CHAPTER IV.

THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST CONSIDERED.

THE transcendent importance of the doctrine of Christ's resurrection cannot be overrated, and can scarcely be estimated. "If Christ was raised from the dead," says President Dwight, (Theol. Ser. 61,) "he was certainly the Messiah; or, in other words, whatever he declared himself to be. His doctrines, precepts, and life, were all approved by God; possess Divine authority; and demand, with the obligation of that authority, the faith and obedience of mankind." If he has not arisen, he is not the Messiah; his doctrines are not divine; the apostles were deceivers, or deceived; and those who are fallen asleep in Christ, have perished. With whatever allowance we may therefore look upon errors relating to other subjects, there can be no allowance here. To compromise one jot or tittle of what God has said on this subject, is to peril the everlasting well-being of souls, and to prove ourselves apostates from the Gospel which he has revealed. To no subject, more pointedly than to this, does the awful language of the apostle apply, that "should we, or an angel from heaven, announce to you any thing contrary to what we have announced to you, let him be accursed." Gal. i. 8. (See Greek.) And under whatever inducements we may suffer ourselves to be influenced by any such opposing announcement, we thereby enter the path to death, and risk the imminent danger of making eternal shipwreck of the soul. Compare 1 Kings xiii. 17, 18.

As

The Professor commences his discussion of this subject with the remark that "The resurrection of our Lord is in so many instances and in such a variety of ways, brought into connexion with the resurrection of his people, especially as a pledge of theirs, that the consideration of this event is imperatively urged upon us in this part of our discussion. he in his risen body stands at the head of his risen saints, so the fact of his resurrection occupies a like relation to the fact of theirs. The fact itself of his emergence from the sepulchre ON THE THIRD DAY is of course admitted. The nature, circumstances, and bearings of the fact, are all with which we at present have to do." p. 151. And he goes on

to admit that if Christ arose in the self-same material body in which he was crucified, "it doubtless affords some countenance to the idea that his people are also to rise in like manner in the bodies which they laid down at death." He attempts also to make a difference between Christ's resurrection being the pattern and the pledge of the resurrection of his people. As to the term pattern, we shall not dispute about it in this connexion: for Professor Bush freely grants all we here ask on this point, that Christ's resurrection is a pledge that his people also shall rise. But how, I ask, can his resurrection be such a pledge, on the theory of Professor Bush? A pledge is something given in security for the performance of any thing: but Professor Bush makes the performance half done before the pledge is given, for he asserts that all believers who died before Christ, were raised from the dead before Christ arose.

66

The reader will also please to take notice of the Professor's admission that Christ "emerged from the sepulchre, (i. e. arose from the dead,) on the third day;" and of his admission, also, that if Christ arose in the body that was crucified, i. e., "the self-same material body," it affords some countenance to the idea" that his people will arise in their bodies which died. The Professor could not help referring to this last point, for it would have been too gross to omit it; but he has not stated it in its full strength. The argument amounts to perfect demonstration, that if Christ arose corporeally, and ascended to heaven corporeally, his members shall arise and ascend also in like manner. To prove that Christ's body was raised, therefore, is to prove the doctrine of the resurrection of the body.

The Professor saw this and felt it, but, as above remarked, would not state it; and by an absurd evasion has attempted to throw over it an air of uncertainty. He says that Christ's body did not see corruption, while the bodies of his people do: and that "there is a heaven-wide difference between the case of a body that is resuscitated on the third day," and one that." has been dissolved to dust." But what has all this to do with the point? In what way does it affect it? If believers enter upon the resurrection state at death, this certainly is before the third day after they are dead. And what difference does it make, therefore, on Professor Bush's theory, whether their bodies are subsequently dissolved or not? This whole assented difference, therefore, so far as it

relates to the subject before us is unphilosophical and foolish. Death is death; whether it last a day or a thousand years; and it is no more difficult for God to restore one to life in the latter than in the former case. But as a matter of curiosity, and that it may be seen how far Professor Bush is willing to wander, (for a child can see that if there is any force in his speculations on this subject, it tends to cast doubt over the question as to whether Jesus was truly dead,) I will here present an extract from the celebrated Valentine Smalcius, (reputed author of the Racovian Catechism,) on the same subject; and let the reader see how much more sound and philosophical is the Socinian than the Orthodox Professor. He speaks as follows: "He is as truly dead, who is dead one hour, as he who has been dead ten thousand years; and truly we are to believe that Jesus Christ, at the time when he was dead, was as truly in the same condition in which all the other dead are, as if he had been dead many years. For if this is not carefully regarded, our hope cannot be firm and sure: because we do not die to arise the third day, and yet we have hope of our own resurrection from the resurrection of Christ itself."*

