Coming back to the question, How are the dead raised? What evidence is there here that the question concerns only a part of the dead? THE DEAD. Does this mean the Christian dead? the righteous dead? Nay, surely. No such idea is conveyed here. That the dead are righteous; or, if not at the moment of death, will be sometime, we do not doubt; and the proof is abundant, (and we need not go out of this chapter for it); but nothing of this is in the question, How are the dead raised? If Paul refers to this inquiry by describing the condition of a portion of the dead only, then he has asked a question which he does not answer; or he has asked one question and answered another. The truth is, the question concerns the dead, ALL THE DEAD, and the answer of Paul covers the same ground not more, for that is impossinot less, for that would be to stultify himself.

ble

IV. That which thou sowest is not quickered, except it die. The term thyself which the late revisers have found in the Greek text, and have inserted in their version, does not seem to add anything to the sense of the passage

If it conveys any sense at all it is a sense surely not intended, namely, that there may be a difference between the sowing of the one designated" thou thyself," and of somebody else. Our decision is prompt, that "thyself" does not belong here. It takes a large number of yeas, on the part of "manuscripts, versions and fathers," to vote down a single nay uttered by the passage itself.

To quicken, in this passage, is the same as to make alive, in some others, being the same original word. See verse 22. It is a self-evident proposition, that one must die, before he can be raised out of a state of death. It follows then, that a universal resurrection implies a universal dissolution. Paul says, that"in Adam all die," before he says, "in Christ shall all be made alive." That all must die in order to be quickened, is a truism, which the apostle utters for other reasons, perhaps, than what appear in the context. Some may then have held, as some do now, that Enoch and Elijah went to heaven without dying; and many now hold, and appeal to this very

chapter for proof, that all will not die, but some will be caught up, and fitted for heaven, without suffering the pangs of death. All this is swept away by these few words of Paul, The seed is not quickened, except it die.

An infidel writer (Taylor, in his "Diegesis," we think,) has said, "Thou fool, Paul, that which thou sowest is not quickened, if it die." But Paul is right after all. He does not speak philosophically; but uses the common parlance, according to which, the seed dies, when the outer covering or pericarp dissolves, and helps to nourish the germ, and causes it to grow up into a new plant. According to the same parlance, or modus loquendi, a man dies, when the body returns to the dust as it was, and the spirit to God who gave it. Those who believe that the spirit does not die with the body, adopt this form of speech, as much as those who believe it does. When we wish to say, The sun rises, we say so, in those words. We never think that we are conveying a false impression, and ought to say, "The earth turns on its axis, and makes the sun appear to rise, when it does not." This would convey a false impression to most people; and they would say at once, that we deny the rising of the sun; and this would be true, in one sense.

Had Paul, instead of using popular language, said, "The seed, which thou sowest cannot grow up into a new plant, unless it have a living germ within, and is placed in the earth,. where that part of the seed which enfolds the germ, shall dissolve, so as to allow the living principle to be developed into a new plant," he might have come nearer the exact truth ;: but the idea he wished to convey, would have been less distinct, in most minds, than it is, with the words he now employs. In either case, the same idea of the impossibility of a resurrection, without death, would have been conveyed. The simplest form of words, for conveying Paul's idea of the resurrection, would be, perhaps, that the soul passes out of one body into another out of a mortal, into a spiritual and immortal body. In strictness, all the apostle asserts in the words before us, is, that we must have the first, before we can

1

enter the last. This was as true of Enoch and Elijah and of Jesus Christ, as of all others.

66

V. The figure of the seed will help us to illustrate some of the language brought into our first article as well as the present. There is nothing that can make a subject so plain, as a suitable figure; and there is no figure perhaps, in the whole range of nature, better adapted to our present subject, than that of the seed; and we may select for our purpose," wheat, or some other grain." By man is death; by man also is the resurrection of the dead," says Paul. The compound nature of man, as expressed in this passage, has its likeness in the seed, By the seed is death; by the seed is also the quickening into new life. One part of the seed stands for one of these ideas; and another part stands for the other: the outer and visible part of the seed, for death; the inner and invisible life, for the resurrection. The nature of the resurrection, too, is here obvious. The living germ passes out of the old body into a new one. This is its resurrection.

