palpable, we had almost said an unmistakable, averment in the compass of holy writ, it is that the true doctrine of the resurrection is proved from the fact, that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, were living when Christ spake these words, and consequently must have been raised and must be living in resurrection bodies." pp. 207, 208. If then the moral resurrection (or regeneration) of man had been going on ever since the promise of a Saviour in Genesis iii., and if the pious entered the resurrection-state so soon as they died, then what has become of Professor Bush's magnificent exposition of Daniel xii. 2? He makes the prophet say that a great event is to transpire at a certain time-Behold! there will take place a wonderful event; to wit:-things will go on just as they have been going on ever since the creation! Who can help thinking of Parturiunt montes, &c.? Yet such is the absurdity to which Professor Bush is driven in order to carry out his theory.

There are twenty other objections against the exposition of our author, all equally fatal to it, such as, for example, the impossibility of explaining "sleeping in the dust of the earth," (without doing the utmost violence to the whole usus loquendi of the Scrptures,) to refer to death in sin: but the foregoing will suffice. And the Professor's exposition being thus proved to be false, the text must still stand, as it ever has stood-an unimpeached and unimpeachable witness of the truth of the great Scripture doctrine of the resurrection of the body.

So far, therefore, as the Old Testament Scriptures are concerned, Professor Bush has done nothing to invalidate their testimony to the doctrine of the resurrection of the body: nor has he succeeded in even the shadow of an argument in favour of the theory which he advocates.

CHAPTER III.

A CONSIDERATION OF PROFESSOR BUSH'S REMARKS ON THE NEW TESTAMENT DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION.

SECTION I.

Preliminary Remarks.

THE Professor commences his remarks on this branch of the argument with the observation, that "the train of investigation thus far pursued has, if we mistake not, conducted us to one important conclusion, viz: that the teachings of the Old Testament, so far as they throw light at all on the theme of human destiny in the world to come, do not go beyond the announcement of the simple fact of a future life:" (p. 141:) a conclusion which we regard as wholly unsupported by his "train of argumentation," and the correctness of which we are entirely willing to leave to the reader to determine. Yet, notwithstanding, he candidly concedes that it still must be admitted, as natural to suppose, that the doctrine declared by Christ on this subject (the resurrection) would be in the main a fuller and clearer enunciation of the very doctrine so darkly (!) intimated in the Jewish Scriptures;" (ibid.) an admission which is based upon truth, and which Professor Bush has beautifully illustrated in his ingenious and excellent criticism on wri, (p. 92,) to which we have referred on a preceding page.

66

In Chap. V. Part. II., (containing these preliminary remarks to the New Testament argument,) he likewise proceeds to re-affirm his canons of criticism, (to which we have so fully adverted in Chap. I. above,) and admits that we are not at liberty "to array any hypothetical assumptions against the clear evidence of facts," as asserted in the teaching of Christ: "Yet," says he, "we are at liberty to have recourse to a priori considerations in fixing the principles on which language that is intrinsically doubtful is to be interpreted." p. 142. Few, I suppose, would ques

tion the propriety of such a procedure; but the difficulty with Professor Bush is just here; he does array "hypothetical assumptions against the clear evidence of facts;" and he perpetually insists upon it, that language which, taken by itself in its proper connexion, is perfectly plain in its import, is "intrinsically doubtful" if it does not perfectly chime in with his à priori deductions of reason and philosophy. He first proves by these deductions that the meaning of the language is "intrinsically doubtful," as "no two truths in the universe can conflict with each other;" and then he "fixes the principles" on which "it is to be interpreted" in consistency with these self-same deductions-a vastly convenient method by which to make the Bible "a nose of wax," and render it the "laughing-stock" of infidelity.

"The question, then," says the Professor, "is a perfectly fair one, in what manner the Divine Teacher would be apt to promulgate to the Jews, and through them to the world, the grand doctrine of man's future existence. (This is à priori 'with a vengeance!') This question becomes doubly proper and urgent, if we may venture to suppose ourselves to have attained, by scientific discovery apart from revelation, a view of the subject which commands assent, but which is at the same time apparently in conflict with the literal statements of the Scriptures; for the case then becomes similar to that of geology,* where a reason is imperatively required for the seeming discrepancy between the letter of the sacred record and the ascertained facts of science." p. 142. Thus emphatically does he re-affirm the principles upon which his theory is based; and which have guided him through his long and laborious discussion of Scripture texts, and also conducted him through as many vagaries as, we think, could be conveniently played off in a duodecimo of four hundred pages!

