much as he does those of the lower animals. This is only reasoning in a general way; it is not giving us any exact information concerning the "house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens." But he assures us that the future residence of the soul will be according to the pleasure of God -- that it will be our own, that is, adapted to our nature that it will be suited to our condition, like the bodies of the other creatures of God; and we will add, that cur condition will be as much better than theirs, as our nature is more noble and exalted. This surely should satisfy all rational beings. But Paul has much more to say on the glorious prospect before us. There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial; but the glory of the celestial is one; and the glory of the terrestrial is another. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differeth from another star in glory, 40, 41. VII. The reference to the different classes of animals (including man as an animal) had in view the difference between the bodies of men here, and their bodies hereafter. But the present quotation is to show that the glory of the resurrection state is greater than that of the present. Here, too, the analogical argument is employed. The apostle first makes a general reference to the heavenly or celestial bodies, as compared with the terrestrial. He then names the former, the sun, moon and stars. The general reference authorizes the belief that our future abode will be far more glorious than the present. All the heavenly bodies here represent the future condition of mankind. When, therefore, these heavenly bodies are expressly spoken of as differing in glory, the natural inference is, that the future is diverse, as well as the present, though far more glorious. This inference can be set aside, only by showing, that the apostle did not make a proper use of his illustration. Can this be shown? The common opinion of the foregoing passage, shared by the writer till now, would have been abundantly sustained, if the last of the two verses had been omitted. When the apos tle uses all the heavenly bodies to represent the future, he shows clearly that the future is more glorious than the present. Up to this point, he does not recognize any difference in the future life. But when he proceeds to call our attention to the fact, that the sun has one glory, the moon another, and the stars another; and adds that even the stars are not all alike, he either commits an inadvertence, or he authorizes the belief, that the glory of one soul, in the immortal world, will be greater than that of another. Some will shine as the sun; others as the moon; and others as the stars; and one star will differ from another star in glory. This comes as near an infinite variety, as any possible illustration could make it. Our earthly bodies are so various that no two can be found exactly alike no two, that do not widely differ. This answers and wise, a beneficent purpose, no doubt; and the same must be true of the future. So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 42, 43, 44. Sown. The apostle had dropped the figure of the seed, in order to introduce other illustrations, that, for the time being, answered his purpose better; but now the seed comes into play again. When he says, It is sown, he means of course, The seed is And as, when he first mentions the seed, it stands for soul and body; so it must, now. The words that introduce the above passage show the same thing. So is the resurrection of the deal. The resurrection of the dead concerns both soul and body. And the word so obliges us to apply the illustration that precedes it to the soul and body both. The glory represented by the heavenly bodies belongs to the immortal state, after the soul and body are united. This shows the propriety of the infinite diversity of that state; for it is a diversity of intellect, of virtue, of disposition and taste with each soul, as well as of the spiritual body, through which the soul acts. 66 To the end of the 39th verse, the apostle is speaking of the body only; and is answering the question, With what manner of body do they come? He then proceeds to the other question, How are the dead raised? But he gives us no clear illustration of the change, till he comes to the 42d verse, and says, "so also is the resurrection ef the dead." How far back does the word so require us to go? Evidently to the beginning of the 40th verse. Of course, in showing how the dead are raised, Paul will give us more or less information about the resurrection body. But when he says, so is the resurrection of the dead, it is evident that he is now going to answer the first of the two questions; though incidentally he may say something that has a bearing on the last. The first thing he says in answer to the question, How are the dead raised? is, "It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption." This contains nothing concerning the nature of the seed. The corruption, in which the seed is sown, belongs to the soil, and not to the sced, se far as this passage informs us. In like manner, the incorruption in which the seed is raised, belongs, not to the seed but to the new life. We may readily infer, that when the seed separates in the ground; and a part of it remains; and another part rises into a new life, each "follows its affinity;" the first mingling with the surrounding corruption; the other seeking