in this sense,
it is most unquestionably " the exclusive privilege of the righteous." And he would have
learned this from John v, 28, 29, if he had not
been blinded by his theory. For our Saviour
says, " They that have done good," that is, they
who have this same " Spirit of God dwelling in
them," shall come forth to the resurrection of
life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of damnation. This condition then perfectly harmonizes with the whole current of
Scripture on the subject. And it is probable
that the apostle Paul had his eye on this very




THE RESURRECTION.          111
listinction when he says, " If by any means I
nay attain unto the resurrection of the dead;"
vhere he employs a different Greek word (exanastasin) instead of anastasin.  The preceding verse confirms this opinion. "That I may
know him, and the power of his resurrection."
Phil. iii, 10, 11. This is still more evident from
verses 20, 21 of this same chapter: "For our
conversation is in heaven; from whence also we
look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ;
who shall change our vile body, that it may be
fashioned like unto his glorious body, according
to the working whereby he is able to subdue all
things unto himself." Here the apostle Paul felt
what every human being ought to feel, a deep
solicitude to be so conformed to Christ, that
when he should come again, to judge the world,
he might rise in the likeness of Christ's glorious body, in contradistinction from those who,
neglecting the great interests of salvation,
should " awake to shame and everlasting contempt."
Let us next examine 1 Corinthians vi, 13-15:
"Now the body is not for fornication, but for the
Lord, and the Lord for the body. And God
hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise
up us by his own power. Know ye not that
your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I




112         THE RESURRECTION.
then take the members of Christ, and make them
the members of a harlot? God forbid."
I have given the whole connection here, that
there may be no possibility of mistaking " what
body is meant." Here, also, as in the other
passages, the resurrection spoken of is so connected with that of our Lord, as to make it certain that it will be the same in kind with his
own. Besides, this text directly overthrows another of our author's " rational deductions." He
declares that " all the purposes of a future state
of retribution can be answered without the
body."  But this passage declares that "the
body is for the Lord, and the Lord for the body,"
and consequently, that "he will raise it up by
his own power." Does not this look as though
the Lord might have use for our bodies in a
future state? And if so, " all the purposes of a
future state and of retribution can" not "be
answered without them.'
2 Cor. iv, 13, 14: "We also believe, and
therefore speak; knowing that he which raised
up the Lord Jesus, shall raise up us also by Jesus, and present us with you."
It is unnecessary to adduce further evidence
on this point. If the evidence already adduced
fails to show, that the resurrection of believers
is so related to the resurrection of Christ, as to




THE RESURRECTION.           113
make it certain that their resurrection will be
the same in kind as his, we need not attempt to
prove anything from the Bible.
But it is objected that Christ's resurrection
can be a pattern of ours in but a very feeble
sense-that there is a great dissimilarity-" a
wide difference between a body with all its
parts, yet entire, before decomposition has commenced, and one totally dissolved and mingled
with the elements." Why not admit, then, the
resurrection of our Lord, and make these points
of dissimilarity the strong points in the argument, without resorting to "optical illusions?"
What a strange way of reasoning is this: 1. To
prove that our Saviour's body never rose at all;
and 2. Show that there is a great difference between the circumstances of the two cases, the
one being raised before decomposition had commenced, and the other, if at all, after being totally decomposed! And pray wherein consists
this " wide difference," if neither of the bodies
ever rose at all?
But we admit these points of dissimilarity, in
all their strength, and shall show that they are
the strong points in ourfavor. Because if any
particular body is to be made the pledge and
the pattern of the resurrection of the " identical
material" body which dies, it is necessary that
8




114        THE RESURRECTION.
the body which is to be the pattern should die
and rise again under circumstances which would
make it perfectly evident to those for whose
benefit the pledge and the pattern were given,
that the very "identical material body" had
risen again. And in order to this, it would be
necessary that the person should be known,
certainly, as distinguished from all others; that
there should be certain distinguishing marks of
some kind upon the body by which the identity,
both before and after death, could be proved. It
would be necessary that this body should rise
while these marks were fresh in mind, and before they had been obliterated by decomposition.
I put it to the common sense of all men, if these
would not be the evidences, sought after by all
who would thoroughly investigate such a test.
Now all these evidences, in their greatest perfection, centre in the resurrection of our Lord
Jesus Christ. His resurrection, therefore, is
the highest proof that could be given for a literal resurrection of the bodies of mankind.
But I will now go a step further; and prove
from our author himself, that our Saviour's resurrectidt furnishes this very proof. On p. 36,
he says, "The simple assertion that the dead
body is to be raised, does not constitute an intelligible proposition, for the reason that it leaves




THE'RESURRECTION.         115
it utterly uncertain what body is meant. A resurrection 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."
Now, if the body of our Saviour had suffered
decomposition, so that it could not have been
identified by those who were intimately acquainted with him, it would then, according to our
author's views, have been " the resurrection of
a body."  But then "this does not constitute
an intelligible proposition, because it leaves it
uncertain what body is meant."  This "is a
very different thing from the resurrection of the
body." Well then, our Saviour's resurrection
was the resurrection of " the body:" " the body"
that was crucified: "the body" that was killed:
"the body" which had been mangled with the
nails piercing the hands and feet: " the body"
that had been pierced with the soldier's spear:
and " THE body" which bore, after the resurrection, all the marks of violence received while
hanging upon the cross. Can our author desire " a more minute specification?"
He requires evidence of a particular kind
for the support of a doctrine; and.when that
identical evidence is produced, in absolute perfection, he denies the doctrine because the very




116         THE RESURRECTION.
evidence he called for has been produced!!
Unlike Thomas, he says, "I will not believe, because I have put my jingers into the prints of the
nails, and thrust my hand into his side."
These points of dissimilarity are all our author urged against Christ's resurrection being
a perfect specimen of ours, for he acknowledges
that it is in some sense a specimen. But we
have now shown these very points of dissimilarity are the strongest proofs that could possibly be given that our resurrection shall be like
his, a literal resurrection. The new theory is
most unscriptural, irrational, and absurd, from
beginning to end. Ev.erything in it is out of
joint. Every argument proves the very reverse
of what the author intended. Every missile he
throws, rebounding, strikes himself, and every
sharp weapon he seizes cuts his hands.
The expression, " the resurrection of the
dead," so frequent in the Scriptures, must mean
a literal resurrection whenever the death is a
literal death. Where is the propriety of applying the expression, "the resurrection of the
dead," to that which lives in a future state,
because it never dies? In this case it should
always be "the resurrection of the living," an
expression which never occurs in the Scriptures.
Matt. x, 28: " And fear not them which kill




