let the fact be once established, that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, and disputing on that point is at an end; this is the undisputed fact among Christians. And let it be established by the authority of inspiration, that the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead consisted in the raising again of the material body, or that it could not be accomplished without it, and disputing is at an end on that point also: but that is the point in debate, and which cannot be proved in the affirmative until it be first proved, that that material body constituted the true Jesus Christ, so that he could not exist without it—the negative of which has been already proved.

It may, as has already been done, be objected: If the material body did not actually rise, or is not the proper subject of the resurrection of Christ, what was done with it? for it was not found in the tomb, neither did it see corruption. Let me use the liberty assumed above, but with more propriety, and say, What is that to us? Have we any right, or any occasion to search into the unrevealed method of God's working, and that too in a matter which does not materially affect our salvation?" It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth "It nothing." (Jno. vi. 63.)

But to obviate this objection more fully, for those who count it weighty, or even plausible, let me ask: Was there not as much reason for removing the body of Jesus from the tomb as for concealing the body of Moses from the Israelites, so that no man knew of his sepulchre? If the fathers were in danger of worshipping the body or tomb of Moses, as has been supposed, (or what other reason can be assigned for his concealment?) on account of his great character and mighty works, how much more might the body of Jesus, who so far exceeded Moses in the glory of his character and works, have become a snare to his followers, and a real hindrance to their belief of the resurrection, and to their understanding of his spiritual character and work, in the carnal condition in which they still remained? They have taken away my Lord, said Mary, because she found not the body. And could they have been readily convicted of idolatry, or any wrong procedure; in offering adoration to their Lord? while all the time their sense would have been cleaving to the flesh, to the neglect of the Spirit. Neither is it probable, that they could have been readily convinced, or easily satisfied, with respect to his resurrection, or his being actually alive, his ascension and glorification, and other things pertaining to his work and kingdom, while they could, at any time, by going there, have seen him to their sense, dead in the tomb. Besides; how much more difficulty must have attended the ministry of the disciples, after they had come to believe, to convince others, who either had no faith in the resurrection at all, or had carnal and natural views of it, that he had risen from the dead and was actually alive, while his body could at any time have been seen, or had it been commonly known how it was removed? The report, common among the Jews, that his disciples had come and stolen him away by night, while the soldiers were asleep, was fabricated to prevent the people from believing, and what plausibility would have been attached to that fabrication, could the body have been found? From every consideration therefore it was necessary that the body

should be removed, as it was, out of the reach or knowledge of any of them.

Upon the whole; from a consideration of the real character and condition of the disciples-the literal and carnal sense of things which they had by nature, and according to the carnal dispensation to which they had been accustomed their slowness of heart to believe on the plainest testimony-it appears to have been necessary to represent to them the work of God in the resurrection and ascension of Christ, in such a dress as that they could at least apprehend it, and be convinced of its truth in the sense and understanding of things, in which they then were; while in the mean time every possible hindrance was taken out of the way, that, being confirmed in the truth of facts which had actually come to pass, they might the more easily be led into a better understanding of their true nature, after they became more fully able to receive correct information; which was after they had received the Holy Spirit. "I have yet many things," said Jesus, 66 to say to you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit, when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth-He shall glorify me for he shall receive of mine, and shall show unto you." (Jno. xvi. 12, 13, 14.).

The removal of that material body required that the stone should be rolled away from the mouth of the sepulchre, because material substance requires space to move in, free from other obstructing materials. But what was to hinder the soul of Jesus, replete with the resurrection power of God, to enter the grave, reanimate the body, and bring it forth, a spiritual body, without removing the stone, or even cracking the seal, any more than to enter the house where the disciples were, the doors being shut?