But let us now attend to the Professor's proofs that the body of Christ did not arise. "1. It is peculiarly worthy of note,' says he, "that it is nowhere explicitly affirmed in the narrative of the evangelists, or any other part of the Scriptures, that the identical material body of Christ arose:" (p. 152,) and he proceeds to remark that the language which refers to this subject may be consistently understood without implying that his material body arose. That is, Per fas, per nefas; rem, rem, quocumque modo rem. Professor Bush ought to have taken this for the motto of his book, or at least of that chapter of it which is now under consideration. But I reply to the foregoing allegation. 1. That it is puerile. Suppose it is true that the Bible nowhere mentions that "the identical material body of Christ" arose, and what would it prove? The Bible" nowhere mentions that the identical material body of Lazarus arose, or of Jairus' daughter, or of the young man of Nain, or of Dorcas, or of Eutychus-and what then? Did not their identical material body arise? Mahomet said that Jesus was not crucified, but that the Jews took and crucified a Jew that strongly resembled him. And

* De Divinitate Jesu Christi, Parte II., Cap. XIII. Racoviæ, 1608.

where is it said in so many words that "they did not take and crucify such a Jew in mistake?" Even if the assertion of Professor Bush were true, therefore, it would amount to no more than the assertion of Mahomet; and it is fit to be put in the same category. 2. But the assertion of Professor Bush is utterly unfounded; and the contrary is affirmed in every variety of form of which the subject is susceptible. First. In John ii. 18-22, we read as follows: "Then answered the Jews and said unto him, what sign showest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things? Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. ἐν τρισὶν ἡμέραις ΕΓΕΡΩ αὐτόν. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? But he spake of the temple his body. Εκείνος δὲ ἔλεγε περὶ τοῦ ναοῦ τοῦ ΣΩΜΑΤΟΣ αὐτόν. When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them: and they believed the Scripture, and the word which Jesus had said." To attempt any elucidation of this clear announcement, would be to hold a candle to the sun to assist it to shine. The "identical material body" of Jesus is here mentioned as the subject of the resurrection; the pledge of Jesus is given that he will raise it up if destroyed; and when he is risen the disciples not only brought this his pledge to mind, but believed the Scriptures, which of course had taught therefore that the body of Jesus should arise. Secondly. The Old Testament (as the passage last quoted clearly announces,) declares the same truth. This has been shown already in our examination of Ps. xvi. 9. 10; concerning which Professor Bush is himself compelled to admit that "from the inspired comment of Peter, Acts ii. 29–31, it is clear that it is a resurrection predicated OF THE BODY OF CHRIST;" (p. 104,) and as we have remarked in loco, the terms in the Psalm, and oags in Acts can refer to nothing but to his "identical material body." Then thirdly, Jesus says in John x. 17, 18, "Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life that I may take it again." &c. What life did he lay down? Would Professor Bush say on his own theory that it was the life of his spiritual body? Pressed as he is for evasions, he would not hazard such a declaration. Jesus laid down his corporeal life; and he therefore took it again: and by consequence, his "identical material body" that was slain,

"Ye seek

arose. Fourthly. After his resurrection he bore the same clear testimony. He had announced repeatedly that he would raise his body if he were slain, and now says he to his disciples, "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: HANDLE ME AND SEE; FOR a spirit hath not FLESH AND BONES AS YE SEE ME HAVE,” ὅτι πνεύμα σάρκα καὶ ὀστέα οὐκ ἔχει, καθὼς ἐμὲ θεωρεῖτε ἔχοντα, as ye see me having. Here is the clearest possible assertion, and one made by Jesus himself that he had flesh and bones, and of course, then, his "identical material body" arose. Fifthly. The testimony of angels is given also in confirmation of the same truth. "I know that ye seek Jesus that was crucified. He is not here: he is risen AS HE SAID. Come, see the place where the Lord lay." Matt. xxviii. 6. Jesus of Nazareth who was crucified: he is risen; he is not here; behold the place where they laid him." Mark xvi. 6. What was it that Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus had "laid there?"-laid in the place pointed to by the angels? It was the body of the crucified Jesus-" the identical mate. rial body." Here, then, is the clear and unambiguous testimony of angels that it had arisen. Finally. The apostles after they had received the Holy Spirit testify to the same. A single extract will suffice. "Him God raised up the third day, and showed him openly; not to all people, but to witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead." Acts x. 40, 41. The adaptation to the outward senses of the apostles," on account of the weakness of their faith, immediately after the resurrection of Christ, (upon which preposterous principle Professor Bush would attempt to evade the evidence from Christ's eating and drinking,) cannot apply to this passage: for the apostles were now weak in faith no longer. They were endowed with the Holy Spirit; and under his influence and guidance thus affirm that Christ arose in his "identical material body," and as a full evidence hereof appeal to the fact that he ate and drank after his resurrection as he did before his death.

The second proof of Professor Bush is as follows: 2. It seems to be a fair presumption that the same body which arose also ascended. But the evidence is certainly conclu sive, that it was not a material body which ascended to heaven." p. 153. I fully grant the "presumption that the same body which arose also ascended:" and I demand this