another, when their state relatively to each other is the same after as before the magnificent transition.*

We are well aware that in view of all this the twofold question will be at once proposed-What proof is there of its truth, and, if true, how is it to be reconciled with what are regarded as the express averments of Holy Writ? We have already admitted that the solution propounded cannot be demonstrated to be true, although we doubt not there is constantly accumulating evidence that it is true; and if it be, it follows of course that the Scriptures must be interpreted so as to agree with it, as otherwise we should have acknowledged truths at war with each other. Certain it is, in our view, that the hypothesis, if such we are to term it, of a resurrection immediately to ensue upon the death of the body, involves far fewer difficulties than those which embarrass the popular apprehensions on the subject. As such we are driven to it as a refuge; and the mere fact that it is not incontrovertibly established forms no valid objection against it, when the common theory is attended with difficulties equally formidable. If the letter of revelation holds forth a view of the doctrine which arrays itself against the clearest evidence of facts and the soundest process of reasoning, is there no demand, on the other side, for the reconciliation of

* "Had the resurrection required a reconstruction of relics, or a development of stamina, or a reunion of soul and body, it would then have required a revelation to prove identity, and only by faith could the risen either know their own persons or be known by others; but no such absurdity is involved in a change beyond conception rapid-the occurrence of an instant, and the perception of consciousness. No relic of the tabernacle may remain as a clew to identification; but no clew is wanted where no search is instituted; and search is precluded where identity is obvious. Let the copy be lost when the pattern is found; let the badger skins vanish when the glory is conspicuous. Not more exactly did the tabernacle made with hands correspond to the tabernacle made without hands, than the form and lineaments of the faithful in the valley with the form and lineaments of the faithful on the mount."-Stephenson's Christology, Vol. II. p. 178.

Scripture with science? Are we required to hoodwink our faculties in order to do honor to inspiration? Now, we do not hesitate to affirm that the human mind is so constituted that it cannot but feel the force of the objections which we have urged against the resurrection of the same body, or indeed of any body at all, except the spiritual body, which, we are compelled to believe, is eliminated at death, by established laws, from the clay tabernacles that we here inhabit. But if Faith is supposed to be required to reject what Reason sanctions, is not this in effect to say that we are called to do homage to God's word at the expense of doing violence to his work?-for the human reason is the noblest product of Omnipotence. For ourselves, we yield to no man living in sentiments of profound reverence for the oracles of Scripture; but we cannot perceive that in cherishing these sentiments we are laid under the necessity of turning a deaf ear to the sober and enlightened dictates of our understanding. The only ground on which we can recognize the claims to preference of one mode of solving a difficulty of revelation above another is, that it goes further towards satisfying the demands of our intelligence, all things considered, than the other. If, in the present case, we reject the proposed solution, and fall back on the common view, on what grounds do we do it? Let any man candidly ask himself whether he is conscious of escaping difficulties thereby. If he adopts the common view, is he perfectly satisfied with it? Does he not adopt it subject to all the insuperable objections which his own reason urges against it? Can he feel entirely at ease in reposing on such a basis of belief? We know, indeed, that one may bring the matter to a summary conclusion by referring it simply to the Divine Omnipotence, which can, it is said, solve, with infinite ease, all the problems connected with the resurrection. Contenting himself solely with the assurance of the fact, he may say that he perceives no occasion for troubling his thoughts with any speculations as to the manner in which

the fact shall be accomplished. We have no disposition to disturb the intellectual repose, the pious quietism, which breathes forth in this language; but we may still be permitted to suggest that a reflecting reason finds it impossible to contemplate intelligently the fact, simply as a fact, without reference to the mode in which it is to be effected. The great question on

the subject is, What is the fact which is asserted, and which we are required to believe? What is the very thing which Omnipotence is to do in order to do what is usually deemed necessary to the resurrection of the body? If we have not misconceived the prevalent sentiment of the Christian world, it is, that the same body which lived, and died, and was buried, is again to be raised. Let it be granted that this is the asserted fact of Scripture: we array against it the counter fact, that, as the raised body is to be a spiritual body, it cannot be the same. Here are two asserted facts in direct contrariety to each other. Can the one be intelligently held without some attempted explanation of the mode in which it is to be made consistent with the other? Is it an impeachment of due religious reverence to inquire if there be any possibility of bringing our faith and our philosophy into accordance on this head?

It may, indeed, be replied to this, that the spiritual body may be in some way sublimated out of the remains of the material, so that it may still be properly said to be the same, just as ice, water, and steam may be said to be substantially the same element. But on this view

we encounter a new difficulty equally destructive to the theory. Here, on the one hand, is a spiritual body eliminated from the relics of the earthly fabric, and on the other a spiritual body, forming the investment of the soul, and on the principle of re-union we have two spiritual bodies to be united with each other. Is this the doctrine of the resurrection? And are we required to do reverence to revelation by embracing in our creed elements so completely at war with each other? Was piety honored in the stern

requisition made of Galileo, that he should content himself with the literal intimation of the fact, that the sun revolved around the earth, when he could adduce facts just as imperative to the contrary? Would it be any relief to his mind. to cite Omnipotence as the grand reconciler of facts which he was compelled to regard as contradictions? We know what has been the final issue in regard to the positions of the Florentine astronomer. The demonstrations of science in establishing the truth of his theory of the solar system have established a principle of transcendent importance in the interpretation of Scripture-that the letter of the sacred writers does not always accord, especially in matters of physical science, with the verity of the sense. This principle geology, at a later date, has strikingly confirmed. We have for ourselves no doubt that physiology and pneumatology are destined to afford another illustration of the same principle. The soundness of the principle, on this ground, will be for a time earnestly and perhaps angrily contested, as it was in the case of these two sciences; but, triumphing over all gainsaying, it will finally struggle into universal admission. It will be at length every where conceded that the destinies of our being are to be evolved according to established laws, and not in violation of them. These laws will be developed by the progress of scientific research, the conclusions of which will carry with them a force of authority as irresistible as the literal announcements of the sacred text; and nothing can be gained for the interests of revelation by lifting up a standard against them.

It will have been seen, from the tenor of the preceding pages, that the argument from reason leads by fair and unforced inference to the conclusion, that the true doctrine of the resurrection is the doctrine of the development of a spiritual body at death from the bodies which we now inhabit. It now remains to inquire what countenance this view of the subject receives from an equally fair and blameless interpretation of the canon of Scripture. If the teachings of

that divine volume array themselves so unequivocally and inexorably against the conclusions to which we are brought by the argument from reason, that we can by no process of conciliation harmonize the two, undoubtedly we are required to abide by the Scriptural decision, whatever violence it may seem to do to our rational deductions. But this deference to Scripture, in opposition to the demands of a seemingly incontrovertible logic, can never be claimed but upon the ground of an absolute assurance of having attained the true sense of the inspired oracles on this subject. So long as a shadow of doubt remains, whether the mind of the Spirit does indeed peremptorily contradict the voice of our clearest convictions, it is impossible but that we should adhere to that judgment which, from the laws of evidence, we cannot avoid forming. To the question, then, of the true purport of revelation on this subject we now address ourselves.

PART II.

THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT.

CHAPTER I.

Preliminary Remarks

THE previous train of our remarks has already incidentally disclosed the principle which we think is to be applied in the interpretation of those Scriptures that more especially refer to the subject of the resurrection. It is a principle, however, of so much importance as to demand a somewhat fuller expansion in this stage of the argument. As it really