THE RESURRECTION.          117
the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but
rather fear him who is able to destroy both soul
and body in hell." How can this be done if the
body never lives again after death? The miserable Universalist quibble about the " valley of
Hinnom" will not help the matter at all, for the
body and soul are cast into hell after death, as
the parallel passages show. And the body can
no more be punished in the "valley of Hinnom" than anywhere else after death, unle;s it
is raised again. And the soul does not go to
the "valley of Hinnom" after death.
We now come to the celebrated discourse of
the apostle Paul, in 1 Cor. xv, 3-8: " For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also
received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; and that he was
buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures; and that he was seen
of Cephas, then of the twelve: after that he was
seen of above five hundred brethren at once;
of whom the greater part remain unto this piresent, but some are fallenoasleep. After that he
was seen of James; then of all the Apostles.
Last of all, he was seen of me also, as of one
born out of due time."
Here it will be seen how careful the apostle
is, in entering upon his discourse, to connert the




118        THE RESURRECTION.
resurrection of the dead with that of Christ,
and hence his first business is, to prove the resurrection of our Saviour. And here the language is such as to leave no possible doubt that
a literal resurrection is meant. If our author
please, it was the resurrection of " the body."
"The body" that died for our sins. Verse 3.
" The body" that was buried. Verse 4. " The
body " that " rose again the third day," and not at
the moment of death.  The body that appeared
to Cephas on the way to Emmaus, and to the
apostles, the same night when he " showed them
his hands and his feet." This resurrection in
this sense he proves by the testimony of the
apostles who saw him, and felt him, and heard
him, and ate with him after his resurrection:
and by five hundred others, most of whom were
still living and ready to attest the fact.
Why this anxiety of the apostle to establish
this truth in the very introduction of his argument, with a mass of evidence so overwhelming, but because he knew, that our Saviour's
resurrection, so far asmthe identity of his body
was concerned, was the proof of a similar resurrection of the bodies of mankind? That the
apostle understood this connection, and this relation between Christ's resurrection and ours, is
made certain from verses 12, 13: "Now if




THE RESURRECTION.          119
Christ be preached that he rose from the dead,
how say some of you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there be no resurrection firom the dead, then is Christ not risen."
Here the apostle shows that precisely all that
can be affirmed of the body of Christ, so far as
rising from the dead is concerned, can be affirmed of all the dead, and precisely what can be
affirmed of all the dead, can be affirmed of
Christ. He first proves that Christ did rise
from the dead. And then argues that if Christ
rose from the dead, it is absurd to deny the resurrection of the dead; because to deny it is to
deny that Christ rose, the very thing he had
proved by more than five hundred witnesses.
Verse 14: " And if Christ be not risen, then
is our preaching vain, and your faith is also
vain." Because the Christ whom Paul preached, and in whom they had believed, had promised to prove himself the Saviour of the world
by rising from the dead. And if he had not
risen, he had deceived them, and imposed upon
them, and consequently Paul's preaching him,
and their believing in him, were vain. Verse
15: " Yea, and we are found false witnesses of
God; because we have testified that God raised
up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that
the dead rise not." To deny this doctrine, was to




120        THE RESURRECTION.
accuse the apostles and the five hundred others
with falsehood. Verses 16-18: " For if the dead
rise not, then is not Christ risen; and if Christ
be not risen, your faith is vain; ye are yet in
your sins. Then they also which have fallen
asleep in Christ are perished." Because they
had trusted in Christ to save them from their sins.
But if he had not risen from the dead, he was
himself a sinner, having been guilty of deception
and falsehood. And those who had trusted in
him to escape perdition, had trusted in one who
had himself gone to perdition.  And every one
of these conclusions is as fairly chargeable upon
our author as upon a part of the Corinthians.
Verse 20: " But now is Christ risen from the
dead, and become the first fruits of them that
slept." No language could be more decisive
and unequivocal than this. Here Christ is not
only declared to be the first that rose immortal
from death, but the first fruits of all the dead.
Are the "first fruits" a pledge and a sample of
the harvest? Then is the resurrection of Christ
the pledge and the sample of our resurrection.
And what kind of "first fruits" would be an
"optical illusion?" Undoubtedly of a magnificent and plentiful harvest of" optical illusions!"
Verses 21-23: "For since by man came
death, by man came also the resurrection of the




THE RESURRECTION.            121
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;
afterward they that are Christ's at his coming."
From this passage, it is manifest that the life
consequent upon the resurrection is something
that was lost in Adam, and restored by Christ.
" As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all
be made alive." The question now is, What
kind of a death is it to which all become subject in Adam, and which is restored to all by
Christ, and of which Christ himself is the " first
fruits?" There are but three opinions on this
subject that I know of: 1. That this resurrection is a moral resurrection from a death in
trespasses and in sins, as the Universalists generally contend. 2. The opinion of Professor
Bush, which is that "the resurrection is simply
a future existence or immortalitgy"' of that which
" never dies;" and 3. The commonly received
opinion, which is that of a literal resurrection
of the human body.
The first of these opinions is sufficiently refuted by the fact, that in this very connection
Christ is said to be the " first fruits " of this
resurrection.  It follows, therefore, that if it
was a resurrection from a "death in trespasses
and in sins," Christ had been dead in trespasses




122       THE RESURRECTION.
and in sins: a notion at once absurd and blasphemous.
The second o1pinion is refuted by the consideration that the life which is consequent upon
the resurrection was lost in Adam, and restored
by Christ.
But has man no immortal part till the resurrection? Is that which " lives again in another
state because it never dies," and "is immortal in
its own nature," (p. 70,) lost in Adam?  Has
that died in Adam which is essentially immortal
in its own nature and never can die? The idea
is absurd and ridiculous in the extreme. The
third opinion therefore, which is that of a literal
resurrection from a literal death, is the doctrine
of the apostle; for the body became mortal in
Adam, and will be restored to immortality by
Christ, who is the " first fruits" of the resurrection in this sense.
Thus it is seen that truth, ever consistent
with itself, contradicts no other part of God's
word. And we are not driven to the unenviable necessity, either of contradicting an inspired
apostle, or accusing him with ignorance of his
subject, nor of impeaching the veracity of the
"true God and eternal life."
But the passage declares that they that are
Christ's shall be made alive at his coming




