soul hereafter. But this is not matter: it is no 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.

SECTION III.

THE RESURREction.

PART IV.

Scripture Evidence of the True Doctrine.

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 favour 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, but of substantial existences, himself 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 favouring 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.

"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 die, 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 contended, 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, &c." The author of this objection seems to have forgotten, 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,† 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 Dr. 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 baptised 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, * Ver 20-23.

See the remarks above on Phil. iii. 21 (p. 69)

he died unto sin once; but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto 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 extinguished; and by our experiencing "the likeness of Christ's resurrection, he means our "6 walking in newness of life.Nothing can be more explicit. Evidently, it is in this sense, mainly, that he speaks to the Corinthians of Christ as our " firstfruits," 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 resurrection; 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 resuscitation 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 they 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 convinced 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

*Rom. 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 first-fruits, (aparche), is literally, from the beginning; and that translated author (archegos) is properly he who precedes another, as leader. If then it is right, as it certainly is, to translate the 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);These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning (arche) of the creation of God" (Ch. iii. 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, " But every man in his own order; Christ's the first-fruits; afterwards 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 shewn 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.

↑ See Schleusner.

in his natural state in the world, who thus would be left where he was before, and would derive no benefit from the Lord's assumption of and, resurrection with, the human nature. For the sake of men in the world, and that he might be eternally present with men in the world, the Lord rose to glory with all that belongs to a man in the world, that he might thence immediately act upon and influence him: but as, when man leaves the world, he has done with it for ever, it is quite unnecessary that he should take with him that body which was the medium by which his soul communicated immediately with the world; and therefore, though he rises with his spiritual body, to be the medium of his communicating with the spiritual world, he does not, like his Divine Prototype, take with him his natural body in addition, because he does not, like Him, continue to communicate immediately with the natural world also. In this respect then, most truly, in the quaint language of the objector, the Lord is the last-fruits as well as the first; or, in his own divine language, he is the First and the Last,-the only Being who is at once in last principles and in first;—who is the Originator of all things,-the First;-and the Sustainer of all things,-The Last. Thus we see that it was not without reason that the Apostle introduces the remark, "But every one (not every man, but every one, or each, ekastos,) in his own order ;"-that he meant to apprise us, that the resurrection of the Lord was of a different order from that of man. But the Apostle adds the words, " at his coming; "-" afterward, they that are Christ's at his coming: "-whence some infer, that he postpones the resurrection that he speaks of to the end of the world. We have already conclusively seen, that the nature and time of the Lord's second coming were not in that age revealed, even to the Apostles. This Apostle, therefore, entertaining the opinion that the Lord's second coming would be witnessed by that generation, might naturally refer their great change (to be treated of presently) to the time of that event. But, certainly, the resuscitation of the regenerate,-of them that are Christ's,—in their spiritual body, takes place at their death; and it is admitted by all, that the hour of death is often referred to in the Scriptures, as a coming of the Lord," his coming," as Dr. Watts expresses it, "by his messenger of death." In a purely spiritual sense, it is certainly a coming of the Lord to the soul, when a man, in the Apostle's language before quoted, lives with him," or when, being "dead unto sin," he becomes "alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord: " assuredly, then, when the spiritual body which is formed anew by the regeneration, in lieu of the "body of sin," emerges from its shell of clay and appears before the Lord in the eternal world, it is, to the man, the coming of the Lord.