done nor attempted to do. There is no exegesis of the passage, no criticism of the Hebrew, no reference even to Rabbi Menasseh Ben Israel! but the subject is coolly passed over with a reference to 1 Corinthians xv. 55, and a promise hereafter to discuss what Paul there says; followed by a remark upon and a quotation from Horsley "on the general subject of the apostolic quotations from the Old Testament." p. 127. And here ends the chapter. This may have been all that Professor Bush supposed to be necessary; but it is not a rash assertion to say, that from the high-sounding pretensions of his work, it was not all that his readers had a right to expect. And why, in the name of candour and of all consistency, should he dwell so extensively as he has done, on passages which it is cheerfully conceded do not positively and directly affirm the doctrine under discussion, and then pass over, almost without remark, one which has ever been understood as clearly and fully asserting it? Literally the passage reads thus:

"From the hand of Sheol* I will redeem them;

From Death I will deliver them:

I will be thy death (or plagues,) O Death!
I will be thy destroyer, O Sheol!"

The idea in the last two clauses is, that Messiah will visit upon death and Sheol, in retribution, what they had inflicted upon his chosen. The passage is highly poetic, and its import very easily perceived. Death has conquered the body; Sheol, or the invisible world retains the spirit. But Sheol must render up the spirit; Death also must resign the body. When he resigns it, he in turn is for ever conquered; and Sheol is now in turn taken possession of by those who were, so to speak, detained by it as captives. Hence it is also represented as wholly destroyed, for this separate state will then exist no more. See 1 Corinthians xv. 26, 55, and Revelation xx. 13, 14. As to in the last clause of the verse, it seems there to mean properly repentance, as it is translated. The idea is, " I shall never repent of this declaration-I shall not fail to accomplish it fully." In Hosea

* Modern languages (European at least,) furnish no term by which to translate or adus adequately. It refers to the state of the dead without distinction as to condition. The reader will find a very good exposition of it in Campbell's Prelim. Dis. VI. Part II. and some excellent remarks in a note by Howe, in his splendid sermon on Rev. i. 18. See Works, p. 309 seq.

xiii. 14, therefore, we have a full and clear and positive announcement of the doctrine of the resurrection of the body; -the deliverance of the spirit from Sheol, and of the body from the power of death.

X. The last passage adduced from the Old Testament by Professor Bush, is Daniel xii. 2.

"And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake: some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt."

The remarks of our author on this text are first in reference to the proper translation of it; and secondly in reference to the "kind of resurrection here announced." In respect to the first of these he proposes to translate the passage literally as follows: "And many of the sleepers of the dust of the ground shall awake-these to everlasting life, and those to shame and everlasting contempt:" which he paraphrases thus. “' These,' i. e., the awakened, awake to everlasting life; and those,' i. e., the other class, who abide in the dust, who do not awake at all, remain subject to the shame and ignominy of that death, whatever it was, which marked their previous condition." pp. 131, 132. On page 120, he likewise refers to the passage, and gives it a similar explanation. In his "Valley of Vision" pp. 48–52, also, he gives it the same exposition; and remarks, “We should not be surprised if the progress of biblical investigation. should yet establish the most intimate relation between these texts, (Isaiah xxvi. 19, and Daniel xii. 2,) and that intensely mysterious portion of the Apocalypse, (chap. 20,) which announces the spiritual quickening, in the first resurrection, of those saints who lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years, and of 'the rest of the dead who lived not, (cù1⁄2 ïšno av -erroneously rendered 'lived not again,') until the thousand years were finished; or, rather, perhaps as long as the thousand years were finishing,' i. e., during the whole course of the millennium, without any implication that they should live when that period had expired." p. 51.

This criticism of the Professor's is, however, not new. Old Rabbi Saadias Gaon in his commentary, long ago took the same view of it substantially. "This," says he, "is the resurrection of the dead of Israel, whose lot is to eternal life; but those who do not awake, they are the destroyed of the Lord, who go down to the habitation beneath, that is Gehenna, and

-:

shall be an abhorrence to all flesh." The Rabbi, in this last clause, refers to Isaiah lxvi. 24, in which place also (translated contempt in Daniel xii. 2,) occurs, with the slight change of the into a : these being the only places where it is used in the Bible. The same exposition is likewise given by some of the English literal school.

The reasons given by Professor Bush to sustain this translation are, I think, satisfactory.* But his paraphrase of it is not sustained by the translation itself. I have no doubt that the time referred to in Dan. xii. 1, 2, is synchronical with that mentioned in Rev. xx. 1-6; and fully believe that the events there spoken of are the same. The inference of Professor Bush, that the "many" who do not at that time arise, or "the rest of the dead" who then arise not, will never arise, is wholly unsupported by Dan. xii. 2, and directly contradictory to Rev. xx. 7–13.

