« PreviousContinue »
would still be a diminutive infant at the resurrection, the body of an antediluvian would be as big as a mountain. In addition to which, as he shows further, it is incontestable that the particles of some bodies have formed parts of more bodies than one.
This difficulty, he demonstrates, is not all removed by the theory of some theologians, that not all the particles which have ever belonged to our bodies will be raised at the Resurrection, but only those which belonged to it at the time of death ; for some of the particles belonging, at death, to persons slain and eaten by cannibals, are certainly incorporated with the bodies of their devourers. Every other theory which can be constructed respecting the formation of the resurrection-body out of any number of the particles belonging to the present body, either during life or at the time of death, Mr. Drew also shows to include insurmountable difficulties. As, therefore, none of the common and fluctuating particles which have belonged to the body of clay, will serve for the composition of the resurrection-body, he at last adopts, as the only possible alternative, the gratuitous supposition I have already mentioned, and which he now states in these words : “ That some radical particles must be fixed within us, which constitute our sameness through all the mutations of life ; and which, remaining in a state of incorruptibility, shall put forth a germinating power beyond the grave, and be the germ of our future bodies.'
Now may we not ask, was there ever a more extravagant assumption? Incorruptible particles fixed within us and incapable, as he also asserts, of either increase or diminution from birth to death ; so fine and subtile that no microscope can detect them, no chemistry decompose them ;— and, while all the other particles of the frame become undistinguishably mixed with the elements, preserved snugly by themselves from the death even of Adam to the end of the world, through all the changes and catastrophes of the world and of nature ; then suddenly to rush into union with the returning soul, and to expand into the full dimensions of a proper-sized body !* Is it not surprising, that when a man of abilities saw the resurrection of the body to be untenable upon every hypothesis but this, he did not perceive that this was untenable as any, and admit it to be impossible to maintain any resurrection of the body at all? Is it not astonishing that philosophers and divines should go so far out of the way to provide for man a resurrection-body, as to dream of unconscious, incorruptible, corporeal substance, - of fixed, unalterable, yet invisible matter; when the obvious truth lay so much nearer at hand ? Yes, Mr. Drew! Man has an incorruptible germ within him, which will form the proper
* All this is asserted, p. 181, &c.
body of his soul hereafter. But this is not matter : it is ito part of the material body, though contained within it. It is the proper. substance of the soul itself, the form in which the soul lives when separated from its material covering : it is the spiritual body, to which, while we remain here, the natural body, in its every fibre, is a case or sheath. This does not lie useless and insensible, as Mr. Drew supposes his particles of incorruptible matter to do, from death till thousands of years afterwards. It comes at once into its full and proper life and activity ; and man lives, though a spirit, still a man, and in a really substantial though spiritual body, from the day of his mortal dissolution to all eternity
Passing, at length, from the negative proofs of the non-resurrection of the material body, — having seen that there is nothing in Scripture, nor yet in the conclusions of sound reason, which sanctions the notion of such a resurrection, but that, at least from the last source of evidence, there is much that conclusively disproves it ;-I will now adduce some of the direct evidence of Scripture in favor of that view of the Resurrection, which we accept as the genuine doctrine of the Word of God; viz; That man rises from the grave of his dead material body immediately after death; that he then finds himself in a world, not of mere shadows, bụt of substantial existences, him. self being a real and substantial man in perfect human form; and that, consequently, the dead material body will never be re-assumed.
I will commence with considering the celebrated fifteenth chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians. I begin with this, because, some having referred to it as favoring the opposite doctrine, it is important to settle its true design, before proceeding to texts of which the meaning is quite unequivocal.
I will first notice the parts of the chapter which have been cited in proof of the doctrine of our opponents.
6 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the first fruits of them that slept. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all died, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the first-fruits ; afterward, they that are Christ's at his coming.
It has hence been contend. ed, very truly, that “his Christ's] resurrection is set forth as a sure pledge of ours.” But the meaning of those who advance this is, that our resurrection is to be exactly of the same kind as our Divine Prototype's : thus it is argued, from the term “ firstfruits;" “ The word first indicates a subsequent or successive number, more or less. If Christ were the only one to rise from the dead, bodily; then it might with equal propriety have been said, — Christ the last-fruits, foc.” The author of this objection seems to have forgotton, that the Lord Jesus Christ actually does say of himself, “ I am the First and the Last.” (Rev. i. 17): and we shall perhaps find that this is perfectly true, even with respect to his resurrection.
