loss of corporeal identity, is clear from the uniform declarations of the Bible. "This corruptible," says Paul, “must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality." 1 Cor. xv. 53. Now it is impossible to refer this language to the spirit, for that is confessedly neither corruptible nor mortal. It can refer only to the body. Then in 2 Cor. v. 4, Paul says, " Not that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life." But mortality here can only be predicated of the body, and hence it is to be perfectly endowed with immortal life. The word translated swallowed up (naтativa) means absorbeo aliquid ita ut non sit, the body shall be mortal no longer. Its mortal functions and properties shall cease to exist for ever.

Such, therefore, being the plain scriptural import of the term spiritual body, the theory of Professor Bush is false and preposterous; and his objections to the resurrection of the body, based upon his application of this term, utterly unfounded.

In closing his remarks on onomatology, (pp. 149, 150,) Professor Bush makes a long extract from Locke's letter to Stillingfleet, (a poor, paltry, and inconsistent performance, and altogether unworthy of his clarum et venerabile nomen,) in which that great philosopher undertakes to show, that at the general resurrection man will rise with a material body, but not with precisely the same body that dies. If Mr. Locke's arguments prove this, I really cannot see how it asists the theory of Professor Bush, who utterly denies that there will be any day of general resurrection, and that man's resurrection body is, in any sense of the term, such as Mr. Locke asserts that it will be. In its proper place we shall notice what he has offered on this subject. But as he is the favourite author of Professor Bush, (who quotes from him continually in discussing the New Testament argument, and especially when any difficulty presses a little too hard,) it may be in place to show here the estimate in which he is held as a theologian and critic by some of the most learned and evangelical men of our age. Professor Tholuck (a candid witness) shall be the spokesman. Referring to Mr. Locke, this admirable scholar and critic remarks: "English theology has sustained irreparable injury from the writings of Locke, so highly lauded by Episcopalian divines. We have elsewhere shown his defective views of Chris

tianity. Still, not only in England, but for a long time in Germany, he was regarded as a sound interpreter, and an able apologist of Christianity. His paraphrase of the epistles of Paul, translated by J. D. Michaelis, are not only deficient, as Ernesti has shown, in philology, but they most miserably dilute and weaken the doctrines of the apostle. The chief fault of this reputedly orthodox theologian, is the oversight of the doctrine of human depravity-the Pela-. gian error. From this source spring all his other errors. According to him, every man's reason, without previous regeneration, (which is not included in his system,) must recognize Christian truth; then this Christian truth is diluted and brought down to the standard of unregenerate men. The chief evidence of the truth of Christianity is found in miracles, or in the beautiful moral precepts of the Bible. The doctrine of the atonement has as little place in his system as that of original sin."* This is a just and discriminating character. And while we shall in the course of this work, pay all proper attention to his arguments as quoted by Professor Bush, we shall, without intending any disrespect to his memory, pass over his theological opinions with little or no remark.

SECTION III.

An Examination of Professor Bush's remarks and criticisms on the fifteenth chapter of 1st Corinthians.

The subject of "the Resurrection of Christ," which strangely comes next in order in the work of Professor Bush, we shall pass by for the present, to follow our author in his long array of Scripture texts. He does not seem to

regard them precisely in the light of proof texts, by which to sustain the conclusions of his "argument from reason;" but evinces a disposition to be perfectly satisfied, provided he can only show that their testimony is not altogether subversive of his theory.

I. The first passage of this chapter which the Professor quotes and remarks upon is the following: "Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not

* See "Historical Sketch of German Rationalism."

risen;" 1 Cor. xv. 12, 13. And instead of entering into a discussion of that remarkable phraseology in ver. 12, which strikes so deeply at the very root of his theory, to wit: s λέγουσί τινες ἐν ὑμῖν ὅτι ἀνάστασις νεκρῶν οὐκ ἔστιν; i. e., how say some AMONG YOU-you Christians of the church of Corinth-that there is no resurrection of the dead? (a phrase upon which we shall remark hereafter,) he passes it without the least reference. The following is the whole of his criticism upon the passage: "The special doctrine of the resurrection, as generally held to be taught in this chapter, is that of a simultaneous resurrection at what is termed 'the last day,' or at the end of the world.' On this view it may fairly be submitted as a question, whether the apostle's reasoning is conclusive. We are unable to perceive how the fact of a resurrection at some future time can be adduced as a proof that Christ was already risen. And, on the other hand, if it could be shown that there will be no such resurrection, would that be a proof that Christ is not risen? Is it not, at least, within the range of possibilities that he should be the only one raised? The truth is, as the apostle's argument is usually explained, it makes it little more than reasoning in a circle. First, the future resurrection of the saints is proved by the past resurrection of Christ; and then, secondly, the past resurrection of Christ is proved by the future resurrection of his people. This consequence flows naturally and inevitably from regarding the resurrection of the righ teous as a future simultaneous event. Let it be understood as a present event, or one that takes place with every individual believer as soon as he leaves the body, and this logical inconsistency is avoided, and a flood of light poured upon the train of the apostle's reasoning." pp. 169, 170.

