rection and theirs. He arose from the grave, and hence they shall also arise. But on the theory of Professor Bush, where is there any such analogy? He avers, that the resurrection takes place at death, and not after it. "The resurrection body is eliminated at death;" and "is exhaled with the vital principle." But the spiritual body of Christ, as the Professor himself avers, was not thus eliminated. He arose some days after his death; but his people rise at death; " every individual believer is raised as soon as he leaves the body," says Professor Bush. And are these events analogous ? and is such the view which is “to pour a flood of light upon the train of the apostle's reasoning?" If, however, this "flood" is light, it must be such "light" as is emanated from the dark side of the moon; for the rays are all too feeble to enable us to get even a glimpse of the object upon which they are "poured." And he who attempts to illumine the reasoning of Paul by the adoption of such a theory, will have good reason to say with one of old, "We cannot order our speech by reason of darkness." Job xxxvii. 19.

Professor Bush appears to be exceedingly anxious to convict the advocates of the commonly received doctrine of the resurrection, of reasoning in a circle. We have seen how he has fared in a former attempt, and an examination of the effort contained in his remarks on the text before us will also evince that this circle, like Dean Berkley's ideal world, exists no where but in his own mind. He affirms, that if Paul, in this chapter, asserts that the resurrection is still future, his reasoning is "little more than reasoning in a circle;" and that "this consequence flows naturally and inevitably from regarding the resurrection of the righteous as a future simultaneous event;" which "logical inconsistency is avoided," if we suppose that the resurrection "takes place with every individual believer so soon as he leaves the body." These are not only broad, but pretty tangible assertions. They are mere baseless assertions, of a very grave character indeed, but meriting no reply other than a bare denial of their truth. If Professor Bush has hazarded them merely for the sake of effect, he cannot fail to meet the reward of such temerity, in that decision which an enlightened public will sooner or later pronounce upon his performance. But if he had reasons for making them, then of course he is able to exhibit his proof upon which they

are based. I call for it therefore; and I ask him to produce his evidence that will justify the assertion, that the supposition of the resurrection being simultaneous and future, must convict Paul of reasoning in a circle. And I ask him to show, also, how this consequence is avoided by the supposition that believers arise from the dead at death. He has asserted that these things are so; and, in order that there may be a true issue, I deny positively, and unequivocally, that they are so. Let us have the proof therefore.

In closing my observations upon 1 Cor. xv. 12, 13, I would remark that it affords an unanswerable argument in favour of the doctrine of the resurrection of the body. The proof is indeed incidental, but it is not the less conclusive. We quoted above the original of the clause referred to." How say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?” "That is," as a learned critic expounds it, "how say some among you Christians, (who believe the Gospel,) that there is no resurrection of the dead?" Quomodo dicunt quidam in vobis. Id est, inter vos Christianos, qui evangelio credidistis." See also the excellent criticism of Pareus in loco. And Piscator gives the true emphasis of the phrase when he says, that лs, or "how has here the force of rebuking or upbraiding; as if he had said, they ought not, therefore, to deny the resurrection of the dead." Scholia in loco.

Now it is conceivable that a man may, like Professor Bush, deny the resurrection of the body, and yet be a good man; as the apostle in ver. 12 takes for granted that they were who said there was no resurrection of the dead. This, I say, is easily conceivable. But is it conceivable-can Professor Bush himself conceive how a person can be a good man and a Christian, who should deny the future existence of man? Can Professor Bush conceive that Paul would recognize such persons as members of the Christian church? Would Professor Bush himself recognize a man as a Christian, and believer of divine revelation, who should deny the future state of man? No, he would not! for he knows that such a procedure would at once confound Christianity with infidelity. What, then, is the import of “resurrection" here? avάoraois vengv? Does it-can it mean a future state, as Professor Bush pretends? No, not without the most manifest absurdity. And if not, the term várraσis Exgv can only refer to the resurrection of the body; the

deniers, of which held some such theory as Professor Bush, and, therefore, without asserting that they had forfeited their Christian standing, Paul endeavours to recall them to the true faith. And hence it is perfectly clear, also, that the theory of Professor Bush is really and truly a denial of the Bible doctrine of the resurrection of the dead.

II. The next passage is as follows: "For if the dead rise not, then is Christ not raised: 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. 16-18.

