was abandoned by the author, lest he should incur the censure of the old proverb—μέγα βιβλίον μέγα κακόν. There are many points which, for the same reason, we have been compelled to omit, but which have no little weight in this discussion: e. g., the very ancient custom of embalming the body, plainly owes its origin to the expectation of reviviscence, according to the statement of Democritus, as mentioned by Pliny and Varro. So also, the very design of burial under the circumstances referred to by Prudentius, in a passage which we have placed on our title page,* furnishes of itself a complete off-set to the so-called "argument from reason" against the resurrection of the body. So also, the fact that man was created immortal, is a consideration of great weight to prove the same doctrine. We had intended also in a distinct chapter to consider the resurrection of the wicked, (a point denied by Professor Bush,) and the reason why our Saviour speaks of the righteous as emphatically the "children of the resurrection." But though we have not (for the reason above stated) treated these and several other subjects in the form of distinct topics, we hope that all has been said in relation to them that the discussion itself required. And, finally, as the writer has, in no way, throughout his book, sought to influence the mind of the reader by an appeal to his passions or prejudices, he has said nothing concerning the violence which the theory of Professor Bush does to all those tender and endearing associations which cluster around the grave of a father or mother, a sister, or child, &c., and to those hallowed feelings which awaken within the breast as we gaze upon the resting-place of departed piety, genius, worth, or patriotism. These emotions can be neither superstitious nor wrong; (witness the weeping Jesus at the tomb of his friend!) and the man is not to be envied who has, by any means whatever, succeeded in quenching them within his breast. *Why do they wish for the hollowed-out rocks? UNIV CALIFORNIA THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. PART I. CONTAINING A STATEMENT OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION, AND OF PROFESSOR BUSH'S THEORY; TOGETHER WITH A CONSIDERATION OF HIS ARGUMENT FROM REASON. CHAPTER I. THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY STATED. THE work of Professor Bush on the Resurrection would have exhibited an appearance of greater candour, if he had, at the outset, presented from some acknowledged symbol, a fair and full statement of the doctrine which he has attempted to refute. Instead of this frank and scholar-like course, he contents himself with some vague references to "the common theory," and ventures to insinuate repeatedly through his work, that the views entertained on this subject by the Christian church are inconsistent and indeterminate.* That such is their character, he is welcome to prove, if he is able. But alongside of such intimations, it would, doubtless, have been the more candid course to state the doctrine clearly and plainly in the acknowledged terms of those who entertain it. He might then have also spared himself much of the labour which he has put forth in demolishing mere men of straw; *See pp. 36-39, 45, 48, 54, 55, and 187, &c. and in discussing how bodies that were never in graves could come out of them, (see pp. 49, 50,) with a multitude of other, and not less irrelevant matters. There is no doctrine respecting which the views of the church of God have, in every age, been more perfectly harmonious than the doctrine of the resurrection of the body. She has ever regarded it as a doctrine of pure revelation, and as fundamental to the Christian system. And the πιστεύω εἰς σαρκὸς ἀναστάσιν of the first symbol, has expressed unambiguously the faith of the whole Christian church ever since the hour in which it was penned. Professor Bush had doubtless reasons which were satisfactory to his own mind for the course which he has pursued. But, that we may not be like those who "beat the air," it will be proper to present here a view of the doctrine under discussion. The reader will then at once be enabled to judge of the force of the arguments which, in this discussion, are alleged both for and against it: as well as of the relevancy of many things which Professor Bush has offered with the intention of refuting it. Our citations will be somewhat extended; but not more so, perhaps, than is necessary to show with what little reason the doctrine has been impugned on the score that the views of those who profess to entertain it are vague and indefinite. We shall not here go back to the Jewish or primitive Christian church, for a delineation of the doctrine; as we shall have occasion hereafter to refer to their views. But we shall present a definition of it as entertained by the Protestant church at large; and in contrast thereto, shall, in the following chapter, present the theory of Professor Bush. The Professor has connected with his theory, and has consequently discussed, many