THE RESURRECTION.         123
What then becomes of the notion of a " development of the resurrection body at death?"
But then Paul labored under the mistaken notion
that Christ's second advent was just at hand!
What a pity that the apostle should have been
so misled!!
" But might not Christ's second coming mean
Iis coming at the destruction of Jerusalem?"
How will this help the matter? Did all who
were Christ's rise from the dead at this time?
If our author's doctrine is true, there were a
good many " developments of a spiritual body
at death," for there were many deaths at that
time; but alas! they were the enemies of
Christ who perished at the siege of Jerusalem.
Verses 24-26: "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 authority, and power.
For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies
under his feet. The last enemy that shall be
destroyed is death."
This passage shows that this event shall
transpire at the close of human probation;
when Christ's reign as Mediator shall cease.
But before this, the last enemy, death, is to be
destroyed.  How can this be, if death holds
an eternal dominion?




124        THE RESURRECTION.
Verses 35-38: "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 which shall be, but bare grain, it may
chance of wheat, or of some other grain: but
God giveth it a body, as it pleaseth him, and to
every seed his own body."
Professor Bush seems to think the objection
answered by the apostle in this passage, to be
made by some person anxious to learn the
manner of the resurrection, and says he " cannot
understand the apostle's reasoning, unless he
means to affirm that there is something of the
nature of a germ, which emanates from the defunct body, and forms, either the substance or
the nucleus of the future resurrection body.
Something that goes forth from the body
before it is consigned to the dust." P. 178.
But it is evident from the answer of the
apostle, " Thou fool," that the objector was no
such sincere inquirer after truth as our author
supposes. He intended to make the most direct
and positive denial of the possibility of the doctrine, and to make the denial the more emphatic
by giving it the form of a question; a manner
of speaking very common in the Scriptures.




THE RESURRECTION.         125
Thus; our Saviour says, "Ye generation of
vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of
hell?"  That is, living as ye do, "ye cannot
escape," &c. And the apostle Paul, "How
shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation?" That is, "we cannot escape."  Multitudes of similar expressions may be found in the
Scriptures.
From the argument of the apostle it appears,
that the person objecting, founded his objection
upon the fact, that the body after death became
decomposed, and mingled with other elements.
Precisely the objection of our author. The objection was founded upon " rational deductions."
But Paul confounds the objector by what was
matter of constant experience; even a grain of
wheat when sown, if it did not become decomposed, would remain for ever in the ground.
The argument stands thus.  Objector. The
dead can never be raised up, the body becomes
entirely decomposed, and dissolved. Its identity
is destroyed. With what body then will it come
forth? The thingis unreasonable and impossible.
Paul's answer. Thou fool! Thou objectest
against the resurrection of the body, because it
is dead, and decomposed, and mingled with the
dust. But your own experience shall condemn
you; for the very seed you sow, whether wheat




126        THE RESURRECTION.
or other grain, never rises out of the ground
except it die and become decomposed, the very
objection you alledge against the resurrection of
the body. You talk of the body as being a
mass of loathsome corruption. But even the
grain you sow becomes the same in this respect.
But you do not sow the body that shall be, as
to this circumstance, but naked grain which
putrefies in the earth, but God giveth it a body
such as pleases him, differing as to the circum
stance just mentioned, but composed of the same
matter. It comes forth from corruption new
and beautiful. So is the resurrection of the
dead. The body that is sown or buried in the
earth is not the same body that rises again, as
to its frailty and tendency to corruption and dissolution, though composed of the same matter:
for (ver. 42-44) "it is sown in corruption," in a
state of decay: "it is raised in incorruption.
It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory.
It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power.
Itis sown a natural body," the subject of all these
weaknesses; "it is raised a spiritual body,"
subject to none of them. For "there is a natural body," namely, that which was sown, " and
there is a spiritual body," namely, that which
rises again; very different as to its circumstances, but composed of the same substance.




THE RESURRECTION.          127
This we conceive to be the true state of the
apostle's argument, without ever being intended
to give the least sanction to the " germ" doctrine.
Any comparison may be tortured and spoiled
by tracing analogies which were never intended.
The point of comparison is a state of decay and
corruption, in both the grain and the body, and
the coming forth out of a state of corruption to
new life and vigor. It was God who gave the
grain such a body as pleased him; and the God
that could do the one could do the other.  " It
is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption." What is sown in corruption? Why the
dead body, carrying out the metaphor of the
grain. "It is raised in incorruption."  What
is raisedl in incorruption? Why that which was
sown in corruption, namely, the body. What
else was sown in corruption? Was the resurrection body of the new theory ever sown
or buried in corruption? It was never sown or
buried at all, for "it escapes from the body before it is consigned to the dust." It never was
corruptible at all; for "it is immortal in its
own nature."  It was never dead at all; for " it
lives in another state because it never dies." It
never had any body at all; for " it is only called
a body because of the poverty of human language."




128         THE RESURRECTION.
"It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory.
What is sown in dishonor? Why, the body, in
a state of dissolution, when it becomes food for
worms. "It is raised in glory." What is raised
in glory? Why, that which was sown, or buried,
in dishonor, viz., the body. " It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power." What is raised in
power? Why,.that which was sown in weakness, viz., the body. " It is sown a natural body,
it is raised a spiritual body."  What is raised a
spiritual body? Why, that which was sown a
natural body. What else is sown, or buried,
but the natural body? It is this same natural
body which becomes changed to a spiritual body
by the resurrection from the dead.
Will our author's nice distinction between
"a body and the body" help him any here?
It will only help him into greater difficulty; for
the resurrection body here is "the body." "The
body" which is subject to " corruption:" " the
body" which is buried; and buried, too, in dishonor: "the body" which is sown in weakness
"the" natural body. And this corruptible, dis.
honored, weak, natural body shall be raised.incorruptible, honorable, glorious, powerful, and
spiritual.
Verses 50-55: "Now this I say, brethren,
that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom




