13 and ver. 15, would be somewhat strange). But it is quite different with the celebrated, and, for the Christian doctrine of the resurrection and of eternal life, eminently CLASSICAL PASSAGE (1 Cor. xv.), in which the apostle argues against certain opponents at Corinth. It is evident that these opponents (TVÈS EV iui, v. 12) are on the whole connected with parties prevailing at Corinth, about which there are notoriously very different views, into which we cannot here enter further.

This much is certain; these opponents must have been such as denied not only a bodily resurrection, but generally an actual life after death; for Paul includes both in the conception of the ἀνάστασις νεκρῶν which he defends. Olshausen appears to me to be in error here," when he thinks merely of the idealistic fancy, as if the resurrection were to be taken spiritually' (p. 455 and 680). Moreover the opinion of Hülsemann, with whom Wolf and Semler seem to agree, is quite groundless,-namely, that not Christians are to be understood, but heathen philosophers, gene

* It may be doubted whether the profounder characteristics of New Testament teaching, concerning the influence of Christ's resurrection on believing men, are quite reached in this and the two preceding subdivisions. There seems somewhat in such passages as Acts ii. 27, John i. 4, v. 21-26, vi. 53, x. 18, xi. 25, xiv. 19, Rev. i. 18, Rom. iv. 25, vi. 5, viii. 11, Col. ii. 12, Phil. iii. 21, 1 Cor. vi. 13-15, xv. 45-49, I Pet. i. 21, more than anything which is set forth in the text. The whole life of Jesus was an appeal from men to God. Perfect innocence and the highest holiness, treated with the last injustice, put to shame and death, cried loudly and confidently, for the first time, from earth to heaven for judgment and vindication. Had it cried in vain, we should have lost faith in God, truth and goodness, and existence had become vain and insupportable. But the appeal was heard, and answered on the morning of the third day. Jesus was raised by reason of his holiness. Holiness is the key of the universe, which unlocks all the treasures of God, and cannot be resisted by the bars of the grave. Or if we look at the Divine Word incarnate in Christ, as having life and holiness in himself, we reach the same point. That which is holiness in the region of morals, is life and immortality in the region of existence. In the one it appears as antagonist of sin, in the other of death and corruption. Holiness is the life of the spirit; life, so to speak, the holiness of the body. If the spirit be living, the body cannot become the prey of corruption. Thus, since man is one, it is one agent and one operation which quickens the spirit and the body. Raising the dead is the highest act of the power of the living God, gives to Him a characteristic appellation, and is the noblest and most binding object of faith. And by virtue of the union between Christ and believing men, his resurrection involves their pardon, sanctification, resurrection, and immortality; and when these are actually effected, it is by the same agent, and is the same continued operation. Christ was raised by the Spirit of Holiness; they are sanctified by the power of his resurrection; which again extends even to their bodies, quickening them during the earthly sojourn, and then endues their entire being with immortality. Thus Christ, in himself and in his members, is the resurrection, life in conflict with death, holiness contending with sin. His resurrection is in mystery our entire redemption. Hence the manifoldness of the Pauline expressions.-Translator.

That is, in the representation which he gives of the opinions of the opponents. 'These imbued with a Gnostic, spiritual bias, might easily, take offence at the resurrection of the body, in which there appeared to them to be a gross materialism. It is possible that, like Hymenæus and Philetus, they understood the áváσTaσis spiritually.'-Olshausen on 1 Cor. xv. 12.—Tr.

rally dwelling at Corinth; for Paul evidently combats such as belonged outwardly at least to the Christian community (Tivès Ev uv, v. 12). Just as little can we suppose with Mosheim (in his Exposition), that the opponents were such as were inclined to Essenism; for Essenes denied the bodily resurrection only, not actual immortality. We might much rather be induced to agree with Heilmann, Štorr, Krause, and others, who understand Šadducæically inclined Jewish Christians, at first devoted to the Christian faith, but now relapsed to their old errors. It is well known of the Sadducees, that they rejected the resurrection together with immortality in general, quite as Paul here describes (comp. Mark xii. 18, etc.; Acts xxiii. 8; Joseph. de Bello Jud. II. viii. 14, and elsewhere); and also, that many among them (for others had greater moral severity) were, as wanton men, not disinclined to the maxim, φάγωμεν καὶ πίωμεν· αὔριον γὰρ ἀποθνήσκομεν, which Paul reproaches them with as a discouraging admonition (v. 32). It almost seems as if Paul has Jewish Christians especially in view, since he appeals for proof of the resurrection of Jesus to the witness of the Apostles Peter (v. 8) and James (v. 7) particularly, whose authority was especially weighty with the Jewish Christians. What Olshausen alleges against this appears to me hardly tenable. The truth of the matter, however, is probably this, that Paul combats deniers of the resurrection and of immortality, as being both among the Jewish Christians, once Sadducees (here the disciples of Cephas), and (as Ziegler has already remarked) among the heathen Christians (here the Christ party), who had before been addicted to some philosophic sect.

