on this point Professor Bush declares that the whole controversy turns,) Mercier himself, the very Coryphaeus of the interpreters of Job, is compelled to admit it substantially. Mr. Barnes also frankly admits that no violence is done to the usus loquendi by the common rendering.

III. The Professor next quotes and comments on Psalm xvi. 9, 10.

"Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory rejoiceth: my flesh also shall rest in hope. For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thy Holy One to see corruption."

And on this text he remarks: "The fact of a resurrection is undoubtedly taught in these words, and yet from the inspired comment of Peter, Acts ii. 29-31, it is clear that it is a resurrection predicated of the body of Christ, and not of the bodies of men in general;" (p. 104,) a remark which sounds rather singular when viewed in connexion with some others of the Professor on the same subject: as e. g. "It is no where explicitly affirmed-that the identical material body of Christ arose," p. 152. Most persons would think this a contradiction; especially as the Psalmist and Peter both speak directly of the FLESII of the Saviour, (, and ag); which can refer to nothing but to his" identical material body."

IV. The next passage to which he refers, is Psalm xvii. 15. "As for me, I will behold thy face in righteousness; I shall be satisfied when I awake with thy likeness."

The Professor enters into a lengthened criticism of this passage, into which we shall not follow him; for he admits what renders such a course unnecessary. He supposes that Paul, in 1 Corinthians xv. 49, may have "a latent allusion to the passage," and consequently, that it may teach the doctrine of the resurrection; though he denies that it teaches the resurrection of the body. He also quotes the version of the Jewish commentator, Sol. Jarchi, ("I shall be satisfied when the dead shall awake from their sleep,") and observes, "This preserves the general sentiment of the text, but leaves it doubtful at what period this awaking of the dead' is to take place." p. 107. And he himself proposes to translate the passage and explain it as follows: "guided by them, (the accents,) we would translate, I shall be satisfied, in the awaking, with thy likeness,' understanding it of the beatific vision to be enjoyed at the illustrious period of the

' awaking' so often spoken of in the prophets as identical with the great consummation, when the righteous dead are to be gloriously manifested as risen from the dead;" denying at the same time, however, that this is to be understood "in a sense to include a resurrection of their bodies." These admissions that the "resurrection" is taught thus clearly in the Old Testament Scriptures, are gratifying. What the term signifies in its biblical acceptation, will be considered hereafter. Professor Bush, himself, will admit, (as he thus concedes that these passages do teach the doctrine of the resurrection,) that if the Scriptures make known the resurrection of the body, clearly and unequivocally, that doctrine must likewise be announced in Psalm xvii. 15.

He next quotes Psalm xlix. 14, 15, which, as I do not believe that it refers to the resurrection, I shall dismiss without remark.

V. His next quotation is from Isaiah xxv. 7, 8.

"And he will destroy in this mountain the face of the covering cast over all people, and the veil that is spread over all nations. He will swallow up death in victory; and the LORD God will wipe away tears from off all faces; and the rebuke of his people shall be taken away from off all the earth: for the LORD hath spoken it."

This passage has caused the Professor much difficulty; his exposition of it is laboured, and has every appearance of being altogether unsatisfactory to himself. The following is the analysis of it. He says that the period spoken of, is plainly that particular era under Messiah's reign when the mystical Babylon shall be destroyed; "at which time the Lord God will abolish death for ever, and all sorrow.' Death, he explains to be "another term for all manner of grievous pestilences, &c.-every thing which causes grief, mourning, and tribulation."-Such death as is spoken of Psalm xliv. 22; and as he thinks is referred to in Rev. xxi. 4, "There shall be no more death; i. e. (says the Professor,) no more premature death by disease, pestilence, casualty, the sword of war, broken hearts, or any form of wasting judgments. This is the kind of death that shall be swallowed up in victory, or, as the term is otherwise rendered, 'for ever,' at the time to which the oracle points forward." pp. 111, 112. He denies also that this time "is the end of the world;" and endeavours to explain Paul's words in 1 Corinthians xv.. 54, so that they may not appear to contradict his construction of the text.

We utterly dissent from this view of the text. Professor Bush has failed to support his exposition of the word "death"

, and has left the subject of the period referred to utterly undefined. But we shall remark upon each of these particulars for the latter is one of much interest to the general subject under discussion.

ever.

As to the import of the word translated death, in verse 8, while Professor Bush would not change the translation of it, he would explain it so as to make it mean not death in the natural acceptation of the word, but suffering, misery, &c., &c. But for such an exposition he gives us no reason whatBut the objections to this view are, 1. It is wholly unsupported by reason or authority. Suffering and misery, and all the procuring causes of death itself, may be properly considered as included in death: and the abolishing of death, may, and doubtless must include, the abolishing of all its procuring causes; so far as they are concerned, from whom it is abolished. But for what reason, or on what principle can it be imagined that " every thing which causes grief, mourning, and tribulation," i. e., sin and all its evils-all that really procures death, are here said by the prophet to be abolished, and death itself to remain? Revelation xxi. 4, which Professor Bush brings in to illustrate and confirm his view, is directly against it; for this passage speaks of death proper. And at least until Professor Bush had explained it, so as to show that bavaros is not here used in its ordinary sense, it was premature for him to refer to it as illustrating and corroborating his view of n in Isaiah xxv. 7. Then again, 2. His view is directly contrary to the teaching of Paul in 1 Corinthians xv. 54: "So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, (ivdúontai àpbagoíav), and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying which is written, (τότε γενησεται ὁ λόγος