In reference to this often-repeated assertion of Professor Bush, I again distinctly and emphatically remark, that no geological facts have ever been pointed out, which in themselves contradict the clear import of any passage of God's word, as ascertained by the acknowledged principles (not, however, "accommodation principles") of Scripture criticism. And with high respect for his talents and learning, I affirm, that Professor Bush is unable to produce a single instance of the kind.

SECTION II.

Definition of Terms.

In entering into a discussion of the New Testament evidence on the subject before us, it is of great importance to ascertain the meaning of the terms which are most frequently employed in relation to it.

The Jews had no word precisely corresponding with the term avάorais as employed in the New Testament, though they somewhat familiarly designate the resurrection of the body by several words and phrases in use in their Rabbinic dissertations. The most common of these are on derived from up to stand or rise up, (see Zephaniah iii. 8, Isaiah xxvi. 19, &c.,) and n derived from n to live, (its most ordinary import,) and also to remain alive; to revive or recover, Genesis xx. 7 and Isaiah lv. 3, and also to live again; see Ezekiel xxvii. 5, seq. and 1 Kings xvii. 22. Yet were they, (subsequent to Alexander's conquest) familiar with the term avάoraois, and frequently employed it in translating the terms above-named, as a reference to the LXX. will evince. And a reference also to 2 Maccabees vii. 14; and xii. 43-45, will show that they applied the term directly to designate the resurrection of the body. (Compare also the statements in 4 Esdras ii. 10, 13, 15, 16, 30, 31.) They also employed the term avaßious a rising up again, interchangeably with ἀνάστασις. These terms therefore, were in use among the Jews in the time of our Saviour.

The apostles and evangelists when reporting the discourses of Christ, or announcing the doctrine of the resurrection, do never use avaßiwoss. Once they employ (from yg to rise, a verb of very frequent occurrence, in the New Testament, and also employed by the LXX. to translate and also op,) in designation of the resurrection of Christ, Matthew xxvii. 53; but the term by which they designate the resurrection-state is avάoraois. And this term the Jews before Christ employed to designate the resurrection of the body, as we have shown. (See 2 Maccabees vii. 14, and xii. 43-45.) This is the term employed by the inspired apostle in his report of the dispute between Christ and the Sadducees; (Matthew xxii. and Luke xx.,) and in this dispute it is inconceivable that the term could have been

employed out of its popular acceptation. And if it were employed in the sense in which the Jews understood it, the term in the New Testament must necessarily import the resurrection of the body. This is a point of great importance, in determining the usage of this word in the New Testament; and of course Professor Bush can have nothing to say either against our argument or inference, as he constantly affirms that our Lord and his apostles "accommodated their teaching to the views" of the Jews. As the Jewish usage of the term, therefore, in its application to the future state of man, imports the literal resurrection of his body; the term must include this in its signification as employed by Christ in Matthew xxii.

It seems to me to be idle to appeal to the mere etymology of the word (as some writers do,) in order to determine its import as used in the New Testament. I do not deny that it may be used in different senses. It may mean simply, erectio post lapsum, or as Joannes Damascenus defines it, ἀνάστασίς; δευτέρα τοῦ πεπτωκότος στάσις, i. e., a second standing of that which had fallen down; or, as Bretschneider defines it, it may mean simply exsurgere, (see LXX. in Jeremiah iii. 63, and Zephaniah iii. 8,) so far as the simple etymology is concerned; but the query is, what is its recognized import in the New Testament?

In reference to the import of the word Dr. Dwight remarks: "So far as I have observed, it usually denotes our existence beyond the grave." Theol. IV., p. 430. Dr. Campbell, also, says that "in this view, when applied to the dead, the word denotes, properly, no more than a renewal of life to them, in whatever manner this may happen." See Note on Matt. xxii. 23.* But I should rather have the reasons of these eminent men than their authority, great as it confessedly is for I am satisfied that the meaning of the term, as applied in the New Testament to the future existence of the dead, is something far more definite than this. I have no design to write a dissertation; nor would I make the doctrine under discussion to depend upon a definition of a term; but there are several things which I have not seen

* I have been grieved exceedingly to see the uncandid statement which Professor Bush has made (on pp. 209, 210) of the view of Dr. Campbell, while purporting to make an extract from the note above referred to. The sense of the passage is utterly changed.