the Socinians who have ever lived. Grotius also remarks that "when the apostle might have said, It is buried, he preferred to say It is sown, that he might not depart from, the foregoing similitude taken from the grain." Grotius

wrote this also after he had been enlightened by the Socinian criticisms. (See his letter to Crellius in Vol. III. of the Fratres Polonia.) It is needless to refer to other commen

tators.

On this principle, therefore, does the apostle employ the language referred to, and respond directly, (that is without a formal analogy,) to the objection which he has been discussing: q. d. "It is true, it is, as you intimate, sown in corruption; but this is no objection, for it is raised again in incorruption. True, it is sown in dishonour, for it has been the instrument of sinning against God; but this dishonour shall not cleave to it hereafter, for it shall be raised in glory. I admit all that you say of its weak and wretched condition; but God will, in the resurrection, impart to it new vigor; it shall be raised in power. True it is but a mere animal body when sown; it had never been entirely obedient to the spirit; and therefore not fit for the glory which is to be revealed; but God shall raise it a spiritual body; which shall be better adapted to the use of the Tua, than it was in this world even to the x itself." The argument of the apostle requires, therefore, that sig should be here interpreted of the consignment of the body to the earth; according to the sentence "Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return."

3. But in addition to these considerations, I remark that Professor Bush is not able to adduce a single instance from the New Testament, the LXX., or elsewhere, of rug being used simply for the birth of a human being. The corresponding term in the Old Testament, is y, which is translated by sig in the LXX. almost always. I have examined twenty-eight instances of its use, and in no one case is it employed in any way that would at all countenance such an idea. The term is mostly employed in reference to the literal planting of seed. But in Judges ix, 45, it refers to the scattering of salt as seed. In other places it is used figuratively in reference to the performance of works either good or evil, which will at the great harvest of the judgment, produce their appropriate fruit. See Job iv. 8; Prov. xxii. 8;

Hosea viii. 7; and also Psalm cxxvi. 5; Prov. xi. 18; Jer. iv. 3. (Compare also Gal. vi. 7, 8.)

Its primary import, therefore, is simply to scatter. Its secondary, to sow, or plant seed. See Hosea ii. 23, Jer. xxxi. 27. In Niphal it means to be sown, as a field, and also to be scattered as seed; and hence tropically it means to be impregnated, Numb. v. 28. In Hiphil, to bear seed as a plant, Gen. i. 11, and tropically to conceive seed, as a woman. But even here it is, by the writer, most carefully distinguished from birth itself, (Levit. xii. 2,) for y refers to the sowing, or impregnation; which is carefully distinguished from to bring forth. In all these instances, which serve to exhibit the Hebrew usage, as well as that of ago with the LXX., there is nothing that can be tortured even into an analogy to the meaning contended for by Professor Bush, and the Pelagians, and Socinians. And the reason is plain;-birth, so far from being a sowing, is the production of the fruit itself: and to confound such an eternal distinction in the very nature of things, would be to ren der language itself a perfect chaos, and wholly incapable of asserting any thing.

An appeal to the New Testament, will bring us to the same result. The term is used about forty-four times, in addition to the instances in the passage before us: Nor can Professor Bush find one instance which will at all justify his reference of it to birth. There is one that may, it is true, be thought to squint that way, and as the Professor has not regarded the rules of exegesis very strictly where his theory is concerned, he may think it will afford him some support. He is welcome to all the assistance which it will yield him, however: but it will require "a length of rational and exegetical hardihood" to which he has not yet attained, to represent Paul as taking an analogy from the workings of Satan, to illustrate the subject of the resurrection. The instance is Matt. xiii. 38, 39. "The tares are the children of the evil one. The enemy that sowed them is the devil:"digós ó σπείρας αὐτὰ, ἔστιν ὁ διάβολος. Socinians might not care about violating the rules of language, in order to maintain their notions; but Professor Bush will admit, that aura cannot possibly relate to vir here as its antecedent; and can only relate to Cáva tares..

The rendering of riga propounded by Professor Bush, therefore, has not only nothing to support it, but is in direct

violation of all the laws and analogies of language; and of course is undeserving of any regard.

4. It may be further remarked that in the ivan or alternation which Paul here uses, (and which we have referred to above,) the laws of language perfectly justify him in such an application of the illustration he had been using, as to represent our bodies as sown, when deposited in the earth, as the seed-corn, to which he refers, had been. And then he could have found instances both of Hebrew and Greek usage to justify such an application of σg, even if his illustration did not call for it. I have not searched for instances confirmatory of this, but know that the representation can be fully established, should any one call it into question. A single one just occurs to mind, found also in a book quoted by Paul in this very chapter. Hosea (chap. ii. 23,) refers to Jehovah as saying, " And I will sow her (my spouse) to myself in the earth;" rendered by the LXX., xai omegŵ AUTÈV iuautû ìnì rûs gs. Now at the time referred to, the spouse of God was represented as dead; and the idea is, I will sow her in the earth as seed, from which a new and more spiritual church shall arise. I have just opened Pareus in loco., and find the following beautiful annotation, singularly corroborative of the above representation. "Primus spurius erat Tidsreel, semen Dei, sic dictus, quia DEUS populum contumacem erat disseminaturus seu dispersurus. Nunc convertit etymon in melius: Ego seminabo eam mihi in terra: hoc est, faciam vere semen DEI, quod vox sonat: et quidem seminabo eam non in aëre, ut dispergatur à ventis, sed in terra, ut crescat; et seminabo mihi, ut crescat mihi in peculium. Promittit igitur novæ Ecclesiæ ex dissipatione collectionem, et dilatationem in toto terrarum orbe per vocem Evangelii, quod vere est semen DEI immortale ex quo nascuntur filii DEI. Matt. xiii. 37; 1 Pet. i. 23." This is beyond doubt the true idea of the passage.

