cussion with such a parade of proof, to show that the knowledge of Scripture must be progressive? Suppose it is progressive; and what has this to do with his argument, or book? JUST NOTHING AT ALL. But we shall, in the next place, proceed to state his argument from reason. And as so much depends upon it, in Professor Bush's estimation, and as he refers to it so continually all through his book, professing to rely upon it as nothing short of absolute demonstration, we shall state it somewhat at large; for we shall undertake to give it a thorough refutation.

SECTION II.

Professor Bush's Argument from Reason stated.

In the first paragraph of this argument, Professor Bush endeavours to establish a connexion between the proposition above referred to, respecting the progressive development of the import of revelation, and the argument which he proceeds to state. His language is the following:

"If the position maintained in our preceding pages be well founded-that there is to be an onward progress in our knowledge of Revelation, as there confessedly is in the knowledge of Nature-it follows, of course, that we have no more reason to be surprised at the announcement, we will not say of new truths, but of new views of old truths, in biblical science, than at the announcement of new discoveries in physical science. There may be a difference of opinion as to the possible extent of this progress, but none, we think, as to the fact itself. It is impossible to assign a reason why the outgoings of the human intellect should confine themselves to the limits of purely scientific research. They will certainly aim, at least, to penetrate the central abysses of Revelation." p. 31.

This connexion is still more unambiguously asserted on the next page or two. The Professor says:

"We see, beyond question, that in other departments the progress of scientific truth has enabled us to put a more correct interpretation upon many points of Scripture; and why is it not possible it may be so here? Does any one now think of understanding the command of Joshua to the sun and moon, precisely as he would before the true system of astronomy was ascertained? Does any one, acquainted with the demonstrated results of geology, gather precisely the same

ideas from the first chapter of Genesis that he did before that science was fixed upon its present firm basis?

"If, then, in these departments we are conscious that the discoveries of science have given us clearer information relative to the true sense of revelation, why is it not conceivable that, from the same source, we may obtain a clew to conduct us somewhat nearer the truth on the great theme before us? Certainly, the more perfectly we understand the inward structure and functions of our own frames-the more completely we become masters of that wondrous economy which constitutes us what we now are, the nearer doubtless shall we approach to a knowledge of what we shall hereafter be. Nothing is better known to intelligent men than that immense advances have actually been made, within the last half century, in the physiology of the human system; and though the grand agency by which the animal functions are carried on has eluded research-the vital principle--yet approximations have continually been made towards it, and we see not why we should abandon, as utterly hopeless, the prospect of one day compassing the grand central truth of our being."

This attempt of Professor Bush to forge a connecting link between his "Argument from Reason," and the argument in which he attempts to prove the "Knowledge of Revelation to be Progressive," is but a tale "signifying nothing:" and this for the reason before stated, to wit: there is no analogy whatever between the hypothesis of Professor Bush, and the hypothesis which he adduces for illustration. His effort, therefore, to make the impression, that, in order fairly to refute his theory, it is necessary to refute his introductory chapter, is an utter failure. For there is no connexion whatever between that part of the argument and the theory which it is brought to support.

I am sorry to be compelled to repeat this asseveration so directly in the face of the Professor's assertions contained in the last of the above quoted paragraphs; and yet, if such be the recent advancement in scientific discovery, the results of which are so applicable both to the illustration and support of his theory, is it not an unparalleled humility which has led him to forego all the advantages which might accrue from availing himself of such discoveries, and meekly to take his place at the feet of old Avicen and Nihusius, of the Anabaptists and Socinians, of the Shakers and Rationalists, and

to satisfy himself with what they had advanced on the same subject so long before?

But let us hear this much lauded argument itself.

"No fact in physiological science," says Professor Bush, "is better ascertained, than that the human body, in regard to its constituent particles, is in a state of constant flux. It is perpetually undergoing a process of waste and reparation. Strictly speaking, no man has the same body now that he had seven years ago, as it is in about this period that a complete change is held to take place in the bodily structure, by which we may be said to be corporeally renovated. This is a fact established by physiology, and the proof of it, we believe, is entirely beyond question, and must form an indispensable element in any judgment which we pronounce upon the subject. The phrase, the body, does not accurately represent the object intended, if the idea conveyed by it be restricted to the body as existing at any one moment. The idea of existence in continuity is indispensable to it. The question then again recurs- What body is to be raised? A person who dies at the age of seventy has had ten different bodies. Which of these is to be the body of the resurrection? Is it the body of infancy, of childhood, of youth, of manhood, or old age? Or is it the aggregate of all these? If we go back to the days of the Antediluvians and apportion the number of the bodies of Methusaleh, for instance, to the length of his life, and then suppose the whole to be collected into one vast corporeity, we should indeed be reminded that, as 'there were giants in those days,' so there will be giants in the day of the resurrection!