the incorruption of a new life. What we have said, on this first particular, will enable us to treat the others more briefly. The dishonor and glory next mentioned belong, the first to the soil, and the second to the future life of the seed. But let it be observed, that the dishonor does not denote absolute dishonor, but a lesser glory; for the apostle had said before, "The glory of the celestial is one; and the glory of the terrestrial is another." There is a glory of the stars; and is not the earth a star? Dishonor belongs to the earth, and must therefore be a lesser glory; while the glory in which the seed is raised, is a greater glory. The weakness and power come next. The field is the world," in which the seed is sown. There is no reference to the grave, in which the body is buried; but the corruption, dishonor and weakness belong to the world. It is through weakness of intellect, that many errors exist. It is through weakness of conscience, that sins are multiplied. It is through weakness of heart, that many noble schemes prove abortive. All this is excluded from that condition into which the seed is raised. The natural body and the spiritual body present great dif ficulties to many expounders. We propose to remove these, by a different rendering. There is no pronoun it, in the rendering, "It is sown;" but it became necessary from the fact, that the verb is sown has no other subject; every one of the nouns that follow this verb, being in an oblique case, and governed by the propsition in. (ev) But when we come to the passage, "It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body," the pronoun it ceases to be a necessity, and becomes absurd. Let us see. The pronoun becomes unnecessary, for the reason, that the verb has another subject. This is body. The rendering should be, The natural body is sown; the spiritual body is raised. if we use the other form, It is sown a natural body, we use a contradiction. We say it, (the seed, the whole seed) is sown a natural body; while this natural body is only a part of the seed. The next sentence is equally contradictory. It asserts that the seed is raised; and then that only a part is raised; for the spiritual body is only a part. The passage, uow before us, was designed to make plain all that went before, concerning sowing and raising the seed. It says, The natural body is sown; the spiritual body is raised. Not so the soul of the seed that is sown and the same is raised. That is first in the natural body; and then in the spiritual body. The man who reads this illustration of the apostle, and especially with our improved rendering, and does not see that the soul passes out of the natural body into the spiritual, in the process of the resurrection, must be very stupid, or suffering "judicial blindness." The last sentence of our last quotation begins with an if— If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. We do not know what authorities for this word if the revisers may have discovered. Doubtless they became satisfied, that the word was genuine. In Tittmann the word is given as a various reading; but he does not put it in the text. Tischendorf, and Westcott and Hort, sustain the if. It adds something to the emphasis of the assertion, that there is a spiritual body. VIII. It will be seen that in the passage now before us, every verb is in the present tense. So is the resurrection; it is sown; it is raised, four times repeated. There is a natural body; there is a spiritual body. We have had the same form repeatedly; and we shall find it often in the rest of the chapter. This is exceedingly proper, if the resurrection is a continuous and progressive work. But if it is all future and simultaneous, we should not expect to find this usage. It is the same with the questions, which the apostle is answering, How are the dead raised? With what body do they come? If one would like to know how we account for those instances in which the future term is employed, our reply is, first, that such instances are comparatively few; and, next, when they do occur, they relate to the living, whose resurrection is future, because their death is so; or they relate to all mankind including the living. In some instances the translator gives a future tense, when the original is not future. Luke xx. 35 is a notable example. See king James' version. The late revisers have changed the tense. W. E. Manley, D.D. We will give one in the form of an *One sound argument is as good as a thousand anecdote, the truth of which we can vouch for. Gainesville, N. Y., more than forty years ago, we knew a physician, whose name was Amsden. He had a son that followed the same calling; but our anecdote concerns the father, who was an unbeliever, and not the son, who was an exemplary Universalist. The old doctor had great respect for Universalism; but Orthodoxy he despised and abhored with all his soul. Of course the rigid religionists showed their zeal for God, by not calling him. He was a very skilful physician and surgeon. And these pious people were not so anxious to leave "this wicked world" and go to heaven, but that, as a last resort, they would send for "old Amsden." On one occasion, one of these men had a son, who had suffered long with a diseased leg. At last the doctors said, it must be amputated. The distressed father, who hated Amsden; and whom A. did not love above measure, finally consented that A. might be called. Several of the |