THE IESURRECTION.          129
of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. 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. For this corruptible must
put on incorruption, and this mortal must put
on immortality. So when this corruptible shall
have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall
have put on immortality, then shall be brought
to pass the saying that is written, Death is
swallowed up in victory. O death, where is
thy sting?  O grave, where is thy victory?"
Here the apostle shows that "flesh and blood
cannot, inherit the kingdom of God;" that is,
in its frail, corruptible, perishing state; because
"corruption cannot inherit incorruption," and
hence the need of a change. But then the
question might arise, "If flesh and blood cannot
inherit the kingdom of God, what shall become
of those who are still living when Christ shall
come to raise the dead, and bring all men to
judgment?" And here he reveals the "mystery."
"WVe shall not all sleep," that is, we shall not
all die, "but we shall all be changed in a moment." The change that will pass upon the
bodies of the living will leave them precisely
9




130        THE RESURRECTION.
like the bodies of the dead after the resurrection; " for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead
shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be
changed;" that is, those who should be living
when this event should transpire: because "this
corruptible must put on incorruption," whether
it be a living body or a dead body, "and this
mortal must put on immortality," whether living
or dead, when this event transpires; because
frail, dying, corruptible flesh and blood, as such,
cannot inherit the kingdom of God. It must
therefore be changed, and made "incorruptible"
and immortal. Look at the peculiar phraseology
of verses 52-54: " This mortal"-mortal what?
Mortal body-" shall put on immortality." What
else but the body is mortal? And it is the body
which the apostle is discoursing about, as the
whole connection proves.  "This corruptible"
-corruptible what? "corruptible body"-shall
put on incorruption. What else but the body
is corruptible?
Can it be affirmed of that indescribable something which rises at the moment of death, according to the new theory-that something which
the poverty of human language will not admit
of being expressed in words-that this mortal
shall put on immortality; that this dead something shall be raised incorruptible?  Most cer



THE RESURRECTION.          131
tainly not; for that something " is immortal in
its own nature, and lives in a future state, because it never dies;" while the body, the only
thing which is corruptible and mortal, " cannot
be raised again in any sense whatever," but remains eternally under the dominion of death!
What then becomes of the triumphant exclamation of the apostle, at the end of this passage:
"Then shall be brought to pass the saying that
is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.
0 death, where is thy sting? 0 grave, where
is thy victory?" The king of terrors, with his
foot upon the very ground that covered his victim, might lift his ghastly arm, and, showing his
dreadful spear, answer, "'Here is my sting;"
while the grave, without even opening her
mouth, might mutter, in deep, sepulchral tones,
"And here is my victory."
But there is another consideration, contained
in verse 52, which utterly ruins the new theory.
This theory maintains that there will be no
general resurrection of the dead, but that the
resurrection, such as it is, is a progressive thing,
and has been going on for six thousand years!
But, in opposition to this, the apostle declares,
"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




132        THE RESURRECTION.
raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed."
This shows most conclusively that the period is
yet future, and at the end of time. Everything
in this account of the resurrection is directly
against every feature of the new doctrine. What
language could more distinctly and unequivocally
teach the future and simultaneous resurrection
of the dead?
In the First Epistle to the Thessalonians, 4th
chapter, commencing with the 13th verse, we
have the same subject introduced again: " But
I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren,
concerning them that are asleep, that ye sorrow
not even as others who have no hope. For if
we believe that Jesus died, and rose again, even
so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring
with him." Here, as before, it is seen that Paul
makes the resurrection of the dead to depend
upon that of our Saviour. "For this we say
unto you by the word of the Lord, that we who
are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord,
shall not prevent them which are asleep. 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 rise first. Then we which are
alive and remain shall be caught up together
with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in




THE RESURRECTION.         133
Ihe air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
Wherefore comfort one another with these
words."
The reason Paul assigns why he would dissuade the Thessalonians from indulging in immoderate grief for their pious dead was, that
Christ had pledged himself to raise them in the
likeness of his glorious body, and that on account of this there would be no particular advantage in being alive at Christ's second coming,
because those who should be alive and remain
unto the coming of the Lord should not prevent
(s0Oaarolev)-that is, should not go before;
should not be "caught up" first-for the dead
in Christ should rise first, that is, before the
living should be changed; and then those who
were alive would be caught up with them to
meet the Lord, changed of course from corruptible to incorruptible, and from mortal to immortal, as is shown in Corinthians.
We here have the same striking evidence as
in Corinthians that these grand events will
occur at a future period, and will take place at
the second coming of Christ. " We who remain
at the coming of the Lord," &c.: "for the Lord
himself shall descend from heaven." The pious
dead will first rise. In a moment more, in the
twinkling of an eye, after the dead in Christ




134         THE RESURRECTION.
shall have risen, the living saints will be changed
from mortal to immortal, and both ascend together
to meet the Lord in the air. Nearly simultaneous with the resurrection of the pious dead,
and the change of the living saints, perhaps in
a moment more, will be the resurrection of the
wicked, "to shame and everlasting contempt;"
"to the resurrection of damnation," as is elsewhere taught in the Scriptures.  It is evident
that in the 15th chapter of Corinthians, as well
as in the passage in Thessalonians, the apostle
is discoursing principally upon the resurrection
of the righteous. This is as might have been
expected, since in both cases he was directing
his discourse especially to Christians; and in
the last case his special object seems to have
been to administer consolation to those who were
mourning the death of their Christian friends.
But although Paul in Corinthians was principally discoursing on the resurrection of the
righteous, yet he positively declares that all the
dead shall rise at the same grand epoch, though
not at the very same moment: " 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; afterward they that are Christ's at
his coming."  The word "order," (-rayyar-s',)
signifies a company, or band, a squadron, or co



