and that hence Lazarus had "really emerged in full life and consciousness from the dying body into the resurrectionstate;" "a change," from the present state of being, "scarcely worth the name of death." Now the reader will please to take notice, that all this occurred before the resurrection of Christ; " and it behooved not," says Professor Bush, (p. 217,)" that the resurrection of the members should precede that of the Head." And yet the Professor would have it, that Christ is here teaching Martha, that the resurrection of the members did precede that of the Head! Surely this is but a poor illustration of the truth of "the doctrine of correspondencies."

And then again, in the 23d verse, "Jesus saith to her, Thy brother shall rise again,” (αναστήσεται ὁ ἀδελφός σου.) This is fatal to this "much juster interpretation" of the Professor; for if he had already entered the resurrection-state, and Christ intended, as our author asserts, to teach Martha this fact, it needs no words to show that he would hardly have used an expression which asserted that he had not yet arisen. It is true, doubtless, that by this expression, our Saviour meant that he should be again raised to life by an union of soul and body; but this concession Professor Bush cannot avail himself of, while he maintains that Christ was here teaching Martha that the resurrection took place at death, at which time he "really emerged into full life and conscious

ness.

The exposition of the Professor also involves the idea that, as Lazarus had already truly arisen from the dead in a spiritual body, he must have either left that body behind him when he united again with his material body, or have brought it with him, and entered his material body with his "refined, ætherial, resurrection body." And surely, if he could do this, others may do it likewise. And therefore, on

the Professor's own principles, there is after all, no absurdity in a spiritual body becoming reunited with a material. And provided the material body is adapted to spiritual uses, as it will be at the resurrection in the last day, there can be therefore no absurdity in the spiritual body uniting with it again. So that if the Professor's exposition be not retained, the passage is fatal to his theory; and if it is retained, it is ruinous to his "argument from reason," and to his philosophy. The Professor might well remark that such an exposition would contain "much new doctrine" to Martha; and the query

might well be propounded to others besides her, "Believest thou this?"

The reply of Martha to the Saviour's question, is also fatal to this "much juster exposition" of Professor Bush. She does not answer any question that he makes the Lord to propose to her: but simply replies that she believes in his Messiahship. And the plain and irresistible inference is that therefore no such questions were propounded to her. Had our author honestly quoted the reply of Martha, as he should have done, the reader could at a glance have discovered the absurdity of this "much juster exposition."

66

But Professor Bush does not seem satisfied, after all, with his own exposition: and hence he cannot conclude without again calling to his aid "the cumulative mass of evidence" so often referred to already, and from which he concludes that "if, as we have endeavoured to show, the general tenor of Scripture is adverse to the idea of a resurrection so long delayed, the true sense of the Saviour's language cannot bear that interpretation." p. 249. If," is sometimes an important word, though a little one; and it is certainly true that if Professor Bush's arguments and expositions are sound, his theory must be true: but alas! they are unsound and at direct variance with Scripture and true philosophy, and, therefore, his theory is a mere castle built in the airor an Aladdin's palace, which, without the aid of a genie, may be transported whole into the land of dreams.

SECTION VI.

Examination of passages in Acts.

I. The next passage quoted by Professor Bush, is Acts ii. 29-35:

"Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; He seeing this before, spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither did his flesh see corruption. This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we are all witnesses. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he

hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. For David is not ascended into the heavens, but he saith of himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, until I make thy foes thy footstool."

The assertion (with which Professor Bush begins his remarks on this passage,) that "ascended” (åvé6n) in ver. 34, here means "exalted in the heavens, in the sense in which Peter is here speaking of the Messiah," i. e. "a glorious exaltation, or ascension and session at the right hand of God," is an idea that will not stand any serious examination. The single and primary meaning of the verb is to ascend: as e. g. when the Jews were said to go up to Jerusalem, Matt. xx. 18, and John xii. 20. And, then, where the phrase "to ascend into heaven" is employed, either in the New Testament or the LXX., it in no instance means to be gloriously exalted in heaven: and if such an idea is found in the connexion, it is not in the word itself but in other terms used along with it. See John iii. 13, and xx. 17; Rom. x. 6; Eph. iv. 8-10; Rev. iv. 1. Even John vi. 62, in no sense means exaltation, but a mere return or ascension to a situation previously occupied. See also Deut. xxx. 12; Ps. cxxxix. 8; Prov. xxx. 4; Isaiah xiv. 13, 14; Jer. li. 53; Tobit xii. 20, &c., &c. The criticism therefore is unfounded. And though Mr. Barnes is quoted by the Professor as sustaining his exposition; yet it is plain that he was led to adopt it by a supposed theological difficulty, rather than by a thorough grammatical investigation of the passage. And yet, upon this erroneous rendering of the word, Professor Bush has based the whole of his attempt to explain away the clear announcement that as David's sepulchre, (which contained his body,) was still in Jerusalem, so it was clear that he had not arisen from the dead, and of course had not ascended into heaven as Messiah, but must, (according to prophecy,) after his resurrection. David's unopened sepulchre proved that his body was still under the dominion of corruption: and Peter denies that he had as yet arisen from the dead.

