this matter, unless supported by the authority of others. suppose that Paine or Voltaire would have been fully willing to believe the Bible on such terms.

But the Professor attempts to sustain himself in this singular position as follows: "We must certainly admit that the unequivocal assertion of an inspired apostle carries with it a primâ facie evidence of conveying an absolute truth. Yet when such an assertion relates to a matter of historical fact, on which we have other sources of information, we are, doubtless, at liberty freely to inquire how far the assertion is sustained by authentic records, and in what way any apparent discrepancy between them is to be reconciled. We do not conceive that the simple declaration even of an inspired man, on a subject of this nature, is a necessary foreclosure of all inquiry into its grounds." p. 252. But this is a mere evasion; or an attempt to confound things which are entirely different. Professor Bush cannot but know that there is a wide difference between inquiring into the grounds of an assertion, the truth of which is unquestionable, and an inquiry whether the assertion is true or not. Now while he professes to be doing the former of these (as his words would evince), he is really doing the latter. And hence he adds, "In regard to the present point, we think the evidence is conclusive that the Pharisees, as a body, did Nor hold to the resurrection of the wicked." p. 252. He also quotes the testimony of Josephus, and R. David Kimchi, and R. Menasseh Ben Israel, &c. &c., to prove that they held no such sentiments as he asserts that Paul here attributes to them from all of which he concludes that "there seems no room to question that the general sentiments of the Pharisees in all ages have been adverse to the doctrine of the resurrection of the wicked," (pp. 252-254,) and ergo, Paul was plainly mistaken in asserting what he does in the passage before us.

Now there is something so uncandid in such a procedure -in pretending to be inquiring into the grounds of an assertion, and so attempting to escape the odium which he might well apprehend would result from an open denial of its truth, at the same time that he is doing his utmost to impugn its authority, that it needs but be mentioned to become the subject of merited and universal reprehension.

But yet this whole criticism of the Professor is based upon a total misapprehension of the passage before us. Paul is

not here speaking of the Pharisees "as a sect," but of the Jews; (and the Pharisees were but a small part of the nation;) he affirms that the Jews held the doctrine referred to. The Pharisees, may or may not have held it, (and even our author is compelled to admit that at least some of them did so believe,) but the Jews as a nation did believe that the wicked would be raised from the dead. On the principle of accommodation, even Professor Bush is compelled to admit this. For if Christ accommodated himself to the errors of the Jews, it is plain from Matt. xxv. 31–46, and John v. 28, 29, that this must have been the view of the multitudes of his hearers. So also if the apostles accommodated their teaching in like manner, the inference is irresistible that the nation must have entertained this view, as the text itself under consideration at once shows. And if they did not accommodate themselves thus to Jewish errors, it follows of course that they in these passages announced the truth. So that either way, our author cannot escape the inference which he denies.

If it be necessary to sustain by authority the statement that Paul is here speaking, not of the Pharisees as a sect, but of the Jewish nation, I would refer the Professor to the context; and also to Horne, who remarks that the apostle is here speaking "of the Jews in general, and of himself in particular." Crit. Introd. Vol. I. p. 351. Dr. Knapp also remarks that "It may be perhaps that this (i. e. that the wicked would not be raised from the dead,) was taught by some at the time of Josephus; but during the first century it was the more prevailing belief even among the Pharisees, that both the righteous and the wicked would share in the coming resurrection." And after referring to Acts xxiv. 15, he continues: "But frequent traces of this opinion are to be found in the Chaldaic Paraphrases, and in the writings of the Rabbins after the time of Christ, although it never (i. e. after this time) became general among the Jews." See Christian Theology," p. 467, London Ed. So also Rabbi Israel, in his book De Anima, cap. 8, says that "Both the body and soul of the Israelites who sin in the body shall be tormented in the fire," i. e. of hell. And Rabbi Bechai says that "The Israelites who forsake the law, shall be raised from the dead and suffer eternal torments in soul and body."

Such, then, is the Professor's "solution" of the first "prob

lem." As to the second, to wit," how the apostle's words are to be understood consistently with the dominant teaching of reason and revelation on the subject," he remarks that they are to be explained as he, the Professor, has explained the language of Christ, in relation to the same subject. "In explaining the one," says he, "we have explained the other:" and so he dismisses the subject. But so far as the Professor's explanations of the language of Christ are concerned, the reader will probably agree with me, that to take them in order to clear up the Professor's difficulties with this passage, would be truly explaining ignotum per ignotius.

SECTION VII.

Examination of passages in the Epistles.

I. The next passage adduced by our author is the following:-"And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the spirit is life because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ. from the dead, shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you." Rom. viii. 10, 11. (p. 255.)