"In Adam all die; in Christ shall all be made alive." So all secds die; and so likewise are all seeds made alive. One of these things pertains to the body of the seed; the other to the soul.

VI. Thou sowest not the body that shall be. This is spoken of the seed; but for the reason only, that the same is true of man. How, then, we would ask, in all earnestness, can any one claim that the body which we now have, will be the residence of the soul in the resurrection? No one that does not shut his eyes can help seeing, that Paul condemns this doctrine in unmistakable terms.

Let the reader consider, for a moment, the reasonableness of Paul's doctrine. In the present world we are furnished with bodies adapted to this state of existence. Here is found the nourishment, which these bodies require; here, too, are the materials that can be wrought into clothing; and others, that can, by the genius and hands of men, be converted into dwelling places, and other structures for the comfort and con

venience of men. Our future home of the soul, is called spiritual; and Paul says our bodies there will be spiritual. This is reasonable.

A bare grain, that is, thou sowest a bare grain. It may chance of wheat or of some other kind. No matter which we take for illustration, is the meaning. Hence the apostle gives no preference, but speaks only of the seed. We sow the ker

nel. This is all we do; God does the rest. He gives the new body; and Professor Hitchcock adds, that the body which God gives, though not the same, is precisely like the one that was deposited in the ground. Hence he argues, that, though the resurrection body will not be the same, which we have here, it will be exactly like it. He saw the utter folly of trying to make the apostle teach the common doctrine. He, saw, too, no doubt, some of the difficulties in the way of this doctrine. These are insuperable; and they will readily sug gest themselves to all minds open to conviction.* But in the affirmation, that the resurrection body is precisely like the present, he thought Paul was on his side. The ground of his mistake is in the supposition that Paul.uses the seed for argument, and not merely for illustration.

Paul reasoned from analogy; but he knew how far he could safely reason in this way; and stopped without making any mistakes. Others reason from analogy; but they go too far, and fall into gross errors. The apostle did not use the analogy of the seed, so far as to conclude that our future bodies will be composed of the same materials as the present because the seed produces its exact kind.

But what Paul failed to do, Prof. Hitchcock has done. Suppose, then, we take up the same reasoning from analogy, and go a little beyond the Professor. "The seed that is produced is composed of the same materials as the seed that produces it," says Prof. Hitchcock. Now we say, that the same materials, so far as they are the same, must be equally subject to decay, and equally capable of reproduction. Paul says, the wheat seed may be used to illustrate our subject. The wheat produced is as subject to decay, as that which produces it.

How then can it stand for an immortal body, that can not decay? Again, the seed produced can be sown and produce again. Nay, one seed will produce thirty, sixty or a hundred. With such analogies as these, we may find a hundred bodies in the future life, awaiting one soul! We may find all these bodies as subject to decay as the present one. We may find ourselves as capable of reproduction as we are now.

This is what comes from analogical reasoning, without a knowledge of the exact limits,within which it should he confined. Paul does not infer the future bodies of men from analogy, but says that this will be determined by the pleasure of God. If your future condition and surroundings were to be like the present, it would be reasonable to conclude that the pleasure of God would assign us other bodies similar to the present; and for the reason that such would be best for us. But that the future would be like the present, Paul did not know; and so he refers the matter to the pleasure of God. In the next place, he says, God gives to each seed a body of its own. This can mean no more than a body suited to its nature. We may infer from this, that our immortal bodies will be adapted to our wants. These wants, in a spiritual and immortal state, will be different from any which we have now; and our bodies must correspond. This he expresses by saying they are spiritual.

All flesh is not the same flesh; but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fishes. 9.

Here again we have the argument from analogy. In supposing the bodies of men, in the future life, to be different from those they have now, Paul reasons from the analogy of God's other works. As the diverse animals of the earth are assigned different elements and spheres of action, it was necessary that their bodies should be various, and adapted to their condition and surroundings. So far, therefore, as our future life will be different from the present, we ought to expect that God will give us bodies unlike those we now occupy. He will at least consult. our comfort and convenience, as