future union with our bodies; for it cannot be denied that the body affords the spirit very great advantages; and we have no reason to expect that the sufferings which result from the structure of our present body will be concomitant on the future renovated body. Nor can it be maintained, as Kant has asserted, that the most minute particles of our bodies, the ultimate elementary principles of which it consists, which no chemical science has ever been able to reach, are of such a nature as to disqualify it for existence in our future residence, the nature of which is totally unknown to us."* But on pp. 81-83, Professor Bush does not seem fully satisfied to refer the subject entirely to the decision of the Bible. He says, "If the letter of revelation holds forth a view of the doctrine which arrays itself against the clearest evidence of facts and the soundest process of reasoning, is there no demand, on the other side, for the reconciliation of Scripture with science? Are we required to hoodwink our faculties in order to do honour to inspiration? Now, we do not hesitate to affirm that the human mind is so constituted that it cannot but feel the force of the objections which we have urged against the resurrection of the same body, or indeed of any body at all, except the spiritual body, which, we are compelled to believe, is eliminated at death, by established laws, from the clay tabernacles that we here inhabit. But if faith is supposed to be required to reject what reason sanctions, is not this in effect to say that we are called to do homage to God's word at the expense of doing violence to his work?-for the human reason is the noblest product of

* In his Dissertatio de Vita Beata, (Opusc. Acad. Vol. II., p. 84, etc.,) Storr beautifully explains 2 Corinthians v. 2, 4. And as it bears upon the point above referred to, we shall quote his remarks. "As it is the natural desire of our spirits, to inhabit a body; our groanings under the sufferings to which we are exposed in our present frail body, extort from us the wish, not only to be delivered from the present suf. ferings of that body, but to receive a body of a different structure, to receive a heavenly body, (v. 1,) instead of the earthly one; and espe cially to receive it in such a manner, ivdúodobal, v. 3, that we might never be without a body; that we might receive it without laying off our earthly body (revdiraodas v. 2, 4,) without dying, (that mortality might be swallowed up of life.) In such a change we should never be divested of body; and thus the desire of our nature would be fully gratified." (See Biblic. Theol. pp. 371-2.) Such is the desire of the pious soul; and hence the assurance, that though separated from the body at death, it shall resume possession of it in the resurrection of the just.

can recognize the claims to preference of one mode of solving a difficulty of revelation above another, is, that it goes further towards satisfying the demands of our intelligence, all things considered, than the other." And it is on this principle precisely that I wholly reject the proposed theory of Professor Bush. And it is not overrating the matter to aver, that for every serious difficulty which encumbers the doctrine of the resurrection of the body, the theory of Professor Bush is encumbered with a hundred. Evidence of this will be more fully presented when we take up the Scripture argument.

objection the Proreferring" the acbody "simply to mean by this that

4. In connexion with the foregoing fessor likewise enters a caveat against complishment of the resurrection of the the Divine Omnipotence." But does he we are to take for granted, that "the Divine Omnipotence" can accomplish nothing but what we can understand, and the modus of which we can explain? If this be his meaning, surely it calls for no reply from me. But if it be not

his meaning, what is the import of his exceptions to the principle referred to? For if Omnipotence can accomplish any thing, the modus of which we are unable either to explain or understand, what hinders but that he should be able also to accomplish the resurrection of the body, if even we cannot comprehend or conceive how he does it? But let us examine, seriatim, the principles upon which this singular caveat is founded.

(1.) "We may be permitted to suggest," says he, "that a reflecting reason finds it impossible to contemplate intelligently the fact, simply as a fact, without reference to the mode in which it is to be effected." But what does he mean by "contemplating" here? Does he mean "meditating on,' or "considering with continued attention?" This is the meaning of contemplating? Now Professor Bush, in his work, (pp. 75, 76,) speaks with a high degree of eulogy of mesmerism, and he has frequently contemplated the fact of "clairvoyance;" and doubtless supposes that he has contemplated this fact "intelligently." But has he (if there be such a thing,) any adequate conception of "the mode in which it is effected?" I fearlessly answer, No! He frequently speaks of the union of matter with spirit, and vice versa. Has he any idea of the mode? Has he any adequate conception of the mode in which food becomes a part of the human sys

tem? And does he find it impossible to contemplate, or meditate, on these things as facts because he cannot conceive how they are effected? Why then will he, in impugning the doctrine of the resurrection of the body, apply a principle as sound, which, if applied to these things, he would reject as unsound? This is but a poor justification of the caveat referred to.

(2.) But, again, he asks: "What is the fact which is asserted, and which we are required to believe? What is the very thing which Omnipotence is to do in order to do what is usually deemed necessary to the resurrection of the body?" Ans. The fact to be believed, is that the body which died is to be raised. And this Omnipotence will accomplish by reconstructing the body, and changing it into a body adapted to the uses of the immortal spirit. There is no difficulty in believing this on the assurance of the Almighty.

(3.) Professor Bush proceeds: "Let it be granted that this is the asserted fact of Scripture: we array against it the counter fact, that, as the raised body is to be a spiritual body, it cannot be the same. Here are two asserted facts in direct contrariety to each other." But the Professor here takes for granted, that by a spiritual body is meant pure spirit: and this is, as we have shown, utterly destructive of his tertium quid hypothesis, as he would have then a pure spirit united to a pure spirit; an idea which he expressly and in so many words rejects on p. 83. But if a spiritual body is a body adapted to spiritual uses, (which is beyond doubt the import of the phrase, as we shall show hereafter,) then why or wherefore can it not be the same substantially as the body which died? There is, therefore, no contradiction here, and no "asserted fact of Scripture arrayed against a counter fact."

(4.) The Professor asks further: "Can the one (fact) be intelligently held without some attempted explanation of the mode in which it is to be made consistent with the other?" To this I reply, first, that Professor Bush here varies his position. For "the mode in which one fact is to be made consistent with another fact," is a very different thing from "the mode in which a fact is to be effected," or performed. A principle involving the former procedure, may, in the case supposed, be sound; while one involving the latter cannot be sound in the case supposed, as we have shown

above. And, secondly, an attempt to harmonize apparently discordant statements in the word of God, (and this is what Professor Bush refers to in the sentence last quoted,) is a very different thing from the attempt which the Professor has made in his "Anastasis;" in which, having assumed that his deductions from reason are legitimate, he has attempted to show from this assumption that the plain and obvious teaching of the Bible must be wrong on the subject under discussion; and that, therefore, it ought to be so explained as to harmonize with his view of what reason teaches.

These are the fallacious principles upon which he has refused to recognize our right to refer to "Divine Omnipotence," as being able to accomplish the resurrection of the body!

Such are Professor Bush's objections to the doctrine of the resurrection of the body. And his assertion on p. 81, that the intelligent reception of this doctrine is attended "with greater difficulties," than the reception of the theory propounded by himself, will not be considered as of any great weight, if the foregoing are the difficulties referred to.

CHAPTER VI.

THE TRUE OFFICE OF REASON IN RESPECT TO REVEALED RELIGION.

THE appropriate position of reason in religion, is a subject of high importance in this, and in all discussions where the principles of reason and those of true religion are supposed to be brought into conflict. The mere vague and undefined announcement that " reason and religion must be consistent with each other,” and similar announcements of which Professor Bush's work is literally füll, can settle nothing; and serve no purpose other than to perplex the honest and conscientious inquirer after truth. The statement made by Professor Bush and others who have written as vaguely on the subject, neither makes nor allows any distinction between the principles of reason, (so called,) which any man in particular may adopt, and the principles of right reason, such as God both recognizes and appeals to in his word. And hence every man is left to infer that the deductions of his