refurrection was fomething that took place in this life, meaning probably that life of righteoufnefs which fol lows what the apostle fometimes calls the death of fin, taking advantage of his figurative language.

The doctrine of the refurrection we know appear. ed fo extraordinary to the heathens, who had never heard of fuch a thing before, that it was generally laughed at by them, as by Paul's audience at Athens, and therefore philofophical perfons would taturally give any other meaning rather than the literal one. It is remarkable, however, that these chriftians at Corinth who denied the general refurrection, did not deny the refurrection of Chrift, for the apoftle argues from this fact in proof of a general refurrection. The refurrec tion of Chrift they might confider as a miracle, refpecting himself perfonally, and a proof of his own divine miffion only.

That any chriftian fhould deny the resurrection, would hardly be credited by us now, if it had not been well known that there were great numbers of christians after the apoftolical age who denied it likewife. They held other tenets which are animadverted upon by the apostles, and from which it is evident that they were the fame kind of people who were afterwards called Gnoftics. It was a fundamental principle with them that all evil arofe from matter. They therefore thought it an advantage to the foul to be freed from the clog of the body, and many of them thought that Chrift him. felf had no body like our's, but only the appearance of one. This opinion the apofile John frongly repro

bates.

3. These three verfes I would paraphrafe as fol. lows. As your new teachers have very much perverted the gospel, it is neceffary for me to inform you diftinctly concerning the fundamental principles of it, as I first preached them to you, which is the only foundation upon which your faith can fland, and by your obedience to which you can render yourselves acceptable to God. These are the principles that you must retain, unless your profeffion of chriftianity be of no avail to you. Now the great fundamental doctrine of chrif tianity, is the belief that Chrift died in confequence of the fins of others, and not his own, that his death was foretold in the scriptures, and that after he was buried, he rofe again on the third day.

By the fcriptures, must here be meant the fcriptures, or prophecies, of the Old Teftament. In them, however, there is no clear intimation of the Meffiah rifing from the dead on the third day, but only of his humiliation, fufferings, and death, previous to his glorious exaltation, which of courfe implies a refurrection. However, all the great articles relating to Chrift being foretold in the fcriptures, was fufficient for the apoftle's general argument, and to critical exactnefs he does not feem to have much attended.

7. Here the appearances to Mary Magdalen, and to the two disciples walking to Emmaus, are not mentioned, but that to James in particular is noticed here only, and the occafion of it, as well as of that to Peter, is unknown to us, tho' no doubt there must have been a particular propriety in both. Peter would be quite overwhelmed with grief on account of his late denial

of

of his master, and this is generally fuppofed to have been the reafon of Chrift's appearing fo early to him, for it was early on the day on which he rofe; but why he should have appeared to James in particular, there is no conjecture worth mentioning.

The apoftle mentions the refurrection of Christ, thus clearly proved by teftimony, as the fundamental article of the gofpel, and the evidence of the fact is, as I have more than once obferved, remarkably clear and fatisfactory. It is evident that not one of our Lord's difciples expected to fee him any more. They were therefore not at all prepoffeffed in favour of fuch an event, fo as to be impofed upon by any person affuming his character, and befides appearing several times to his difciples when they did not expect him, there was one folemn meeting by previous appointment with his difciples in general, fo that being apprized of it, they could each of them take what methods they thought proper in order to fatisfy themselves of it's being the fame perfon; and this meeting was in Galilee where he had the greatest number of difciples, and where he was the most known. Five hundred it feems were present, of whom the greater part were living when Paul wrote, which was twenty five years after the event. Thefe appearances were likewife at intervals for the space of forty days, which must have been abundantly fufficient for the most complete fatisfaction.

The laft appearance to all the apostles must refer to the time of his afcenfion, which was in the neighbourhood of Jerufalem, and where he was not accompanied by fo many as in Galilee.

8. This appearance to Paul, who was a perfecutor of the christians, must have been as fatisfactory with refpect to the evidence of the fact, as any one appearance that could have been fuggefted. It is commonly faid that Chrift appeared to his difciples only, whereas this was an appearance to an enemy, and perhaps the very man that his enemies in general would have pitched upon, if they had had the choice of the perfon given them, but it could not be expected that after fuch an appearance he could remain an enemy. Had Chrift in like manner appeared to all his enemies, and in con fequence of it the Jews in general had become chriftians, the hiftery would not have been fo credible as it is at this day. Hence appears the wifdom of God in the general incredulity of the Jews of that age. It will forever be a proof that chriftianity was no scheme favoured by the powers of this world, but that it prevailed by its own proper evidence, in spite of all op position.

11. Whoever were the preachers, the doctrine was the fame. This, he fays, was what I taught, and what you received from me, viz. that Chrift rofe from the dead.

13. If the dead in general are not to rife, no reason could be given why Chrift in particular fhould rise a. gain, especially as he rofe in proof of his doctrine, the great article of which was a general refurrection. But I muft obferve that this argument is much weakened by any opinion of Chrift being of a nature fuperior to that of man, for then there might have been reafons

for

>

for his rifing again, which would not extend to thofe who were not more than men.

17. i. e. Subject to death, which was the punishment of fin, without any hope of a refurrection.

18. By the apoftle speaking of the dead, as perish. ed, on the supposition of there being no refurrection, it is evident that he had no idea of the feparate existence of the foul, independently of the body. For then death would only have been a dismission of the immortal fpi rit, which would fubfift, and according to the common opinion, be more free and more happy without the bo dy than with it.

19. Not that strictly speaking they were fo. It was what the world would pronounce them to be, and what muft have been the cafe in fact, if they had not been conscious of perfect integrity, or they had known that they were conducting an imposture, so that they could have had no hope of happiness hereafter, to bear them up under the troubles to which they were expofed here.

The phrase for the dead may mean in the place of those that are dead. A Greek writer ufes it in this fenfe, when he speaks of fresh foldiers raised to supply the place of those that had been slain.

20. It is evident from this that the refurrection of Chrift is not merely to be confidered as a miracle in proof of his doctrine, the principal article of which was the refurrection of all the dead, but a fpecimen, as it were, of this general refurrection; he being the firft fruits of a general harveft, he being the first who after having been dead rofe again to immortal life. Enoch and Elijah