The first verse of the passage also proves the falseness of the doctrine of Professor Bush: for Peter here asserts of "David that he is both dead and buried." But in no sense of the word could this be true if he had been already raised from the dead, as Professor Bush would have him to be. There can be no more preposterous contradiction than to say that at one and the same time a person is dead and

buried and raised from the dead and entered upon the resurrection-state. Professor Bush must cease laughing at the Romish doctors' profound discussion of the question, whether a thing can be in two places at one and the same time.

In the same paragraph also, from which our author makes this quotation, there is another passage which is equally destructive of his theory. “Him (i. e. Christ) ye have taken and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should not be holden of it." vers. 23, 24. Christ arose, says Professor Bush, in a spiritual body; and his material body never arose. But it is plain that the spiritual or resurrection-body can in no sense be under the dominion of death. And yet that which was slain, is here said to have been raised up by God; and it is also said that this raising up (after the period of three days,) was by loosing the pains (or bands) of death, because it was not possible that death should hold him. The assertion, therefore, that Christ arose in a spiritual body is false.

Professor Bush, in carrying out his erroneous observation respecting the import of the word "ascend," remarks that "the apostle certainly did not mean to say that that which constituted the actual and essential ipseity or selfhood of David, was then reposing in the sepulchre at Jerusalem." (p. 251.) True, he may not have meant to say so: but much less does he say that his "ipseity or selfhood," (if I may be pardoned the use of these barbarisms,) had entered upon the resurrection-state; or had been raised from the dead. Nor does he intend to say that the soul of David had not ascended into heaven: but simply that David had not. The soul of David is not David himself; and neither is his body David. But soul and body united constitute David. And David, soul and body had not ascended into heaven, though his soul might have done so. And hence the proof that Peter gave that David had not ascended into heaven, was that he had not yet arisen from the dead; his body yet saw corruption. This same argument applies, to show the erroneousness of Professor Bush's exposition. For if David had arisen from the dead, he would have ascended into heaven; but he had not ascended, and therefore he had not arisen from the dead. This passage, therefore, must still stand as an insuperable obstacle in the way of Professor Bush's theory.

II. The next passage presented by the Professor is the following:

Acts xxiv. 14, 15: "But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets: And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just, and the unjust."

Here is a plain statement not only that Paul believed and taught that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, (that is, of those who were dead at the time in which he spoke these words, as well as those who should die afterwards,) both of the just and the unjust. He asserts that they all shall arise and also that this same doctrine is asserted in the law and in the prophets. He also avers that this doctrine was “allowed," or acknowledged to be true, by the Jews themselves. There can be no plainer avowal of the truths for which we contend, nor a plainer denial of the theory contended for by Professor Bush. How then does he dispose of this overwhelming statement? We shall see.

Entirely overlooking the declaration of Paul, that THERE SHALL BE a resurrection OF THE DEAD, he begins his remarks as follows: "A problem of a twofold solution is here presented to us. First, upon what authority Paul affirms that the Pharisees believed in a resurrection' both of the just and the unjust?' Secondly, supposing the assertion to be well founded, how are his words to be construed in consistency with what we assume to be the true doctrine of the Scriptures on this subject?" pp. 251, 252. And after a feeble attempt at solving this "twofold problem," he dismisses the passage without further remark. But is this criticism? Such a course of evasion is utterly unworthy the name of investigation. We shall follow him, however, in the solution of his problem.

I pass, for the present, the polite intimation of a doubt expressed by the Professor, whether the assertion of the apostle "be well founded," for the reader will not be at a loss how to estimate a theory that reduces its advocates to such an extremity of solution. But in examining the "authority" upon which Paul makes the assertion, it will be proper first to follow our author in his statement of counter authorities. He is not satisfied to receive the testimony of the Apostle in