It is necessary here to be borne in mind, that throughout this chapter, and generally elsewhere,t the Apostle never separates in his thoughts the idea of resurrection from that of regeneration : and it is impossible to apply what he says of the resurrection to any but the regenerate. As remarked by Doddridge, it is “ of the resurrection of [true] Christians alone, and not of that of the wicked, that he evidently speaks in this whole chapter.” Having the idea of the spiritual resurrection thus combined in his mind with that of resuscitation from natural death, and the former idea being generally uppermost in his thoughts, his language is often more strictly applicable to the former resurrection than to the latter. His meaning here is rendered evident by his language elsewhere. " Know ye not,” says he, “that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism unto death ; that like as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection : Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. For he that is dead is freed from sin. Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him: knowing that Christ being raised from the dead, dieth no more : death hath no more dominion over him. For in that he died, he died unto sin once; but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God,
* Ver. 20 – 23.
Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed into sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.' Thus the Apostle, by our dying in Adam, means, chiefly, death as regards spiritual life; by our dying after the likeness of the death of Christ, he means a death to the former death, or a being “freed from (the power of ] sin,” “the body of sin being destroyed,” or the life of the merely external man being extin-. guished ; and by our experiencing “ the likeness of Christ's resurrection, he means our walking in newness of life. Nething can be more explicit. Evidently, it is in this sense, mail : that he speaks to the Corinthians of Christ as our“ first-fruits, of “the resurrection of the dead” as coming by Him, and of being “made alive” in him. Hence he excludes the wicked from having any share in the resurrection he is here treating of; - he confines it to them that are Christ's.” None however, deny that the wicked are to partake of the general resurrection as well as the good : his excluding the wicked, therefore proves, that he is here treating, primarily, of a purely spiritual resur"rection; and as this is accompanied with a new formation of our spiritual frame, which emerges from the natural body at natural death, therefore he regards this resurrection as a mere necessary consequence from the former.
That the phrase, “ Christ the first-fruits,” does also relate to the resucitation of the good man from natural death, in his spiritual body as formed anew by regeneration, I therefore readily admit. But that, in this application, it does not literally mean that he was the first-that ever rose from the dead, is evident from the fact, that literally, he was not the first. Do we not read of several who were raised from the dead by the prophets in the Old Testament ? Did not the Lord Jesus Christ raise several from the dead before he died himself, and thus before he rose again? But perhaps our opponents, as these facts cannot be denied, will shift their ground, and say, that :hey do not mean that he was the first that rose, but that he was The first who ascended with his body to heaven. But how does this agree with what the same parties believe, that 'Enoch and Elijah ascended to heaven with their natural bodies long before. We, indeed, are convinced, that neither Enoch nor Elijah ascended to heaven in their bodies, just as we are con'vinced that the phrase, “ Christ the first-fruits," does not mean that Christ was literally the first who ever rose ; but our opponents affirm both, though by maintaining the one they negative the other. If then, in application to the subject of the resuscitation from
* Romans vi. 3-11.
the dead, the expression, “ Christ the first-fruits," does not mean that he was first in point of time, what does the Apostle intend by the expression? The same doubtless, as when he calls Jesus Christ, in reference to another subject, the Author (and Finisher of our faith.*
The words, also, used in the original, are very similar: both are compounds of arche, the beginning, and, as applied to the Lord, the origin, or source. That translated firstfruits, (aparche), is literally, from the beginning ; and that translated author (archegos) is properly he who precedes, another, is leader. If then it is right, as it certainly is, to translate tne latter word, when applied to the Lord, the Author, and to understand that the Apostle means by his use of it, to direct us to him as the Author of the Christian faith; it would be equally right -to translate the former word also, when applied to the Lord, the Author, and to understand that the Apostle means to direct us to him as the author of the Christian's resurrection. Thus the Lord applies to himself the more universal term (arche), which is the root of both these, to indicate that he is the Author of all things to his Church : "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning (arche) and the end, the first and the last” (Rev. xxii. 13); 5. These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning (arche) of the creation of God” (Ch. ii. 14).
It is certain then that Jesus Christ is our First-Fruits, according to this spiritual idea, - our Aparche, - both in respect to the true Christian's resurrection from natural death and his resurrection from the death of sin, that he is the Author both of the one and of the other: but does it thence follow, that because he rose with his natural body glorified, we are to rise with our natural bodies also ? The Apostle's language certainly does not imply this, but the contrary. For he
says, man in his own order; Christ the first-fruits ; afterward they that are Christ's ;" where the words order and afterward do not refer to order and sequence of time, but of rank ; indeed, the word translated order might properly be translated rank ; it being the term (tagma, whence our tactics) appropriated to the marshalling of an army. It is also shown by the lexicographers, that aparche means what is first, or primary, with respect to dignity or excellence, as well as with respect to time. Thus the Apostle explicitly informs us,' that our resurrection is not to be of the same order, or rank, as that of the Lord, but that as his was a resurrection suited to his nature, so will ours be a resurrection suited to ours. He therefore rose with his whole body complete, though it was now no longer a material but a glorious” or divine body, and thus he lives and reigns as a Divine Man : if otherwise, his saving influences could not extend to man * Heb. xii. 2.
ļ See Schleusner.
66 But every