This is all that the Professor has said on the passage; and every reader will no doubt think with me, that it is much to be regretted that our learned author did not illustrate how the adoption of his theory would "avoid this logical inconsistency,"(!) and so "pour the flood of light upon the train of the apostle's reasoning:" for as it seems to me, such a course would be only "darkening counsel by words without knowledge," instead of "pouring light” upon it.

With respect to the simultaneousness of the resurrection, I shall say nothing here, as that subject will come up in its regular order in our examination of Professor Bush's re

marks on verses 51-55 of the chapter. But before he indulged in these hypercritical comments (not to give them a more appropriate name) he should have quoted, or at least referred to the connexion of the passage. The word of God is rather too holy a subject to be employed for the purpose of showing one's wit: and a writer who will first keep out of view the apostle's explanation of his own language; and then, having assumed a false position, attempt to sustain it by a display of witticisms at the expense of inspiration, deserves something more severe than a mere refutation. He should be made to hear the language of stern and indignant rebuke. C

The argument of Paul, as the reader will see by referring to verses 3-11, and 14, 15, (which Professor Bush has omitted to notice,) is simply this: "I have testified to you, ye Christians of Corinth, how that Christ died for our sins, was buried, and rose again according to the Scriptures of the old economy; and that he was seen, after his resurrection, by multitudes of witnesses, (who are still living,) and lastly by myself. So we preach, and so ye believed. Here, then, is the evidence that Christ has arisen ::-the Scriptures affirm that it must be so, and multitudes of living witnesses testify that it has been so. But if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? For if there is no such resurrection, then Christ is not risen; because, as I have already shown to you, (ver. 3,) he died, was buried, and rose again, not for himself, but for us—for our sins, according to the Scriptures. And, therefore, if he has arisen, we must arise; and, on the contrary, if we do not rise again, then is he not risen; and, consequently, our preaching is false, and your faith in the Scriptures is vain; and we, who profess to have seen him after his resurrection, are proved to be false witnesses, because we have testified that God raised up Christ, whom he raised not up: and, consequently, you are yet in your sins, (for if he has not arisen, then he is not our Saviour from sin, ver. 3, 4,) and those who have died trusting in him, have trusted in one who cannot save them, and have, therefore, perished." Such is the apostle's argument, lying upon the very sur face of his language, and plain, one would think, to the comprehension of a child. And yet the mind of Professor

Bush is so filled, and beclouded by his tertium quid theory, that he has utterly failed to perceive it.

He asks: "Is it not, at least, within the range of possibilities that he (Christ) should be the only one raised?" What! when he suffered, and died for us, and rose again for us, and as a pledge of the resurrection of his redeemed, and as the "first fruits of them that slept?" (ver. 20.) Does Professor Bush think it "at least within the range of possibilities," that our adorable Redeemer has failed to accomplish what he undertook? No! no! he does not, he cannot entertain such a thought, until he has surrendered his heart's dearest hopes. The remark was as thoughtless as it is unbecoming; though it lies at the very foundation of the objection upon which he has attempted to invalidate what is plainly the argument of the apostle.

But

The Professor cannot see "how the fact of a resurrection at some future time can be adduced as a proof that Christ was already risen. And, on the other hand, if it could be shown that there will be no such resurrection, would that be a proof that Christ is not risen ?" But can he tell how the resurrection of Christ proves at all the resurrection of the redeemed? and how their resurrection (be it when it may) proves the resurrection of Christ? Paul says, that the establishment of either fact will demonstrate the other: and surely the Professor does not doubt the apostle's declaration. In the foregoing analysis of Paul's argument I have pointed out the connexion referred to. If our author cannot see how the resurrection of Christ proves the resurrection of his people, and vice versa, it is plain to all men that he ought not to have written on the resurrection. if he can, then where is there any greater difficulty in perceiving the connexion between Christ's resurrection and theirs, and vice versa, though theirs is yet future, than to see this connexion on the hypothesis of their resurrection at death? It is perfectly preposterous to pretend that there is any such difficulty. In fact, the only difficulty in the case wholly attaches to the theory of Professor Bush; and on that theory it is indeed insuperable. Christ did not arise from the dead until the third day; hence his people are consoled with the assurance, that though they die, and are consigned to the tomb, yet they, like Christ their great forerunner, shall rise from its dark domains. In this case there is a comfortable and delightful analogy between his resur1