/ The Professor opens his battery upon this text as follows: "The gist of the apostle's argument occurs in a subsequent part of the chapter, but we cannot but advert to the present passage as conveying a very singular sentiment on the common theory, that Paul is here maintaining the resurrection of the body. Upon that view we are at a loss to perceive the logical coherence of the reasoning. How does it follow that those who had fallen asleep in Jesus had PERISHED, provided there was no resurrection of the body? Their souls, the true constituent of themselves, were certainly in being, and what should prevent their souls being saved, even if their bodies did not rise?" pp. 170, 171. Professor Bush cannot see this: but, reader, look ye at the apostle's argument, and you will have no difficulty. Paul sets out (as above remarked) with a statement, the truth of which is based upon divine and human testimony, that Christ died, was buried, and rose again for our sakes. And then, in order to convince those of the Corinthian church who denied the resurrection of the body, he reminds them that they professed to believe this fact. He next proceeds to reason from it: e. g. "If Christ has done this for us, and has become the first fruits of them that slept, his resurrection must, therefore, be a pledge of the resurrection of those for whom he died. Hence what was begun in him, must be completed in his members. If he has arisen, then we shall also arise. But, on the contrary, if there is no resurrection of the dead, it follows that Christ has not arisen because if he were the Saviour announced in the Psalms and Prophets, he must arise. If he has not arisen, therefore, he is not that Saviour; and, therefore, you have no Saviour, and are yet in your sins, and, by consequence, those who have died, depending on Christ to save them from

sin, have not been saved from sin, but are gone to hell, and
have perished beyond all hope of recovery." Such is a
somewhat diffuse paraphrase of the argument, evincing it to
be logical and demonstrative, and the connexion, or “logi-
cal coherence," perfectly apparent.
"what should prevent

But Professor Bush cannot see their souls being saved, even if their bodies did not rise." But how saved?—without a Saviour? Paul has just shown that if the dead rise not, then Christ is not the Saviour pro- 6. mised in the Scriptures; and that, therefore, those who trusted in him for salvation could not be saved. The im• f. 11 2012 port of Professor Bush's question, therefore, is this; could not the souls of those who fell asleep in Christ have been saved, even if he were not the Saviour? And if this be his meaning, the Professor must answer the question for himself; for it concerns a quite different matter from that which li we now have before us. abrutite hit

In the foregoing quotation the Professor has made a pass-he ing reference to a phrase in ver. 18, upon which he ought to have bestowed some serious notice. It is this: névtes EvXgio, “those who are fallen asleep in Christ." On p. 173 he speaks also of "the state of those who fall asleep in him," and on p. 190, also, he expresses the same idea— "We shall not all sleep, (i. e., die,) but we shall all," &c.; yet in neither place does he attempt to explain it in consistency with his theory, that the resurrection takes place at death. The necessity for such an attempted conciliation will appear in a moment, if we only recur to some of his previous remarks and criticisms. In his remarks, for example, on Psalm xvii. 15, "I shall be satisfied when I awake with thy likeness," pp. 105-108; or on Dan. xii. 2, Many that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake;" pp. 132-134. Now this word "awake," he explains to mean "the awaking of the righteous to a beatified state" at death, at which time "the spiritual body is eliminated from the corporeal." So, then, according to this vastly conve nient theory of the Professor, the believer at death, both "awakes" and "falls asleep!" Nor does our author find any difficulty, or perceive any inconsistency in using both of these phrases, (so diametrically contradictory to each other,) as descriptive of one and the same event.-As though it should be said of a man who went to bed on a certain night and slept until morning, at which time he

66

awoke, and arose from the bed; that his going to sleep in the evening, and his awaking in the morning, meant one and the same thing. Into these vagaries has our author been led, by his attempt to make death and the resurrection one and the same.

After quoting Mr. Pelt, &c., (whose reasoning, by the way, directly contravenes one or more of the fundamental principles of Professor Bush's theory,) our author closes with an effort to make avάoraris to mean nothing more than "living again, future life, future state-as a state to be immediately entered upon at death, instead of 'resurrection,' implying the resurrection of the body:" and he informs us, that "by substituting, throughout the chapter," either of the foregoing terms, "the whole course of reasoning becomes luminous and pertinent, while it is, at the same time, brought into perfect harmony with the general tenor of the Scriptures on the subject." p. 172.

I have sometimes been almost tempted to doubt whether Professor Bush, in some of these round assertions, is really in earnest; for it seems to me that just in proportion as a proposition is destitute of proof, does he assert the existence of the most demonstrative proof in its favour. The term resurrection, or avάoraois, occurs only in vers. 12, 13, 21, and 42. With respect to vers. 12 and 13, we have shown above, the utter impracticability of explaining the word in the way mentioned by Professor Bush. Try it then with ver. 21: "Since by man came death, by man also came a 'future state.' Where, then, is the antithesis? The apostle's argument is, that to that upon which Adam brought death, Christ brought life. But Adam brought death to the body, and, therefore, Christ brought life to the body. Such is the antithesis; and unless, therefore, "future state" includes the revival of the body, it could not here translate ἀνάστασις. And then again. On Professor Bush's theory, how can we understand this verse? "By man came death." But death is the entrance upon the resurrection state, by "natural laws." Therefore, "by Adam came the entrance upon the resurrection state, and by Christ came the future state." Is this the way Professor Bush would construe the passage? But not to insist upon this, let us look at the last place where the word occurs: "So also is the resurrection of the dead," (i. e., says Professor Bush 'the future state.") "It is sown in corruption; it is