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

lies at the foundation of the whole course of exegesis upon which we now propose to enter, we wish at any rate to state it with the utmost distinctness, as this may perhaps be the best mode of establishing its truth. Our impression is, that its strongest proof is contained in its clearest enunciation.

The Bible, as is well known, deals with two distinct classes of subjects-those which are originally within the limits of man's rational powers, and those which are without. Truths that are purely scientific fall into the former class. God has endowed his creature man with faculties that enable him to push his inquiries very deep into the recesses of physical nature, and to make immense discoveries in her wide domain. The possession of these powers is itself the warrant for the freest exercise of them, and the beneficence of the Creator has, in the vastness of his works, provided a field in every way commensurate to their boundless range. Over this field those "thoughts which wander through eternity" are incessantly prone to expatiate, collecting facts and forming inductions. The results to which the reason is brought in its researches in many of the departments of science may be regarded as certain. The mind, from the necessity of its own structure, rests in them as demonstrated truths. It cannot conceive them to be established upon any higher authority than that which belongs to their own evidence. Take, for instance, the department of astronomy, and consider the process and the result. The astronomer takes the universe as it is, independent of revelation, and attempts by the most rigid observation to ascertain its structure and its laws. He meets, indeed, with difficulties; he is baffled again and again in the several stages of his inquiry; he sees not how to adjust the apparent discrepancies in the different parts of the system; but he plies the telescope afresh; he institutes anew his calculus; the difficulties vanish, one by one, before him; the most satisfactory issues accrue; he comes to conclusions which assume the character of absolute demonstration; he enrols them in the class

of known and positive truths; he settles his science on an immovable basis.

Now we may ask if in all this he is doing wrong. Can the process or the conclusion be impeached? Is not creation free to his searching inquest? Is he not capable of reaching assured results? Yet these results in the science supposed are contrary to appearance. Instead of finding the earth at the centre of the system, he finds the sun at the centre. But the Scriptures, speaking according to appearance, represent the earth as the central body, and the sun and the stars as revolving around it. What shall he do? Shall he give up his conclusions because the letter of revelation is in conflict with them, when at the same time he is just as well assured of their truth as he is that there is any sun or earth at all? Yet we know that the time has been when this was required of the astronomer, because he was going counter to revelation, and he could only avow his belief by defying the terrors of hierarchical orthodoxy. Yet the truth has here finally triumphed, and the world reposes in the admission that on this subject the Bible was not designed to teach the verities of science.*

* A humiliating lesson on the force of blind prejudice, in its war with the progress of science, is taught in the following extract from the history of the proceedings in the case of Galileo, which we have extracted from an old work of Benedict Plazza, entitled, Dissertatio BiblicoPhysica, de Literali Proprio Sensu Sacræ Scripturæ, published at Panormus, in Sicily, 1734. With a view to economy of space we give an exact translation of the Latin original. The object of the work is to maintain the sanctity of the literal sense of Scripture, whatever be the subject on which it speaks. After laboring this point at great length. in a chapter entitled, "Systema Mundi Copernicanum sacris literis omnino adversari, atque adeo plusquam falsum esse, ostenditur," the writer proceeds :— "The preceding arguments receive at once light and strength from the censure and decree of the Holy Congregation of Cardinals enacted against the Copernican system and its defender, Galileo. The history of this sentence I will first briefly relate. Galileo, the Florentine, having been denounced to the tribunal of the Supreme Roman Inquisition for affirming

Thus, too, in the kindred department of geology. Setting aside for the present every thing that inspiration affirms

that the sun was immovably fixed in the centre of the universe, and the earth revolved round it by a daily motion, the two following propositions were discussed by the theological censors assembled for the purpose, by order of the Pontiff and the Holy College of Cardinals, and noted with the following censures: 1. That the sun is in the centre of the system and locally immovable, is a proposition absurd in itself, false in philosophy, and formally heretical, because expressly contrary to sacred Scripture. 2. That the earth is not the centre of the system, nor immovable, but revolves by diurnal motion, is a proposition absurd in itself, false in philosophy, and, theologically considered, at least erroneous in faith. Consequent upon the declaration of these censures a precept, signed by the Commissary of the Holy College before Cardinal Bellarmine, was served upon Galileo by order of the Sacred Congregation held in presence of Paul V. Feb. 23, 1610, commanding him to desist from that opinion, and neither to teach nor defend it in any way. A decree was also issued from the Holy Congregation of the Index, prohibiting the books containing such doctrine, and declaring it false and wholly contrary to sacred Scripture. But as Galileo, about sixteen years after, violated this precept by the publication, at Florence, of a certain dialogue respecting the twofold system of the universe, the Ptolemaic and the Copernican, he was cited a second time before the same tribunal, where, in due order of justice, a sentence of the following tenor was passed against him under Urban VIII. :—

"The most holy name, &c., being invoked, we say, pronounce, judge, and declare that you, Galileo, have rendered yourself vehemently suspected to this body of heresy, forasmuch as you believe and hold a doctrine false and contrary to the divine Scriptures, to wit, that the sun is the centre of the solar system—that it does not move from east to westbut that the earth moves-and that it is not the centre of the system; and moreover, that an opinion may be held and defended as probably true, after it has been declared and defined as contrary to sacred Scripture; and consequently, that you have incurred all the censures, and penalties, &c., from which it is our pleasure that you be absolved, provided that previously, with a sincere heart and faith unfeigned, you do before us abjure, curse, and detest the above named errors and heresies, &c."

The document closes by assuring the reader that the "bonus Galileus" made the prescribed recantation on the 22d of June, A. D. 1633. The whole affair was thus completely righted. The Holy Congrega