guros,) death is swallowed up in victory." In this passage, Paul unequivocally applies the phrase under discussion to the great era of the resurrection of the dead. But to this, Professor Bush replies, that "such cannot be the meaning of Paul, provided it be not the meaning of Isaiah." p. 112. This is truly a singular canon of criticism; and is a method of expounding the clear and unambiguous declaration of an apostle, without a precedent, even in the Anastasis itself. It needs no response other than to say that the Professor has not correctly expounded the passage of Isaiah, if

his exposition is contrary to that of Paul: a declaration that requires no proof to sustain it.

Horsley in his commentary on Hosea xiii. 14, refers to the text under discussion, and exhibits the futility of such a criticism as that of Professor Bush in the following forcible remarks: "The prophecy which the Apostle cites (in 1 Corinthians xv. 54,) as one which would receive its completion in the general resurrection at the last day, is a saying 'that is written,' which shall then be brought to pass; this prophecy is written in Isaiah xxv. 8, and no where else. And this prophecy which he cites, he cites with precision. And it may be useful to observe, that he cites it not according to the version of the LXX. He translates the Hebrew text verbatim, in contradiction to the version of the LXX.; for the version of the LXX., in this place, is so wretchedly and abominably erroneous, that the sense it gives is exactly the reverse of the Hebrew text."* Here, then, Paul quotes and literally translates a passage from Isaiah, and unambiguously expounds it by showing when and how it will be fulfilled; and Professor Bush rejects the exposition of the apostle, and justifies himself in so doing, by the remark that "such cannot be the meaning of Paul, provided it be not the meaning of Isaiah :" and then attempts to show that the meaning which Paul has given it, is not the meaning of Isaiah. The mere statement of such a procedure is abundantly sufficient to expose it to reprobation. It would be difficult to find among orthodox expositors, a parallel case in the whole annals of Scripture criticism.

But

But let us advert to his attempt to prove that Isaiah does not mean what Paul understood him to mean. "To this we reply, that such cannot be the meaning of Paul, provided it be not the meaning of Isaiah. The Spirit that presided over both cannot utter oracles at variance with themselves. nothing can be more obvious, from the whole drift of the prophet's strain, than that he is not speaking of the end of the world. He is merely setting before us one of the links in the great chain of events which are to distinguish the latter days of Zion's welfare. How then is the Apostle's

* The Hebrew is nyah on yha. The LXX. (according to Reineccius) translate it κατέπιεν ὁ θάνατος ἰσχύσας; and Paul renders it κατεπόθη ὁ Bávaros sis vinos. Lowth renders it, "He shall utterly destroy death for ever"; and Barnes gives it substantially the same translation, "He will abolish death for ever."

quotation to be understood? An alternative of constructions is presented. He either cites the language of Isaiah as containing an announcement, the words-the letter-of which are strikingly applicable to the state of things which he is describing, without assuming that they were originally intended to refer to it; or, acting the part of an inspired expositor of Isaiah, he applies his language to the period of time which the Holy Ghost had in view in inditing it through the prophet; and this brings us irresistibly to the conclusion, that the epoch of the resurrection described by Paul is not to be placed at the end of the world, which Isaiah's abolition of death certainly is not." pp. 112, 113. Such is the proof that Paul cannot mean in 1 Corinthians xv. 54, to refer "to the grand era of the resurrection of the dead."

I

"the

pass for the present what is here said concerning end of the world," in order to canvass this "alternative of constructions." 1. Paul either cited the mere words or letter as applicable to what he is speaking of, without assuming that they were originally intended to apply as he applies them. This is "alternative" first. Now place along side of it the passage above quoted, from 1 Corinthians xv. "THEN SHALL BE BROUGHT TO PASS THE SAYING WHICH

WAS WRITTEN.' (See the Greek on a preceding page,) "written" in Isaiah xxv. 8. At the time referred to by Paul, "the saying" (not the letter or words merely, as susceptible of an accommodation to that event, but "the saying which was written,") is to receive its fulfilment. And the principle which would explain this away as a mere accommodation of the letter, to the thing predicted, would explain away every prophecy, the fulfilment of which is recorded in the New Testament.* Let the reader try it upon any other one found recorded there. Try it on Matt. i. 23, or ii. 6, or iii. 3, or viii. 17, or xiii. 14, 15, 35, or xxi. 5, or xxvii. 9, 10, or Luke iv. 18, 19, or John xii. 38, 40, or xix. 24, 36, or any other, and there is not one but may be explained away on this principle.

In his Preface, p. vi., Professor Bush says, "I have profoundly weighed all the considerations which naturally urge themselves upon one who ventures to such a length of rational and exegetical hardi. hood as he (the reader) will probably find evinced in the work before him." The above-mentioned instance is, I presume, one of the speci. mens of this "length of rational and exegetical hardihood" to which the Professor refers. He certainly has characterized it appropriately.