Enough that Paul opposes an error which threatened to become ruinous to the Christian faith of the community at Corinth, and proves the truth of the Christian doctrine of the resurrection from the certainty of the resurrection of Christ; which he does in the following course of thought:-'If, according to the foregoing (verses 1-11), the resurrection of Christ rests upon so sure witnesses, how can some among you maintain that the resurrection of the dead is impossible?' (v. 12). He means to say, How can the possibility of that be denied, which has actually happened? Logicians would express it, ab esse ad posse valet consequentia. 'But if the resurrection of the dead is denied as impossible, then Christ cannot be risen, but this matter of fact must be rejected in opposition to the most unsuspicious witnesses' (v. 13). He who maintains that, must also admit, that we and all who are convinced of the resurrection of Christ as matter of fact, are devoted to an empty delusion, which however, with the remarkable multitude of

* Φθαρτὰ μὲν εἶναι τὰ σώματα Joseph, de bello Jud. II. viii. 11.

τὰς δὲ ψυχὰς ἀθανάτους ἀεὶ διαμένειν κ.τ.λ. Comp. Antiq. xviii. i. 5.

most faithful vouchers, no one will assert' (v. 14). Kngurua is Κήρυγμα merely the preaching of the intelligence, Christ is risen; and Tioris is the doctrine and conviction of the resurrection of Christ and of Christians; but xevòs is here not vain, fruitless (which is rather μáraios, v. 17), but as N, false, groundless, otherwise than the Corinthian Christians have themselves confessed. Yea, precisely because that event was impossible, we should have to be charged with a designed, shameful fraud, which we as messengers of God had perpetrated; truly the unimaginable supposition would have to be made, that we had lied for God, testifying that He raised up Christ, which cannot be if the raising of the dead in general is impossible. This supposition, however, is the less credible, inasmuch as we, as Apostles and heralds, are so often extraordinarily succoured; but God can succour no one who testifies untruly of Him' (vv. 15, 16). After he has then further developed the thought, that, with the resurrection of Christ and the faith in it, the essential hopes of Christians fall (and consequently the mioris, that is, the conviction of the highest truths of Christianity in general, which are closely connected with the faith in Christ's resurrection, is uzraía, that is, vain and fruitless; comp. vv. 17-19, and p. 76 above), he proceeds:-'But now the resurrection of Christ stands firmly as unassailable matter of fact; therefore also the resurrection and eternal felicity of Christians; for all in the resurrection follow Him as the first-fruits of those who rise from the dead' (v. 20). As the first-fruits are token of the impending harvest (Lev. xxiii. 10), so the resurrection of Christ is the security for the resurrection of all the dead. The Apostle disputes ex concessis, but he does not disclaim other reasons (vv. 29-32), or the predictions of the Old Testament prophets (v. 55; comp. Is. xxv. 8); and closes his whole argumentation and consideration of eternal life with ascription of praise to God, Thanks be unto God, who giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ' (v. 57). In other passages still, he founds in like manner the hope of the immortality and resurrection of believers on the certainty of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. We know that He which raised up the Lord Jesus, shall raise up us also, and lead us with you to felicity' (2 Cor. iv. 14). Thus the resurrection of Jesus Christ appears as the security for ours. Some indeed have here wished to understand merely rescue from dangers; but the words are too plain; and especially пxрaστñναι cannot well be otherwise interpreted than present alive,' 'lead to salvation, to felicity.' The idea of being presented before a tribunal (as φανερωθῆναι ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ βήματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ, 2 Cor. v. 10), which Olshausen finds here, has no relation to the context. In another passage;- Our kingdom (70λíTEUμa, the state, whose