66

Professor Bush begins his remarks on this passage with the following observation: 'Nothing is more obvious to the careful reader of this and the other epistles of Paul, than that the term 'body' is used in a somewhat figurative sense, to denote not so much the physical organization in distinction from the soul, as the body considered as the seat and subject of moral corruption, and thus set in opposition to the spiritual or renewed part of our nature. By the body's being dead, therefore," &c. On the correctness of this remark depends the correctness of the exposition which he offers of the passage. But the remark is not sustained by fact. It is not a fact that "nothing is more obvious to the careful reader," than that Paul thus places oμa, body, "in opposition to the spiritual or renewed part of our nature." It is painful to be compelled to contradict thus pointedly so many positive assertions of Professor Bush; but if he will hazard them without examination, he must expect that, when they concern subjects of such vast im

portance, and yet are unsupported by fact, they will be contradicted. The remark struck me as somewhat singular, and, as I have professed to be a "careful reader" of Paul, and had never noticed the fact asserted by the Professor, I thought the subject worthy of examination. Our author would have the σώμα, "the seat and subject of moral corruption," and the antithesis of the "spiritual or renewed part of our nature;" and then he hopes that it will, therefore, not appear to be any very great loss, if, after all, the spirit should not become re-united therewith. But the truth of the matter is this: Paul employs oua in his epistles ninetysix times; and out of all these Professor Bush cannot produce five where it is used as he would have it constantly to be. So far is this fact from being obvious to the readers of Paul. The word is thrice used to designate the seat of the affections, or the nature of man as led by the senses, (Rom. vi. 6, and vii. 24; 1 Cor. ix. 27,) and once, or twice, perhaps, as Professor Bush asserts, (Rom. viii. 13; yet see the marginal reading in Griesbach:) but, on the other hand, it is referred to as a subject of the sanctifying influences of the Spirit, and directly styled "a temple of the Holy Spirit," and an instrument of doing the will of God: 1 Cor. vi. 19, 20; Phil. iii. 21; Rom. xii. 1, 2. If Professor Bush had said that oag was often employed by the apostle in contrast with "the spiritual or renewed part of our nature;" he would have said what is susceptible of proof: see Rom. vii. 18, 25, and viii. 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13; 2 Cor. x. 2; Gal. v. 13, 16, 17, 19, 24, and vi. 8; Col. ii. 11, 23. Zags, flesh, is thus often used in contrast with spirit, and the works of the flesh to the works of the Spirit; and oags xai aï'μa, flesh and blood, is said to be excluded from the kingdom of God; but never is this said of the oua, body. This is to be changed; Phil. iii. 21, and 1 Cor. xv. 42-55. And so carefully does the apostle distinguish between them, (as a general thing,) that in his use of the two terms in Col. ii. 11, it is of the flesh, or rags that the sin is predicated: "The body of the sins of the flesh." Professor Bush, in order to maintain his theory, would evidently have these two terms employed as synonyms, that he might be able to reason from one to the other; but this is entirely inadmissible.*

"Zags flesh, properly differs from oua body, in this, that the latter denotes the entire body, as a whole, without respect to any of

The Professor continues his remarks as follows: "By the body's being dead, therefore, in connexion with Christ's inhabitation of it, is implied an admission, that, viewed in itself, as actuated by its native propensities, it is indeed (uév) dead in trespasses and sins." But I apprehend that there is a wide distinction to be observed between being dead ¿v ἁμαρτίαις in sins; and dead δὲ ἁμαρτίαν, on account of sin, of which Paul here speaks. The former cannot be predicated of a body in which the Holy Spirit dwells; but the latter may, as it means simply destined to death.

Our author proceeds still further to confound this distinction, and then gives the following explanation of the pas sage: (p. 256.)

"This principle of divine life, thus infused into the soul which inhabits a body morally dead, will gradually work outward from its centre, and quicken that body also with a divine vitality. For as this principle of life flows from Him who hath life in himself,' and who gave such a demonstration of its efficacy in raising up Christ from the dead, the supposition is perfectly easy, that the same power is competent to a complete spiritual quickening of the whole man in his saints, so that they shall stand before him as in the highest sense alive, soul, spirit, and body. The text is therefore entirely analogous with Col. ii. 12: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead."

But if this be the meaning of the passage, it certainly makes nothing in favour of the Professor's theory. If in this world the renovation of believers is "a complete spiritual quickening," "so that they shall stand before God as in THE HIGHEST SENSE alive, soul, spirit, and body," then "the spiritual life implanted in regeneration" is something more than the commencement of the existence of a tertium quid, which is to be eliminated at death. And if the bodythe ua, thus becomes in the highest sense alive, under the saving operations of the Spirit, it would require some pretty substantial proof to make one believe that it would thereafter perish, so as to be in no sense partaker of the benefits of

its conditions, whereas the former denotes the human body with reference to its weakness, its debility-its mortality." Tholuck in John vi. 59.