"It is obvious that a very grave difficulty from this source pertains to the prevalent theory of the resurrection of the body, and one which we discover no mode of obviating on that theory."

Then on pp. 42, 43, he presents these same considerations as follows: "The objection which constitutes the burden of our present argument obviously resolves itself into the difficulty of conceiving of any fixed relation between the body that dies and the body that is raised. So far as we are able to apprehend the prevalent sentiments of the Christian world in regard to this subject, they suppose that the same body which is consigned to its native dust is at some distant day, and in some unknown manner, to be raised again and reconstructed, and the disembodied spirit, after a

long exile, to be restored to its primitive habitation, newly fashioned and furnished by the hand of Omnipotence. To this view we urge the objection, that, by the law of the animal economy, the body in this life is continually changing, and consequently that it conveys no definite conception to the mind to say that the body will be raised, unless it is clearly specified what particular body is meant. Nothing is clearer than that the principle above stated enforces the necessary admission of a succession of bodies; and if so, we are at liberty to demand which one of the series is to be raised. If a man retained precisely the same body unchanged from his natal to his dying day, the difficulty would not be so glaringly insurmountable; but even in that case, as the resurrection body is to be a spiritual body, it confounds our faculties to attempt to imagine of what use the former material and fleshly particles are to be in the formation of a purely spiritual body. Is it not as easy for Omnipotence to form a spiritual body entirely new, without reference to any pre-existing materials, as to elaborate one out of the gross component parts of a previous body? And is not Mr. Locke's remark, in his letter to Stillingfleet, perfectly well founded, that it would be hard to determine, if that were demanded, what greater congruity the soul hath with any particles of matter which were once united to it, but are now so no longer, than it hath with particles of matter that were never united to it.'

"We repeat, then, that the common view of the resurrection labours, in our opinion, fatally on the score of a conceivable relation between the present and the future body."

This is the sum and substance of Professor Bush's argument from reason. And the rest of the chapter is a mere expansion of these considerations.

Along with these remarks Professor Bush has interspersed some observation on hermeneutics, (nor is it easy to imagine any thing to be more perfectly out of place,) to which we shall pay all due attention hereafter. He has also dwelt with particular emphasis upon the "objection" to the doctrine under consideration, that it infers that all bodies must necessarily come out of their graves whether they ever were in graves or not. And he is even serious in such an attempt at the reductio ad absurdum. This matter will likewise come up again hereafter.

Such then is Professor Bush's argument from reason, de

veloped by the recent prodigious advance in scientific discovery! and yet perfectly known, and urged against the doctrine of the resurrection, centuries before he existed. We have stated it fully, and the reader, we doubt not, will allow it all the consideration it deserves. Summed up in brief it is this: the body through life is constantly undergoing changes, and is in fact wholly renewed about once in seven years. After death also, the body becomes resolved into its elements, and oftentimes the particles which composed it form new combinations with other human bodies; and hence it is impossible that the same body that died should be raised and restored to its first proprietor without depriving other persons of the bodies which they possessed.

Professor Bush has not announced this conclusion formally, and in regular sequence from the premises; for he could not but have seen a great hiatus between the two. And with the skill of a practiced disputant he has left the reader to draw the conclusion which he himself would not formally announce. For who does not see that to predicate impossibility upon such grounds is sheer absurdity. For even allowing a human body to be devoured by cannibals, does not Professor Bush know that but a small part of it becomes really incorporated with their bodies? And would he venture to affirm that any part or particle of it, which is really essential to its integrity, is ever thus incorporated.

But this is not the ground upon which we shall meet and refute this argument, as will be seen presently. Yet before proceeding to do so formally, there are two or three things which call for a preliminary remark. And first I cannot but refer once more to Professor Bush's claim to recent scientific investigation, as furnishing results upon which this argument is based. I have said that it was employed by others before he existed, and in the latter part of Chapter I., I have furnished several proofs of this asseveration, and will here refer to another. Nearly a century ago, the noted infidel Voltaire, reasoned against the doctrine of the resurrection as follows, announcing the very results of “scientific investigation," to which Professor Bush appeals: "To make a dead man rise again after some days, it is necessary that all the imperceptible parts of his body, which had been exhaled in the air, and which the winds had carried off, should return to their proper places; that the worms, birds and animals that have fed on the corpse, should restore each