The irresistible inference from all this is, that "sown," in the passage before us, is to be interpreted of the deposition of the body into the earth: and by consequence, that the body which dies, and is consigned to the earth, is raised again from the dead. As oua is confessedly the nominative of nigra the conclusion is utterly unavoidable: "It, (the oua,) is sown (consigned to the earth,) in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: it is sown in dishonour, it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power: it

is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body." It cannot be wondered that the Socinians and Pelagians with Professor Bush should labour hard to destroy rig in order to get rid of this overwhelming conclusion.

VII. The next passage quoted by the Professor is the following: "Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. Behold I show you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump; for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality." 1 Cor. xv. 50-53.

With this passage the quotations made by Professor Bush from 1 Cor. xv., terminate and he has terminated them, so as to omit the passage which fixes the order of the event of which Paul is speaking, and which shows beyond the power of denial that the idea of the resurrection taking place at death is false. Is it fair for Professor Bush thus to push out of sight those passages which cannot be made, by any "twis tification" to utter a dubious testimony? Certain I am, that he would utter the most unmeasured condemnation of others who should be guilty of such a course, The passage is the following: "So, WHEN this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, THEN SHALL BE BROUGHT TO PASS the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O Death! where is thy sting? O grave! where is thy victory?" vers. 54, 55. Professor Bush had sense enough to see that this announcement settled the point as to the simultaneousness of the resurrection spoken of in this chapter, and that the wit of man was inadequate to construe the passage differently and yet make sense of it, and hence he was prudent enough to say nothing about it. But let us attend to the argument of the apostle.

As an inference from all his preceding discussion, Paul here announces the fact, that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God." The phrase, “flesh and blood," refers to our present animal body, which cannot be adapted to the uses of the spirit until thoroughly changed. This is rendered plain by considering the passage which immediately precedes this verse. The nature we. derive from Adam is animal, and earthly; but Christ, the last Adam,

is a quickening spirit; and as we have borne the image of the earthly, so must we bear the image of the heavenly and hence a mere animal, and earthly body, (flesh and blood,) cannot inherit the kingdom; but must be changed into a body adapted to the spirit, as Christ's was, when he arose from the grave." (vers. 45-50.) Such seems to be the argument of the apostle; after which, he immediately proceeds to explain, or show the mystery, (not previously clearly understood nor apprehended,) that this change should pass upon all the children of the second Adam.

Professor Bush, in remarking upon this passage, falls into the common error of supposing that those only who are alive when Christ comes shall be changed.* But Paul gives no countenance to this idea; but plainly teaches the reverse. "We shall not all die, it is true," says he, "but whether we die or are alive at that time we shall all be changed (árres de xxxx,) and therefore, neither in the case of those who die before that time, nor in the case of those who are alive, shall flesh and blood inherit the kingdom of God." This is the obvious course of his argument; and to prevent, as we might suppose, tbe very mistake above referred to, he repeats in the next verses the

**Grotius and others dissent from the received reading of this text, because of the poor unsupported reading of οἱ πάντες μὲν οὐ κοιμηθησό μeda, où távтes dè, &c. But the Text. Rec. has the support of the great body of the best MSS., and of the Codices used by Acacius, Jerome, Pelagius, Ecumenius, Valla, Origen, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Apollinarius, Theodotus, Theophylact, &c., &c., not to name the Arabic, Syriac, Coptic, and some ancient Latin versions: while the MSS. which dissent from it all vary. So also do the Latin versions, which have a different reading. One has it, "We shall all indeed die, but we shall not all be changed;" another, "We shall all indeed arise, but we shall not all be changed," &c.; another has it, "We shall not indeed all die, but we shall all be changed," which is in accordance with the approved reading. On the alleged inconsist ency of this reading with Heb. ix. 27, Stapleton, a bigoted Papist, charges the Greek text with falsehood and impiety, that so he may exalt his darling Vulgate. The supposed inconsistency of these two texts, produced efforts to reconcile them, whence these variations arose; which, according to Griesbach's excellent rule, prove the genuineness of the common reading. Even Crellius remarks on the subject, that" It is said concerning all the faithful, that they should be changed in a moment; and, therefore, those also are included who arise." "De omnibus enim fidelibus dictum erat eos in momento mutatum iri, atque adeo etiam eos qui resurgunt." Com. in loco, p. 366. The context, also, seems clearly to require this reading.