citizens we are to be) is in heaven, whence we again await our Saviour, Jesus Christ; who shall change the body of our humiliation, that it may be fashioned like to the body of his glory' (Phil. iii. 20, 21; comp. Col. iii. 4). Therefore Christ is also called, 'the beginning and the first-born from the dead (gwτóτоxos Ex TV VExpwv, the first-risen from the dead), that in all things he might go before us' (Col. i. 18); which may refer to priority both in time and in dignity; and in any case indicates that he is the exemplar of his followers (comp. 1 Cor. xv. 23; 1 Thess. iv. 14).

The words of Peter moreover are of great importance in this respect ;- -Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again (transformed) to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead' (1 Pet. i. 3). Through this has our hope for the first time become a living one (appearing in clearest consciousness); for the New Testament regards the resurrection as the chief confirmation of the promise of salvation by the Messiah (comp. 1 Cor. xv. 14).

These are the most important points which the New Testament renders prominent concerning the resurrection of Jesus. Of course this does not exclude many other considerations, especially all those further rich consolations offered in other modes, by this eternally memorable event.

THE ATTESTATION BY MIRACLES.

If we would rightly appreciate the Life of Christ, we must keep in mind that the Creator is made known to the creature through two channels of communication-outwardly through the Son, and spiritually through the Holy Ghost. As man has lost this second bond of union with the Father, so has he forfeited the privilege of holding sensible intercourse with the Divine Logos. The spiritual separation from God (in which all our race were by nature lying) influenced the mode of the Christian revelation, in two ways. It blinded men's eyes, that they could not distinguish the Divinity in Jesus; and it prevented him from manifesting his glorious presence, which sinful eyes might not behold.

It is, therefore, what we should expect; that, when the Incarnate Word visited mankind, and attested his mission by the display of creative power, such a testimony was received only by the spiritual, or those in whom the Divine Spirit was renewing himself, and was repudiated by the godless, who possessed no faculties for recognizing the Deity.

Now, a miracle is properly a work of God, independent of actually existing laws; and as these laws (nature, as they are called) had been unable to show God, in his true character, to his rebellious children, Christ, coming to remedy this deficiency, changed nature, i. e. worked miracles, or opened a new mode of apprehending the First Cause. The Lord, therefore, in giving these exhibitions of power, invariably confined them to the purpose for which they were wrought; viz., to display God to men (as they were fitted to receive such knowledge), by other means than those which hitherto had existed; and the Saviour's miracles thus stand in marked contrast with the pretended wonders of impostors, which only minister to a love of the marvellous.

1. Jesus did no miracle before he had commenced his ministry, because then only did he begin to teach men of God. We are told that the turning of water into wine, at the marriagefeast of Cana, was the beginning of miracles. It is called a manifestation of his glory; and it is further added that his disciples thereupon believed on him; that is to say, they had been originally attracted to him upon the testimony of others, and by his own assertions. They had waited for the hour when the Divine should appear in the human, and this miracle was regarded as the first step towards satisfying their expectations; and yielding thus to God; receiving with thankfulness the faintest glimpse which the Father gave of himself, they were growing in spiritual strength, and consented to wait still longer till the glory of Christ should become more and more clearly revealed. We are authorised, therefore, in stating that up to this time the Saviour had himself given no external proof of his Divine nature. The stories, once in vogue, of his childhood, were such evident fabrications, that they have long since ceased even to be known. They were invented by men who did not comprehend what purpose the miracles were to serve; and they represent Jesus as doing wonders certainly, but with no instructive design, with no moral significance. The miracles, moreover, regarded as proofs of Divinity, terminated at the resurrection: they were not needed when his mission had been accomplished. They were, after all, but an occasional flashing forth of Divinity from the humble Christ. Except at these times, he seemed only an ordinary man; but, when the period of his humiliation had passed by, and his glorified presence was visible by those who had been disciplined for the sight, then this very appearance was an extended miracle. It was Divinity,

a The miraculous draught of fishes, described in St. John's last chapter, had an import, very different from that conveyed by a similar action at the commencement of the ministry. The first proved his superhuman power; the last, his care of the disciples.

VOL. VII.-NO. XIII.

G