THE RESURRECTION.          135
hort, or legion. It also signifies a command
or order by which these "companies," &c., are
arranged and regulated. The apostle had no
sooner declared that in Christ should all be made
alive, than he immediately adds, "But every
man in his own order: Christ the first fruits,"
who in obedience to the divine command or order
rose the third day after death, by the power of
God. This was his "order." Second: "afterward they that are Christ's at his coming."
These are they "who have done good;" "and
they shall come forth unto the resurrection of
life." This is their order, or command from God:
all the truly pious shall come forth in this order
or company. Third: the wicked shall next rise
firom the dead, after the pious living are changed;
but these are "they that have done evil," "they
shall come forth to the resurrection of damnation."  This is their "order" or command from
God; for "all" the dead "shall be made alive."
All the wicked shall rise in this order or company, then will follow the general judgment;
for Christ's second coming is to "judge the
world." That these events will transpire in
immediate connection with the last judgment is
positively declared by John the revelator: Rev.
Xx, 11-15: "And I saw a great white throne,
and him that sat on it, from whose face the




136       THE RESURRECTION.
earth and the heaven fled away; and there was
found no place for them. And I saw the dead,
small and great, stand before God: and the
books were opened; and another book was
opened, which is the book of life: and the dead
were judged out of those things which were
written in the books, according to their works.
And the sea gave up the dead which were in it;
and death and hell delivered up the dead which
were in them; and they were judged every man
according to their works..... And whosoever
was not found written in the book of life was
cast into the lake of fire." Here the resurrection
of all the dead is taught in remarkably strong
terms; not only the sea, but death and hell,
(or hades,'Atdqg, the place of departed souls,)
gave up their dead. Death gave up their bodies,
and hades their souls, that they might be united
together before they should be judged according
to the things done in the body.
In this passage the resurrection of all the
dead, the appearance of the "great white throne,
and him that sat upon it," the opening of the
"books," the summoning of all the dead, both
small and great, to stand before the throne, the
decision which would fix the doom of all mankind for a long eternity, are but parts of one
stupendous scene of grand and awful sublimity.




THE RESURRECTION.         137
It is thus, by "comparing scripture with
scripture," that we are able to form a correct
and connected account of the grand events that
will accompany "the resurrection of the dead;"
and thus to fix, with absolute certainty, the
period of its occurrence at the end of the world,
as well as to determine the accompanying circumstances.
We have seen, in another place, that the only
alternative for the opposing theory is to assert
that the apostle Paul, while writing to the Corinthians and Thessalonians, labored under the
mistaken opinion that Christ's second advent was
just at hand, when these things would take place.
But this very position, repulsive and shocking
as it is, admits after all that Paul thought and
taught that the resurrection would take place in
connection with Christ's second advent. WVe
shall just now avail ourselves of this admission.
Paul did believe, then, that the resurrection of
the dead would take place at the second coming
of Christ: then Paul did not believe that "this
event transpires with every one at the moment
of death." But our author believes it. Why
then has he quoted the apostle Paul to prove
what he acknowledges the apostle did not
believe?
But Paul says, in the introduction of his dis



138        THE RESURRECTION.
course to the Corinthians, "For I delivered unto
you first of all that which I also received, how
that Christ died for our sins according to the
Scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he
rose again the third day," &c. Now the question is, how did the apostle receive his gospel?
He tells us himself, in Galatians i, 11, 12: "But
I certifyyou, brethren, that the gospel which was
preached of me is not after man. For I neither
received it of man, neither was I taught it, but
by the revelation of Jesus Christ."  And in the
passage from Thessalonians he says, " For this
we say unto you by the word of the Lord."
Was Paul mistaken in this also?  Did he think
the Lord had inspired him to say these things
when he had received no such inspiration? If
he told the truth when he declared that he
was immediately inspired to say these things,
then he did not labor under the mistake attributed to him. Therefore we see that the new
system is directly at war with the inspiration
of the Scriptures.
But that the apostle entertained no such
opinion as our author attributes to him, in regard
to the speedy coming of Christ to judge the
world, is still further proved from his second
letter to these same Thessalonians.
"Now we beseech you, brethren, by the com



THE RESURRECTION.             139
ing of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, that ye be not soon
shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit,
nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that
the day of the Lord is at hand. Let no man dece'ive you by any means: for that day shall not
come, except there come a falling away first,
and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; who opposeth and exalteth himself above
all that is called God, or that is worshiped; so
that he, as God, sitteth in the temple of God,
showing himself that he is God. Remember
ye not, that when I was yet with you, I told
you these things?" This prophecy of the apostle, relative to the "man of sin," applies in every
particular to the popes of Rome. Both by word
and -deed they answer this description to the
very letter, as could be abundantly shown if this
were the place to do it.*
* " Dominus Deus noster papa. Alter Deus in terra.
Rex regum, dominus dominorum. Idem est Dominium
Dei et papa. Credere Dominum Deum nostrum papam
non potuisse statuerese, prout statuit, hereticum conse.
reter. Papee potestas est major omni potestate, creata
extenditque se ad ccelestia, terrestria, et infernalia.
Papa facit quicquid, libet etiam illicita et est plus quam
Deus."-" Our Lord God the pope. Another God upon
earth. King of kings and Lord of lords. The same is
the dominion of God and the pope, To believe that our




140         THE RESURlRECTION.
But what am I doing? Has it come to this,
that we are obliged to defend the inspiration of
the Scriptures, sentence by sentence, against the
assaults of a Christian, and a Christian minister?
There is a sense in which the writers of the
New Testament speak of the dispensation in
which they lived as the " last time," and the end of
all things being at hand; but not by any means
such a sense as our author supposes, as has just
been shown. When life and immortality were
fully brought to light by the gospel, the last
grand dispensation was fully ushered in; a dispensation never to be changed, or superseded
while man remains upon earth,-never to " wax
old" and " vanish away," as preceding dispensations had done.  For although the great
essentials of salvation have been the same in all
ages of the world, yet their mode of manifestation has been different in different dispensations.
But now the system has been completely unfolded. The great atoning sacrifice has been
Lord God the pope might not decree as he decreed it,
were a matter of heresy. The power of the pope is
greater than all created power, and extends itself to
things celestial, terrestrial, and infernal. The pope doeth
whatsoever he listeth, and is more than God."-Jewel's
Apology and Defense,in Dowham's Tre atise concerning
Antichrist.