2. But "what kind of a resurrection is that here announced, and to what time is it to be referred ?" asks Professor Bush in the next place: and we shall proceed to consider his answer to these important queries. He remarks that the context" indicates pretty clearly that the period referred to, can scarcely be that of the end of the world,' as that phrase is usually apprehended, for the sequel obviously announces an extended order of events stretching onwards through a long lapse of centuries to the time, whatever that be, when Daniel himself is to stand in his lot at the end of the days.'" With the exception of his error in referring "days," in this last clause, to this "long lapse of centuries,' and making Daniel thus to stand in his lot at the end of them, instead of at the end of the days referred to, when it is said that Michael shall stand up, and the " many" arise, I entirely accord with this view of Professor Bush. So that, thus far, we are agreed. pp. 135, 136.

The Professor then expresses his conviction, "that this prediction of Daniel (chap. xii. 2) ushers in that new dispensation which was to be opened by the Messiah, at his death and resurrection, and which began more signally to verify itself at the destruction of Jerusalem." p. 135. And hence he recognizes an incipient fulfilment of "this oracle,"

* In his exegesis of the passage he has drawn very freely, as he acknowledges, from the "Princeton Biblical Repertory" for July, 1844, which contains a very able review of his "Valley of Vision."

in the dead raised by Christ during his ministry, "but more especially in that display of resurrection-power which was put forth upon" those mentioned in Matt. xxvii. 50–53. Thus far he supposes that the words "may be construed as having respect to a literal resurrection." But this he re

gards "as, in the main, a mere outward and sensible adumbration of a far more glorious work of moral quickening, which was to be the result of Christ's accomplished redemption in behalf of his people, and in which this prediction was to receive its more complete and signal fulfilment. From age to age this spiritual vivification was to proceed in connexion with the 'judgment of the great day,' the period of the sandhy, the world to come," &c. p. 136. And to illustrate this view he presents some striking passages from the Zohar, Midrash Mishle, Torath Adam, R. Saadias, 4 Esdras ii. 10, &c. We need not here examine these authorities, for they are adduced by Professor Bush only to show that his view of the circumstances connected with the period referred to, was held also by the Jews.

After these references our author explains what he means by the "moral quickening" mentioned in the foregoing extract. He says, "From the teachings of our Lord and his apostles we learn that all men are by nature dead in trespasses and in sins; and that the effect of the gospel, attended by the energetic influence of the Holy Spirit, is to quicken its recipients into a new and divine life, which, as it is a virtual resurrection while they are yet in the body, issues by necessary consequence in that consummated resurrection which accrues to them upon their leaving the body." p. 138. And after referring to some texts in the New Testament, and to the import of ἀνάστασις εκ νεκρῶν, (all of which will be attended to in its proper place, but by which the Professor here designs to show that Daniel xii. 2, must refer to the "moral regeneration" of which he speaks,) he concludes that the passage under consideration does not teach "the resurrection of the body. If the prediction," continues he, "really finds its fulfilment in the resurrection taught in the New Testament, and if it can be shown, as we shall hope shortly to do, that this is a resurrection which is gradually taking place from age to age, and one in which the spiritual body developed at death is intimately related to the spiritual life implanted in regeneration, then we see not how to resist the conclusion that this 'awaking from the dead,' announced by Daniel,

points mainly to a spiritual and not a corporeal resurrection." p. 140. Thus closes his criticism, and his attempt to get rid of the testimony of this plain-speaking text. But let us now review this laboured exposition.

The time referred to by Daniel, says the Professor, begun at the death and resurrection of Christ, and more formally at the destruction of Jerusalem; and is to extend throughout the gospel dispensation: and the resurrection is the spiritual resurrection of believers under the gospel. But 1. If Daniel xii. refer to the same period and events mentioned in Rev. xx. (which our author admits in his " Valley of Vision," no less than in his Anastasis,) how can that period refer to the time of Christ's resurrection, or to that of the destruction of Jerusalem? When the Apocalypse was written these events were surely past,* and that speaks of the period as still future. This would make the thousand years also commence about A. D. 33, or 70; while Professor Bush in his "Millennium of the Apocalypse," p. 101, assigns their commencement to be "somewhere between A. D. 395, and A. D. 450." The Professor's connecting link, therefore, between Daniel xii. and Rev. xx. must either break, or his exposition of the text under consideration must be abandoned. The same argument will prove that Daniel xii. 2, cannot refer to the resurrections recorded in the Gospels.

2. But there is another objection which is utterly subversive of that part of his exposition which makes the "awaking" spoken of in Daniel, to be the moral regeneration of men under the gospel, which Professor Bush regards as a resurrection that is completed when the spiritual body is developed at death. Were not men "dead in sin" before Christ? and were they not spiritually regenerated then? See Genesis vi. 3, Isaiah lxiii. 10, &c., &c. And were not all the pious that then died, raised from the dead at death, "by natural law," according to Professor Bush's theory? The following extract will answer this query.. Speaking in reference to Matthew xxii. 31, 32, he says, "If there is a

* The best chronologers place the date of the writing of the Apocalypse after the destruction of Jerusalem. Baronius places it in A. D. 97. Alsted and Pearson, and Mill, and Fabricius, and Zeibichius, Klemmius, and Reineccius in 96. So also Le Clerc, Dr. Lardner, Basnage, Bishop Tomline, Dr. Woodhouse, &c. And all antiquity attests that John was banished to Patmos by the order of Domitian whose death occurred in September, A. D. 96.