saying, "Indeed how could men remain in unbelief that Christ is the Messiah, the sent of God, the Saviour of the world, after being raised by him, beholding him in his glorious body, and being fashioned like it ?"-This argument rests upon two positions. 1. Our being raised by Christ. This he contends must lead every man to believe in his divine mission. But it is obvious at first view that no man can know that he is raised, until after he is raised. To say that a man knows he is raised, before he is raised, is as absurd as to say that a thing exists, and does not exist at the same time. Now if the fact that men are raised by Christ, be convincing proof to every mind that he is the Messiah, it could not produce this conviction, till after the fact existed; so that this faith must be exercised after the resurrection. Besides, what has the simple act of raising men from the dead to do in convincing a person who never heard of Christ, that he came into this world to save sinners, suffered and died on the cross, and rose on the third day? A person of this description might find himself brought into being, but this alone could never teach him who the agent was that brought him into being; much less could it teach him the toils and sufferings of this agent in this world, the miracles be wrought, and the doctrines he inculcated. We might as well pretend that a person totally unacquainted with electricity, was made perfectly acquainted with that mysterious agent, by being instantly killed by a flash of lightning; as that a person who never heard of Christ, was made perfectly acquainted

with him and his doctrines, by being instantly raised from the dead by him. The simple act of raising men from the dead, can give them no information relative to Christ, his labours and sufferings, his doctrines and requirements. If they had never heard of him before, they would need some further instruction. Though our author contends that raising men from the dead will convince them of Christ's divine mission, &c. he confesses himself that this is not sufficient. He holds and justly that Christ will raise men from the dead, but says, "It was not Christ's work to convince or persuade the world, for this was the work of the Holy Spirit." Now if this conviction had been wrought by the resurrection, it would have been wrought by Christ, but as he contends that it is wrought by the Holy Spirit, it follows that it is not produced by the resurrection.

he

2. But the argument we have been examining is based on another circumstance, viz. Seeing Christ's glorious body, and being fashioned like it. But this is nothing to his purpose. For it is manifest that men could not see Christ's glorious body, nor view themselves in his image, till after the resurrection; consequently if this should prove fully convincing, this conviction would be wrought in a future state. Thus we see that his whole argument is entirely against him. For instead of proving that men will be convinced by, and during the act of being raised, it goes to show that sinners must be convicted and convinced after the resurrection. This proves that they are raised unjust and unbelieving, and that they may

be unhappy during the process of repentance. This then is yielding the principle that they are saved by the resurrection, and abandoning the ground that immortality cannot suffer.

But Mr. B. attempts to support the idea that sinners will be instantaneously brought to penitence by the case of Saul. "When Saul," says he, "saw Christ's glorified body in the road to Damascus, and was told by Jesus that he was persecuting him, he was instantaneously subdued." -But this is reasoning from analogy—a principle, which above all others Mr. B. condemns, as we shall see hereafter. It is plain he introduces analogy between this state and the future; men will be convinced there, because Saul was here. From this it will be seen that though he condemns analogy in full, he is as fond of pressing her into his service as others, and complains only when her weapons wound himself. But let us look at the case of Saul.

Was he instantly converted from a cruel persecutor to a confirmed saint? and was all this effected without any pain on his part? By no means. If we turn to Acts ix. where the account is recorded, we shall see that Saul was not completely changed in a moment. We are there told that when the light shone about him, he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying, "Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me ?" Now was Saul instantly converted by the light he saw? appeared rather amazed than convinced; ingly he said in reply, "Who art thou,

No, he

accord

Lord ?"

The Lord then assured him, that he was Jesus' of Nazareth whom he persecuted. Neither did

this assurance give him relief; for the account says, that "he trembling and astonished, said, Lord, what will thou have me to do?" This shows his anxiety and grief at that time. Neither did the Lord relieve his mind, but said to him, "Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do." Accordingly Saul went into the city, and was there three days and three nights, blind and fasting. This case is directly against Mr. B. Though he says Saul was instantly subdued, we find the contrary to be the fact. Instead of being instantly changed, we have seen that he first fell to the earth, then heard the voice, then inquired from whence it came, was told that it was Jesus whom he persecuted, then tremblingly inquired what he should do, and after all this was kept in suspense three days and three nights. Neither does it appear that he was so changed as to enjoy happiness during this time. The first sight filled him with terror, so that he fell to the earth; after this he was filled with amazement and trembling, and in fact, for three days and three nights, he was so exercised in body and mind that he could neither see, nor take food. This, according to Mr. B. is a just representation of what will take place at the resurrection. Men will then be convinced and converted suddenly, as Saul was!

Now according to his own representation, sinners at the resurrection may remain in anxiety and grief three days! What then becomes of his boasted position, that men cannot suffer in an immortal state?

If an immortal being can suffer

three days, he may three years, or three centuries; at least immortality will not prevent it. Now it ought to be remembered that the positions that men are saved by the resurrection, and that they are saved by being instructed, are at variance with each other. When Mr. B. assumes the one, he gives up the other. If what he says in support of one be true, what he says in support of the other must be false. But notwithstanding these positions are at war with each other, we find that he plays off and on from one to the other, as best answers his purpose.

Before I dismiss this subject, I will observe that this reasoning may by some be thought too nice and critical. I am sensible that there are some who regard all metaphysical reasoning as delusive. But this arises from ignorance. Whenever you see a person who is violently opposed to all metaphysical reasoning, you may conclude that he is either ignorant of the subject, or too indolent to examine things closely. I admit that metaphysical reasoning may be abused, as well as any other reasoning. As for critical, exact reasoning, the more exact a man reasons, the more likely he is to reason correctly. To make distinctions when there is no difference, is fallacious, but it is equally fallacious to compound things together, which are distinct and ought to be kept separate. But if the reasoning above is objectionable on the ground that it is too abstruse, the fault is chargeable upon the system I have been examining. That system has recourse to so many intricate windings, that it cannot be justly exposed without following it to its hiding places.