THE RESURRECTION.          141
made. "Eternal redemption" has been purchased. Jesus Christ has been "proclaimed
the Son of God with power," and " the Saviour
of the world," "by the resurrection from the
dead." The veil which concealed from mortal
view the holy of holies has been rent. " The
mercy seat" has become immediately accessible
through " the new and living way."  We now
" have a High Priest over the house of God,"'" who ever liveth to make intercession for us."
The same divine light, which at one period was as
" the dawning of the morning," and at another,
"fair as the moon," has now become " clear as
the sun." The same " Sun of righteousness,"
which in former dispensations shone only by
reflection, has now risen in full view, and
spreads his cheering beams over the face of
creation. And he shall continue to rise, but
not to set: for when he shall have attained his
zenith altitude, all who have received and
improved his heavenly influence shall be
sweetly drawn by his attraction up to his own
embrace.
Considering, therefore, this last and permanent dispensation of grace, with reference to
dispensations which preceded it, which were
only temporary in their character, and whose
only object was to prepare the world for the




142        THE RESURRECTION.
reception of this-we see the propriety of denominating the present, the last dispensation, or' "the last time."
There is also a sense in which the inspired
writers speak of " the end of all things being at
hand." But not at all in the sense our author
supposes. When the whole of human existence
is taken into the account, the longest period
that can intervene between the present and the
day of judgment dwindles to " an inch of time,
a moment's space." A thousand, or even ten
thousand years is but a point, compared with
that flow of interminable duration which spreads
itself out beyond it. And especially when it is
considered, that the brief period allotted to human life is all the space we have, in which to
prepare for the day of judgment, and for the
scenes of eternal retribution; the period of
death, so far as any preparation is concerned,
brings us into immediate connection with the
judgment day. In this sense, the apostles speak
of the "day of the Lord," "the end of all
things," as at hand, without ever supposing that
it would come in the age in which they lived.
And we ourselves do the same. Aside therefore from the shocking consequences involved
in charging ignorance and erroneous views
upon the inspired apostles,, there is not the




TIHE RESURRECTION.         143
shad,  of evidence that they entertained the
erron.: as opinions attributed to them.
We next proceed to examine a passage of
Script re which is relied upon to support the
new e,,ctrine of the resurrection, and which is
the oi ly one that with even any plausibility
can be made "to yield" such a " sense " as the
theory contends for. Matt. xxii, 23-32: "The
same cay came unto him the Sadducees, which
say th,.re is no resurrection; and asked him,
saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die having no children, his brother shall marry his wife,
and raise up seed unto his brother. Now there
were with us seven brethren. And the first,
when he had married a wife, deceased; and,
having no issue, left his wife unto his brother.
Likewise the second, and third, unto the seventh.
And last'of all the woman died also. Therefore, in the resurrection, whose wife shall she
be of the seven, for they all had her? Jesus
answered, and said unto them, Ye do err, not
knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God.
For in the resurrection, they neither marry, nor
are given in marriage, but are as the angels of
God in heaven. But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which
was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the
God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and




1 44       THE RESURRECTION.
the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the
dead, but of the living." This argument put to
silence the Sadducees, (ver. 34.)
The argument which the new theory would
draw from this passage is the following: viz.
That our Saviour proves the resurrection of
the dead, by proving that Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob, were then living. But their bodies had
never risen from the dead; and consequently
the resurrection of the dead does not imply
the participation of the body.
Now we are not disposed to admit that we
encounter any "great dificulty here in view of
our previous position," nor that we are reduced to any "new dilemma," nor that there is
any " apparent conflict between this and other
parts of revelation." But we shall now attempt
to show that this passage is capable of an
explanation, in perfect harmony with the uniform teachings of the Scriptures on the subject
of the resurrection.
The objection of the Sadducees to the resur
rection of the body rested on two grounds.
1. They denied that there was any future state
whatever. " For the Sadducees say that there
is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but
the Pharisees confess both." Acts xxiii, 8.
Denying that men have any souls after death,




THE RESURRECTION.         145
of course they would deny the resurrection of
the body. 2. They supposed the doctrine was
irrational, and absurd, in itself, as is manifest
from the case they had supposed, and their
reasoning from it. Our Saviour first clears
away the difficulties which they had thrown
around the subject-he answers their " philosophical objections," and then attacks their main
position. And it may be well enough to notice
in this case one or two remarkable coincidences,
in the views of the Sadducees, and those of Professor Bush, on this subject. 1. They, like him,
denied the "resurrection of the body in any
sense whatever," because it encountered insuperable difficulties. 2. They could not tell
inasmuch as one woman had had several husbands during lifetime, which husband she would
have in the resurrection.  He cannot tell,
inasmuch as the soul has had several bodies
during lifetime, "which body is meant when it
is said, The dead shall rise again." Our Saviour
confounds them by showing that they were both
ignorant of the Scriptures and the power of God.
1. They were ignorant of the power of God;
for God, who is almighty, could not only raise
the dead, but could so change the gross matter
of which the dead body was composed, that in a
future state it would have none of those animal
10




146        THE RESURRECTION.
passions, and lusts, which had attached to it in
the present life-that in this respect those who
should be raised from the dead, would be like
the angels, and consequently, that there would
be no marrying or giving in mmarriage in a
fiuture state.
2. Having cleared away the rubbish which
their " rational deductions" had thrown around
the subject, he next proceeds to attack their
main position, which was a denial of the immortality of the soul. If the very foundation
of their theory could be removed, it might be
presumed their theory would fall, unless, like
our author's it could stand without any foundation.
Their doctrine must be overthrown by the
Scriptures. But they had discarded all the
Scriptures, except the five books of Moses.
They had taken a position positively contradicted by a large portion of the Scriptures, and
being too consistent to acknowledge the inspiration of certain scriptures, and yet contradict
the very writers themselves, they had rejected
all but the Pentateuch. In'this respect we must
confess the parallel fails between them and our
author. Our Saviour proceeds therefore to prove
the immortality of the soul from the Pentateuch
itself; and quotes Exodus iii, 6: "I am the