doctrines which need not be fully discussed in this connexion. And though we shall refer to these in the sequel, the single point which we have now before us, and from which we must not suffer our attention to be diverted, is the Resurrection of the Body. SECTION I. The testimony of the Lutheran Church. The first great division of the Protestant church, whose testimony we shall summon, is the Lutheran church. In her Augsburg symbol, Art. XVII., she thus speaks: "Our churches teach, that at the end of the world Christ will appear for judgment, and will raise all the dead; and that he will bestow eternal life and perpetual happiness upon his pious elect; and condemn wicked men and devils to unending torment. "Our churches also condemn the Anabaptists, who think that the future punishment of men and devils will have an end. They condemn also those who now circulate the Jewish notion, that the pious are to possess the kingdom of the world, and the wicked to be every where put down before the resurrection of the dead."* The Herrnhutters, or Moravians, adopt also the Augsburg Confession, and may therefore be properly classed with the Lutheran church, at least on this subject. See Spangenberg's Exposition, Preface, p. vi., and pp. 461-470. SECTION II. Testimony of the Calvinistic Church. The Heidelberg Catechism is the first symbol to which it is necessary to refer under this discussion. Its language is very explicit: "How doth the resurrection of the body (Fleisches,) afford thee comfort? Ans. Because not only my soul shall, after this life, be immediately taken up to Christ its head; but this my body also, (sondern auch, dass diess mein Fleisch,) being raised by the power of Christ, shall be again united with my soul, and be like the glorious body of Christ." See Quest. 57.† * Item docent, quòd Christus apparebit in consummatione mundi ad judicandum, et mortuos omnes resuscitabit, piis et electis dabit vitam æternam et perpetua gaudia, impios autem homines ac diabolos condemnabit, ut sine fine crucientur. Damnant Anabaptistas, qui sentiunt hominibus damnatis ac diabolis finem poenarum futurum esse. Damnant et alios, qui nunc spargunt Judaicas opiniones, quod ante resurrectionem mortuorum, pii regnum mundi occupaturi sint, ubique oppressis impiis. + Was tröstet dich die Auferstehung des Fleisches? Antw. Dass nicht allein meine Seele nach diesem Leben alsbald zu Christo ihrem Haupt genommen wird, sondern auch, dass diess mein Fleisch durch die Kraft Christi auferwecket, wieder mit meiner Seele vereiniget und dem herrlichen Leib Christi gleìchförmig werden soll. The Latin copy is singularly expressive. Quid te consolatur resurrectio CARNIS? RESP. Quod non tantum anima mea, postquam è corpore excesserit, etc., quod hæc quoque CARO MEA potentia Christi excitata, rursus animæ meæ unietur, et glorioso corpori Christi conformabitur. The Reformed Churches at the National Synod of Dort, (anno 1618 and 1619,) adopted the following language as expressive of their views: "Finally, we believe, according to the word of God, when the time appointed by the Lord (which is unknown to all creatures,) is come, and the number of the elect complete, that our Lord Jesus Christ will come from heaven, corporeally and visibly, to declare himself judge of the quick and the dead; burning this old world with fire and flame to cleanse it. And then all will personally appear before this great Judge, both men, and women, and children, that have been from the beginning of the world to the end thereof, being summoned by the voice of the archangel, and by the sound of the trumpet of God. For all the dead shall be raised out of the earth, and their souls joined and united with their proper bodies, in which they formerly lived. As for those who shall be then living, they shall not die as the others, but be changed in the twinkling of an eye, and from corruptible, become incorruptible," &c. Conf. of Faith, Art. 37. The Westminster symbols speak the same unequivocal language. See Larger Catechism, Questions 87 and 88. See also Conf. of Faith, chapter 32. The Baptist Church adopts the language of the Westminster Confession. The English Church bears a like testimony. And in Article 4th, also, she says, "Christ did truly rise again from death, and took again his body, with flesh, bones, and all things appertaining to the perfection of man's nature, wherewith he ascended into heaven, and there sitteth, until he return to judge all men at the last day." The doctrine of this article is alike entertained by every branch of the Christian church. See Westminster Conf., chap. 8, sect. 4, and Larger Catechism, Quest. 52. Heidelberg Catechism, Quest. 47, 48, 49 and 52. Dordrecht Confession, Art. 19, and Augsburg Conf., Art. 3. SECTION III. Testimony of the Arminian Church. In Article 19, of the Confession, the Remonstrants say, that "The resuscitation of the dead shall take place when Jesus Christ comes to judge all men at his second and glorious advent; at which time, all the dead, the just as well |