Thus far of the resurrection, as it immediately relates to the person of Jesus Christ. And herein I have taken notice of the principal and most prominent passages, as being most calculated to comprehend the whole and bring them all into full examination, which are pleaded in favour of the resurrection of the same material body, and have found none but what are capable of a consistent and sufficiently free acceptation without including the belief of that fact. That point therefore of the literal resurrection of the same animal body remains unestablished; untaught in explicit language of the Scriptures, unproved by fair and necessary inference. But in the mean time it is proved that Jesus Christ was capable of existing and being the same Jesus Christ, without inhabiting that same body; consequently the resurrection and reanimation of that body is not the point in which the resurrection of Jesus Christ consists, as commonly insisted; therefore to deny the resurrection, reanimation and ascension of that material body, is not the same as to deny the resurrection of Jesus Christ altogether, seeing that the resurrection can exist in fact, according to the Scriptures, without the aid of that body: he was quickened in the Spirit.

In perusing these sheets, it may frequently be suggested to those of a different sentiment, that it is uncandid to labour proposedly after a method of understanding these Scriptures and all others, so as to exclude the faith of the resurrection of the animal body. But a method of arguing which is open and above board is not uncandid.

I proposed in the beginning of this branch of the subject to show that all these Scriptures could be understood consistently without implying that fact; and it is not an unfair method of arguing, to show that any fact is not established by the arguments advanced for that purpose, and particularly with respect to the subject now under consideration, or others of the same nature; it does not so properly belong to us who disbelieve the resurrection of the animal body, to prove it did not rise; what belongs to us, is the negative part; and that cannot require proof, according to any philosophical or logical method of reasoning. But to those who believe the resurrection of that body, and consider it an essential part in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, it belongs to establish it in the affirmative, by unquestionable testimony; while it is not disingenuous in us to analyze every argument with the strictest scrutiny, and to invalidate, as far as honesty, truth and reason will admit.

I have hitherto kept up the idea of the resurrection and the ascension as being so closely connected together, that that which arose must also have ascended, and that which ascended must also have arisen. This idea needs no farther proof, being evident from the most simple view of the subject. But that the material body was not that which ascended, either in whole or in part, (at least that it is not necessarily included, the point now under consideration,) is fairly argued from this, that that which ascended was the same which descended first from heaven. "He that descended is the same also that ascended." (Eph. iv. 10.) Now the animal body was not that which descended, being produced of the substance of Mary's body, and brought forth like those of other men. Add to this, that the apostle has explicitly marked the difference between his dying and rising, applying the first to the flesh, "put to death in the flesh," the second to the Spirit, "but quickened in the Spirit." It is observable that he is never said to be quickened in the flesh, or his flesh to be alive: It is already proved that the man could be alive without it.

and

I take the liberty to appeal to the learned for the consistency and correctness of the translation which I have preferred in the text last quoted, while I ask if any reason can be proffered for rendering the one phrase in the flesh, and the other by the Spirit, when the grammatical construction and government of both are precisely the same? Add to this, that the similar expression, a few lines after, which relates to the above as a kind of recapitulation, is in the same grammatical construction and government, and is necessarily rendered in the flesh. "Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh." (1 Pet. iii. 18, and iv. 1.)

The following propositions appear necessary to be believed by the abettors of the doctrine of the resurrection of the same material body, before their plan can be complete. First: That the body of Jesus was raised a spiritual body; consequently it was a spiritual body on that evening when he appeared to the disciples in the house, the doors being shut. For they insist (not improperly) that his resurrection is a true example and earnest of that of his followers, and also, that their body is raised a spiritual body. It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. Secondly: That when he appear

ed on that same evening, and at the same instant of time, that same body of his was a material body, a proper body of flesh and bones, such as a spirit hath not. Handle me, and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have," is to them an unequivocal argument that he took with him the same body of flesh and bones. Therefore, thirdly: That the same body was a spiritual body, and a proper material body of flesh and bones at one and the same time. The necessity of believing these propositions in support of that plan, their glaring inconsistency, notwithstanding, is sufficient to convince the abettors of it, if they would be reasonable, not only that these, and the tantamount phrases in the Scriptures, are susceptible of a different acceptation from that in which they receive them, but that a more consistent one is indispensably necessary to the support of truth. They may however argue, that it is urging the matter too far, to charge them with calling it a proper material body, that the sense and meaning of their language is not to that extent. But it must be either matter or spirit, material or immaterial;—let them tell us decisively which they mean.