THE RESURRECTION.          147
God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and
the God of Jacob." And his comment upon the
passage is, that " God is not the God of the
dead, but of the living." Thus showing that
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, were all living
when this declaration was made to Moses, although their bodies were all dead, and some of
them had been dead for centuries. Their souls,
therefore, lived after their bodies were dead.
Thus the Sadducees were confounded out of
their own acknowledged Scriptures, and the
foundation of their objection removed. There
never was an argument more logically constructed, and more strictly conforming to the established rules of argumentation, than this argument
with the Sadducees.
The subject of the first resurrection, as treated of in Rev. xx, 4-6, is confessedly of great
obscurity, and one upon which, perhaps, no man
is prepared to pronounce with certainty. But
whatever may be the meaning of that difficult
passage, one thing is evident, it relates only to
martyrs who have suffered violent deaths from
persecution. For the passage commences thus:'<And I saw thrones, and they that sat upon
them, and judgment was given unto them: and
I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for
the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God,




148        THE RESURRECTION.
and which had not worshiped the beast, neither
his image, neither had received his mark upon
their foreheads, or in their hands: and they
lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
But the rest of the dead lived not again till the
thousand years were finished. This is the first
resurrection."
Whether it is meant that those, or some of
those who had been put to death, when dark
clouds seemed to lower over the future prospects of the Christian church, should be raised
from the dead, and witness the blessed influence
of a general prevalence of those great principles for which they suffered, when " the wolf
shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard
lie down with the kid, and the young lion
with the calf and the fatling:" when the
sucking child shall play upon the hole of the asp,
and the weaned child shall put his hand on the
cockatrice' den: when they shall not hurt nor
destroy in all God's holy mountain, bedause the
earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord;
or whether it has some other meaning, perhaps
will never be known till the event shall be fulfilled. But whatever be the meaning of the
passage, it certainly does not oppose the doctrine,
that there shall be a general resurrrection of
the dead, all the dead at Christ's second coming




THE RESURRECTION.           149
at the day of judgment, for this doctrine is very
distinctly taught, as we have already seen, in
the subsequent part of this same chapter.
It is therefore most certainly evident from the
Scriptures, that there will be a general resurrection of the BODIES of all mankind that are
dead, when Christ shall come to judge the world.
Blessed be God for such evidence as the Scriptures contain in support of such a truth. This
doctrine, considering its relations and its dependencies, is the most important article of our faith.
All that is vital in the Christian system centres
in it. To receive it in the love of it, with its
relations and dependencies, is to receive Christ.
To deny it, is to deny the Lord that bought us.
It was on this account, that the apostles sum up
the whole Christian doctrine by calling it "Jesus
and the resurrection."
An additional argument in favor of this doctrine may be drawn from the fact, that a denial
of it involves the shocking consequences already
developed in the course of these remarks.
I do not deem it necessary to enter into a
separate argument to overturn the author's
theory relative to the day of judgment. His
denial of any general judgment is consequent
upon the denial of any general resurrection.
And if this last error has been fairly overthrown,




150         THE RESURRECTION.
the other falls with it. And if other arguments
in support of a general judgment were necessary,
they have been furnished over and over again
by those who have so ably defended the doctrine
of Scripture on this subject against the assaults
of Universalism; for Professor Bush and they
are at perfect agreement in their arguments
and criticisms on this point.
I cannot close these remarks without entering
my earnest protest against this new doctrine,
from beginning to end. I regard both the
theory and the manner of defending it as heretical and dangerous. Should the doctrine of
the new theory become prevalent, I should regard it as the greatest calamity that ever befell
the Christian church. It is a theory that sets
up enfeebled human reason as superior to the
word of God. It is a theory whose mode of
interpreting the Scriptures is directly calculated to destroy all confidence in them.
It charges the apostles with ignorance in relation to the very things which they declare
themselves that they were divinely inspired to
teach. It boldly and flatly contradicts in terms
what the apostles positively affirm.
It is a system which, while it professes to
revere the Christian Scriptures, gives up the
whole ground to infidelity; a system  whose




THE RESURRECTION.         151
very motto in regard to the manner of receiving
the doctrines of the Bible would be subscribed
to by every infidel in the land.
I protest against the new theory as lowering the standard of Christian morals, by advocating the Jesuitical doctrine, that fraud and
deception may be practiced when a laudable
object is to be attained.
I protest against it, as making the hearts of
God's people sad, whom he hath not made sad,
by stripping from them "the hope of the resurrection from the dead;" and as "strengthening the hands of the wicked, that he should
not turn from his wicked way, by promising
him" that there is no day of judgment.
I utterly protest against the new theory, as
ruinous to the doctrine of the atonement, by
making the Saviour of the world just what his
enemies declared he was-a deceiver.
I solemnly protest against this modern heresy, as shockingly blasphemous, in charging the
eternal God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and
the holy angels, with conspiring together to
deceive mankind in the most important event
that ever occurred upon earth; which deception required " optical illusions "to be practiced,
and positive falsehoods to be uttered: thus
making the world believe, that a most stupen




152        THE RESURRECTION.
dous miracle had been performed, in raising our
Saviour's body on the third day, when nothing
of the kind had taken place; that which
caused the "appearance" of it having been
merely a juggling trick!
Such is the new system, and such the arguments by which it is sustained. Such are the
materials of the bulwark which has been erected, from which to batter down the strong walls
surrounding the doctrine of the resurrection of
the dead.
But the breath of inspiration sweeps them
away as the withering faded leaves of autumn
are driven before the tempest. We are now
prepared to answer a question asked with much
assurance, on p. 247 of the book which has nor
been reviewed. " What then," says the author,
"becomes of the Scriptural evidence of the resurrection of the body? Does it not evaporate
in the crucible of logical and philological induction?" No, blessed be God, it comes forth,
like gold tried in the fire; the brighter and
purer for the fiery ordeal. But I hope our
author does not think that logic has entered,
even in the smallest quantities, into the composition of his " crucible."  A " crucible" made
up of doubtful hypotheses, apostolic mistakes
pious frauds and palpable falsehoods, and heat




THE RESURRECTION.         153
ed only by the phantastic glare of an "optical
illusion."
If there is one logical argument in the book
bearing upon the subject of the resurrection, I
am greatly mistaken.
I trust that it has now been shown satisfactorily,
1. That the doctrine of a literal resurrection
of the human body is not contrary to reason,
although a doctrine which mere unaided reason could never have discovered.
2. That the arguments by which the Scripture doctrine is attempted to be proved unreasonable and absurd, have themselves been proved
to possess the very characteristics which they
fain would fix upon the Scripture doctrine.
3. That the doctrine of a literal resurrec.
tion of the body is as positively and unequivocally taught in the Scriptures as any proposition
can be expressed in language: so that if we can
certainly know anything from the Scriptures,
we can certainly know this to be a Scriptural
doctrine.
4. That there will be a general resurrection
of the bodies of all the dead, at Christ's second
coming to judge the world; when the bodies of
the living shall be changed from mortal to immortality, and become like the resurrection body.




