What relation exists between the original, putrefied, decomposed, and dissipated body, and the sublimated, glorious, incorruptible fabric which is to succeed;-what the relation in virtue of which I can call such a body mine, and say, 5 Behold my body raised from the tomb and animated anew?"

66

We know it is common for poets and poetical declaimers to give loose to imagination, and portray a scene which shall work powerfully on the passions, while at the same time it is as far from scriptural truth as it is from sound philosophy. Thus, in Young's poem, entitled "The Last Day," we have the germ of a multitude of similar descriptions, which have been amplified to pages of homiletic declamation; as, for instance, in the sermons of Pres. Davies, and also in one of the eloquent discourses of the Rev. Mr. Melville of London :

What shall we say to this? In the view of sober reason is it any thing but a poet's dream? And what is the chaff to the wheat? "He that hath a dream, let him tell a dream; and he that hath my word, let him declare my word." Such descriptions wrought into pulpit discourses can be considered as nothing else than pulpit rhapsodizing, by which the cause of truth is any thing but a gainer. But this is a view of the subject approaching too near to caricature to be admitted as the bona fide belief of sensible men,

and as such entitled to serious refutation, and therefore we do not dwell upon it.

But waving all that can be justly deemed extravagant in the prevailing sentiments on the subject, we still find a large residuum of the improbable and the incredible in that which is propounded to our reception. Guided by the mere letter of Scripture, it is common to hear mention made of the body's being raised from the grave at the sound of the last trumpet, and of its coming out of the tomb or the sepulchre in which it was interred. This we concede is Scripture language, and the simple use of the ipsissima verba of the Holy Spirit can never be a ground of censure towards any man who uses it with pure motives. Still we are at full liberty to inquire into its meaning, and to institute the most rigid comparison between the literal averments of holy writ and the inevitable deductions of our reason founded upon the ascertained results of science; nor is it possible that the import of the inspired oracles, when rightly understood, should ever be such as to compel us to forego the clear and legitimate conclusions which are forced upon us by the just exercise of our rational faculties. The sense, however, which we are constrained to put upon the letter of the sacred record may be different from that which is most natively obvious, and such as would never have occurred to us but from an apparent conflict between the literal interpretation and the known facts or irresistible inferences derived from other sources-a point upon which we shall have more to say in the sequel. In the present instance it is unquestionable, that the words quoted from our Saviour's address to the Jews do encounter a very formidable difficulty arising from the indubitable fact, that thousands and millions of human bodies that were once deposited in graves are not there now, and never will be again. Their tombs are cenotaphs, or empty monuments, in every sense of the word. Where now are the tenants of hundreds of the cemeteries of Egypt, whose mummy-remains have been from age to age

consumed for fuel, or transferred, in the form of medicine, to the jars upon the apothecaries' shelves? They certainly are no longer to be found in the rocky repositories in which they were piously bestowed by the hands of survivors. When our Lord's language, therefore, is applied to cases like these, and it is affirmed that these bodies are to be raised out of their graves at the last day, how is it to be reconciled with the fact now adverted to? Let it not be said that this is an infidel objection, prompted by a proud preference of human reason to the teachings of inspired wisdom. The question is, Is it a valid objection? If so, it is entitled to regard, by whomsoever proposed. Nothing is gained by blinking or blackening the allegation of real difficulties in any part of the sacred writings.

We do not of course urge the objection as bearing at all against the fact of a future existence in another state. But we are at liberty to demand of any one who affirms at this day respecting a body that was buried, say four thousand years ago, that it is to come out of its burying-place, what he means by the assertion, when in point of fact not a particle of it remains there—when it has passed partly into other forms of vegetable and animal life, and partly into imponderable gases? So far as this affirmation builds itself upon the express declarations of Jesus, we would ever interrogate its import with the profoundest reverence; but still we' would interrogate it, nor do we conceive that a due respect to the words of inspiration requires us to rest contented with ideas that have nothing in them of definite or precise. Under this impression we scruple not to reject, as containing unfair and injurious imputations, the sentiment of the following extract from Witsius, (Dissert on the Apos. Creed, Vol. II. p. 424,) who thus descants upon the philosophical objection we are now urging:-"In fact this objection discovers a preposterous curiosity, and an immoderate love of refinement; which, however, it is not impossible to repress by satisfactory arguments. Even although we could find

nothing more particular to say in reply, is it fit that we should bring forward our reason, so feeble, so diseased, so enveloped in thick darkness, and so defiled by numerous corruptions, to weigh and measure the wisdom and power of God, his faithfulness in his promises, and his admirable providence and incredible facility in removing the greatest possible difficulties? Truly, that man cherishes most unworthy thoughts of God, who determines to believe him in nothing but what he is able to investigate and comprehend in its entire nature and mode, by the force of his own understanding. We make this remark, however, not because we have no other answer to return to the objection; but because when human reason replies against God, it is useful again and again to inculcate, that nothing is more just and proper than that, in its inquiries into divine mysteries, it should lay aside all murmuring, and allow itself to be subdued into the obedience of faith." Human reason is undoubtedly required to assume an attitude of the deepest deference and docility in reference to divine teachings, but she can never be required to forego her own attributes in dealing with an alleged revelation from heaven; and this enjoined subjection to the obedience of faith is often in truth little else than a virtual quenching of that candle of the Almighty which he has himself lighted up within us.

But we return to the objection. We say that the letter of the inspired record announces a fact apparently at variance with other facts which carry with them an authority no less imperative to our rational understanding. How can a body come out of the grave that is not there? It is palpable that the language must be limited, modified, qualified in some way, in order to be made accordant with known facts. We shall consider the passage more at length in the sequel; but we observe at present, that so far as it is pleaded in proof of the resurrection of the same body, or indeed of any material body at all, its testimony necessarily loses its effect, so long as the obvious conflict between the letter and

the fact remains unremoved. We are aware it may be replied, that no one can positively affirm that all the dust has disappeared from the place where it was deposited—that some relics of the entombed body may yet remain to form a nucleus of the reconstructed fabric. This we believe to be a very prevalent opinion in regard to the point in question. The dominant impression throughout Christendom is not, we think, that the entire body which was laid down at death is resumed at the resurrection, but rather that certain parts of it, more or less, are in some way preserved from extinction, and, like a germ in vegetation, are transferred from the old to the new structure, between which they constitute the indispensable link in the chain of continuous identity. But to say nothing of the utter lack of evidence that any such transfer takes place-nothing of the intrinsic incompatibility of material and spiritual elements in the same fabric-we are unable to perceive upon what grounds a diminutive portion of a dissolved and decayed human body can be said to constitute that body in its restored state. We can imagine an old house taken down and a few of its timbers or shingles to enter into the materials of a new one; but would this be termed a rebuilding of the former edifice? So in regard to the former and latter body. The solution labors under an insuperable difficulty from not defining how much of the one is necessary for rendering it a renewal or revival of the other. We are utterly nonplussed to master the principle on which the insertion of a few particles of the former body into the latter shall properly denominate it the resurrection of that body.

The remarks now made are made on the admission that there may, in some cases, be a residuum, small though it be, of the corporeal mass remaining in the grave after the lapse of hundreds or thousands of years. The probability, for the most part, we doubt not would be against this as a matter of fact; but in order to present the difficulty in its strongest light, we will suppose a case about which there can be no