CHAPTER III.

THE RESURRECTION, WITH MORE

IMMEDIATE RELATION TO THE

SAINTS.

I PROCEED, in the next place, to carry the examination to the resurrection of the saints, and therein to show, That there is no language used in the Scripture to prove or explain the resurrection of Christ's people, but what is capable of an easy and consistent acceptation, without including the resurrection of the animal body, as being the proper subject of the resurrection, or constituting any necessary part of it.

I have hitherto treated of this subject, with particular relation to the person of Jesus Christ; but as it is pleaded and granted, that the resurrection of Christ is a true earnest and example of that of his people, the certainty of the latter depending on the certainty of the former, and the nature and manner of the one serving to elucidate the nature and manner of the other alternately, the subject becomes essentially one, according to the Scriptures. We may therefore with propriety proceed to examine the language of the Scriptures relating to the resurrection of the saints, to see if it cannot be understood consistently, without including the resurrection of the animal body.

I have spoken of said body, as not being the proper subject of the true resurrection, neither participating in it. My reason for such communications is, that I would have the understanding and sense of the people fixed on the abiding substance, and not confined to the shadow. Not doubting but there have been resurrections of animal

bodies, of men who were under an indispensable necessity of experiencing a resurrection entirely distinct, before they could inherit the kingdom of heaven as the widow's son and Lazarus. Neither would it materially affect the subject in hand, were it admitted that Jesus assumed the same body for a time, and used it as occasion required, as a medium of access to his disciples, for their conviction and information. But the true resurrection of which the apostles spake, and to which they looked for substance, was quite another thing; as will be shown in its place.

It has been already stated, that there is no principle in nature, or in the most profound philosophy, neither any doctrine in the revelation of God to men, to prove that matter is converted into spirit, or material physical bodies into spiritual. And to these things agree the words of a late writer; "As no possible combination of the elementary parts of matter, however diversified and extended, can produce a result which is immaterial, or which is destitute of the properties and qualities of matter; so no reduction of compound bodies can be carried beyond the elementary forms out of which, or by which, they were produced." (See Philos. Human Mind, p. 18.)

Unwilling, however, to cede their pretensions to a favourite plan supported by tradition, prepossession and the allurements of the flesh, the abettors insist, that God has actually taught by revelation, that the material body is converted, by the power of Christ, into a spiritual body, so far, at least, as to be the proper subject of the resurrection. In defence therefore of the favourite plan, the words of Paul to the Philippians are introduced; (iii. 20, 21.) "For our conversation [in the Greek, citizenship] is in heaven, from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus; who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things to himself." According to the common use and meaning of words, there is no difficulty in understanding this passage, without any relation to the resurrection, or reanimation of the material body, or any conversion of the natural into the spiritual. The ordinary and natural use of the active verb, to change, is properly to put away one and receive another. Accordingly a man is said to change his garment, when he puts off one and puts on another; and to get his money changed, when he gives to some other man a large piece, and receives small to answer his purpose, or gives paper money and receives silver; or the contrary. But a man will hardly conclude he has got his money changed by having it taken away for a time and given back again. So to put off the body and put on the same, is no change. That is not therefore the work which Christ has to do at his coming, but to finish the redemption of his people, delivering them completely and finally from the old man, clothing them in the new, fashioning them like himself, according to the working [svépysiav, energy, or inward working] whereby he is able even to subdue all things to himself.

With respect to the demonstrative, IT, commonly understood to mean the same as the noun to which it points, (on which account it would be argued, that this language, Who shall change our vile body, that IT be fashioned like his glorious body, means the refitting of our same animal body for the inheritance of eternal life,) it has been already

may