1534        THE RESURRECTION.
5. That the bodies of mankind after the resurrection, although composed of the same matter
as was laid in the grave, will be very different
in their circumstances and properties from what
they have been during lifetime.
6.;That the good and the bad will come forth
under very different circumstances, in accordance with the characters they have formed
during the present life.
But in regard to the nature and properties of
the resurrection body we are but partially informed in the word of God. The body that
shall come forth is called a spiritual body, because not subject to mortality, or corruption, or
change, or waste, as in the present life when
it was'a natural body. Some suppose a spiritual body cannot be material, in the very nature
of the case. But why not? To become spiritual is not to become a spirit; but to become like
a spirit in some particulars. Our Saviour's
body after his resurrection was a spiritual body;
and yet he positively declares it was not a spirit.
There is nothing inconsistent in the nature of the
case, in a material body becoming refined, permanently immortal, having no more need than
a pure spirit to repair its wastes by constant supplies of food, as in the present life; or to rest and
sleep in order to restore its enfeebled energies.




THE RESURRECTION.          155
It is said of the pious, that their bodies shall
be like unto Christ's glorious body. Christ's
glorious body was once manifested to three of
his disciples on Mount Tabor, where the
"fashion of his countenance was changed," and
"his face did shine as the sun, and his garments
were white as the light." One of these same
disciples, St. John, saw him again after his ascension, and describes his appearance as exceedingly glorious: "His garments were white as
snow, and the hairs of his head like pure wool.
His eyes were as a flame of fire, and his feet
like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his countenance was as the sun shining in his strength." 0 what a contrast with
the body that hung bleeding upon the cross!
And O, is it possible that our poor perishable,
dying bodies, shall be fashioned like unto
Christ's glorious body? The mouth of the
Lord hath spoken it. "s What manner of love
the Father hath bestowed upon us!" From
"those eyes which have poured forth tears of
repentance, shall all tears be wiped, and they
shall be blessed with the visions of the Almighty. Those hands which have been lifted up in
prayer, and stretched out to the poor, shall hold
the palms of victory, and the harp of joy. Those
feet which have been wearied in going about to




156        THE RESURRECTION.
do good, shall walk the streets of the Ne,
Jerusalem." Because "we look for the Saviour.
the Lord Jesus Christ from heaven, who shall
change our vile bodies, that they may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to
the working whereby he is able to subdue all
things unto himself." But it does not yet fully
appear what we shall be, "but we.know that
when he shall appear, we shall be like him, for
we shall see him as he is." It is enough for us
to know that God will change our frail bodies
into the likeness of Christ's body, and make
them such bodies as shall please him.
Respecting the bodies of the wicked, we have
still less information. We know that they shall
be raised, but how their bodies shall differ from
those of the righteous we are not informed.
They awake to shame and everlasting contempt.
But what effect the'r condition will have upon
their bodies, or their bodies upon their zondition, perhaps no one can tell. Some suppose
that the wicked will rise, subject to all the diseases, pains, &c., which have afflicted their bodies
during the present state. But I think this view
is not authorized in the Scriptures.  Their
bodies will be spiritual. Whether the difference
between the bodies of'the righteous and the
wicked shall result entirely from the different




THE RESURRECTION.         157
conditions of their souls, or from something else,
I do not know that we are particularly informed.
If thc resurrection body should be so constituted as to be a perfect index of the soul, this
circumstance itself, without supposing any other
difference in the nature of the bodies, would
cause them to differ as much as light from darkness, or heaven from hell. That there is a
tendenby to this in a greater or less degree,
even in the present life, all will allow. Long
and established habits of genuine piety-of
godly sincerity —of holy love —never fail, in a
greater or less degree, to give the countenance
a benign, serene, peaceful, and heavenly aspect.
On the other hand, long established habits of
gross wickedness produce their corresponding
appearance. If this tendency should be carried
to perfection in a future state, the contrast between the bodies of the good and bad would be
of the most marked character. What could be
more lovely than a body made the temple of the
HIoly Ghost, and filledwithall the fullness of God,
faithfully reflecting God's moral image in every
motion, in every look, in every lineament of the
countenance, in every expression of the eye,all that is lovely in human character,-all that
is blessed in religion, —all that assimilates to the




158        THE RESURRECTION.
divine likeness,-all that endears Christians to
each other, beaming in the eye,-radiating from
the countenance, and visible in every part of
the body! And on the other hand, what would
be more truly a resurrection to shame and everlasting contempt, than to be raised with a body
that would faithfully expose every foul passion,
every abominable propensity of the human
heart unsqnctified! when pride, hatred, jealousy, revenge, malignity, covetousness, hatred
of God, ill will to men, with every other vice
that can disgrace and blacken the human character, wrangling like so many infernal demons
in the bosom, should stand out in hideous and
frightful deformity, without the least possibility
of concealment, upon every part of the body.
But conjecture does not prove anything. Nor
is it so important to us to know the precise
manner of' our future connection of soul and
body, or the precise difference between the
resurrection bodies of the good and the bad, as
to be prepared to enjoy the one and escape the
other. It is more important to know how to
get sin out of our hearts, than to know how sin
got into this world. It is more important to
know how to escape the second death, thankto&
know precisely the manner of future punishment. It is more important to know how to be




THE RESURRECTION.         159
prepared for heaven, than to know -precisely
in what all its enjoyments consist.
Let even the uncertainty that hangs over the
manner of our future connection of soul and
body stimulate us to seek such a conformity to
the will of God-such an intimate union to him
who is head over all things to the church, that
when the resurrection morn shall dawn, when
the trump of God shall sound, to bid the slumbering dead awake and come to judgment, we
may be prepared to rise in the company of
those "who are Christ's at his coming," and
with joy ascend to meet the Lord in the air, and
so be ever with the Lord. Amen.
THE END.