its original elements, then on what basis rests the doctrine of the resurrection of that body—the tabernacle which we have inhabited on earth? It will not do to say that God can rebuild the original fabric, for this contradicts and makes useless the doctrine of the material germ.

We are inevitably thrown back, then, as far as we can see, on the theory, so to term it, of the immediate development and assumption of the spiritual body, and its entrance at once upon the resurrection-state. We know not how to conceive of a pause-a long suspension-in the essential activity of the vital principle with which thought and consciousness are connected. We are not, we presume, addressing those who believe in the sleep of the soul after death, but those who expect to retain their conscious existence in the world of spirits. And if our intelligent principle goes with the vital, which depends upon various hidden ethereal agencies constantly operating around us, why shall we not infer that our spiritual mode of being commences at once upon the abandonment of our gross corruptible tenements?

We may perhaps admit, as some are disposed to maintain, that this spiritual body does not attain to its perfection at once; that as it enters the spiritual world as a germ, so, as the vital principle, under appropriate laws, forms for itself -or, as the Germans say, builds up for itself—a material body, out of material elements; in like manner it may gradually elaborate for itself a spiritual corporeity, from the spiritual elements by which it is surrounded. This, we say, may possibly be so. We can at present neither gainsay nor affirm it; nor has it any special bearing on the main position, which is, that the resurrection of each individual, properly speaking, takes place at death, when we suppose the development of the spiritual body to occur. And what else, we should ask again, can be made of Paul's comparison? Is it not the legitimate and irresistible inference? And does not his own language, in the context, perfectly quadrate with this construction? "There are bodies celestial, and there

are bodies terrestrial;" i. e., human bodies. It is, we believe, not unusual for expositors to understand the phrase 'bodies celestial,' of the sun, moon, and planets. But this is entirely a modern diction. There is no evidence, we believe, that the original odμara, was ever used in this sense by the ancient writers, sacred or profane. The 'bodies,' of which the apostle here speaks, are human bodies, and, as he says there are (not shall be) celestial human bodies, what other inference can we draw, than that they are the glorified resurrection-bodies in which the risen saints now exist?

GR.

V. 38-41.

Ὁ δὲ θεὸς αὐτῷ δίδωσι σῶμα καθὼς ἠθέλησε, καὶ ἑκάστω τῶν σπερμάτων τὸ ἴδιον σῶμα.

Οὐ πᾶσα σὰρξ ἡ αὐτὴ σάρξ, ἀλλὰ ἄλλη μὲν ἀνθρώπων, ἄλλη δὲ σὰρξ κτηνῶν, ἄλλη δε ἰχθύων, ἄλλη δὲ πτηνῶν.

Καὶ σώματα ἐπουράνια, καὶ σώματα ἐπίγεια· ἀλλ ̓ ἑτέρα μὲν ἡ τῶν ἐπουρανίων δόξα, ἑτέρα δὲ ἡ τῶν ἐπιγείων.

- "Αλλη δόξα ηλίου καὶ ἄλλη δόξα σελήνης καὶ ἄλλη δόξα ἀστέρων· ἀστὴρ γὰρ ἀστέρος διαφέρει ἐν δόξη.

it

ENG. VERS.

But God giveth it a body as hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.

All flesh is not the same Hesh, but there is one kind of flesh of men, another fesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.

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.

There can be little doubt we think, that with multitudes of the readers of this apostle these words are loosely understood to intimate that it is in effect the same body (of the seed) which is sown in the earth, which comes forth out of it, although the apostle had just affirmed the contrary; and therefore the inference is hastily drawn, that as God gives to every seed his own body, so in like manner he gives to every man his own body, i. e., the same body.* But a moment's re

* "But your Lordship proves it to be the same body, by these three Greek words of the text, ro iduv opa, which your Lordship inter

flection will convince us that by 'giving to every seed his own body' is meant nothing more than his giving to every seed a body peculiar to that kind of seed. A seed of wheat does not produce a stalk of barley, nor a seed of barley a stalk of wheat. The species are kept distinct by a mysterious arrangement of Providence. This is the force of the original Tò idioν σõua, his own proper body, i. e. the body which it is fitted to produce, which is of the same kind. God in the constitution of the vegetable kingdom has established, from his mere good pleasure, such laws as will regulate the process of reproduction, and cause that certain seeds shall give rise to certain plants and no others. In like manner he proceeds, in the following verses, to show by similitudes drawn from various natural objects, that man may have a different body fitted to the different state in which he enters at death-that though the natural body should rise no more, yet provision is made for his being furnished with a better in its stead; for as there is an earthly body adapted to an earthly life, so there is a heavenly body adapted to a heavenly life. The existence in such profusion of different species of bodies in the universe, ought to furnish an argument that there was nothing incredible in the idea of the

prets thus, That proper body which belongs to it.' Ans. Indeed, by those Greek words, whether our translators have rightly rendered them, 'his own body,' or your Lordship more rightly, that proper body which belongs to it,' I formerly understood no more but this, that in the production of wheat and other grain from seed, God contrived every species distinct, so that from grains of wheat sown, root, stalk, blade, ear, and grains of wheat were produced, and not those of barley; and so of the rest, which I took to be the meaning of 'to every seed his own body.' No, says your Lordship, these words prove, that to every plant of wheat, and to every grain of wheat produced in it, is given the proper body that belongs to it,' i. e., the same body with the grain that was sown. This, I confess, I do not understand; because I do not understand how one individual grain can be the same with twenty, fifty, or an hundred individual grains."-Locke's Letter to Stillingfleet, p. 137.

saints' being immediately invested with appropriate bodies in another state, as well as in this-nothing which could justly authorize the objection, that because the body which was laid in the grave remains there, therefore there is no resurrection of the man. The following verses are merely an expansion of this general idea.*

GR.

V. 42-44.

Οὕτω καὶ ἡ ἀνάστασις τῶν νεκρῶν· σπείρεται ἐν φθορᾶ, ἐγείρεται ἐν ἀφθαρσία·

σπείρεται ἐν ἀτιμίᾳ, ἐγείρε ται ἐν δόξῃ σπείρεται ἐν ἀσθενείᾳ, ἐγείρεται ἐν δυνάμει· σπείρεται σῶμα ψυχικόν, ἐγείρεται σῶμα πνευματικόν· ἔστι σῶμα ψυχικόν, καὶ ἔστι σῶμα πνευματικόν.

ENG. VERS.

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. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

The true purport of this language is not so obvious as might at first blush appear. The point of difficulty is to determine whether the sowing' as applied to the body, is to be understood of its consignment to dust, or, as Whitby suggests, of the corrupt and corruptible nature in which man is born into the world. In favor of the former in

* “The sense is, 'There is a great variety of bodies. Look upon the heavens, and see the splendor of the sun, the moon, and the stars. And then look upon the earth, and see the bodies there-the bodies of men, and brutes, and insects. You see here two entire classes of bodies. You see how they differ. Can it be deemed strange if there should be a difference between our bodies when on earth, and when in heaven? Do we not, in fact, see a vast difference between what strikes our eye here on earth and in the sky? And why should we deem it strange that between bodies adapted to live here and bodies adapted to live in heaven, there should be a difference, like that which is seen between the objects which appear on earth and those which appear in the sky?" Barnes in loc.

I Mr. Locke, as appears in his note on these words, evidently agrees with Whitby on this point:-"The time that man is in this world, affixed

ψυχὴ

terpretation, it is doubtless true that it makes the comparison more striking. But on the other hand, we have seen that the analogy will not bear to be pressed to the quick, as it is obvious that the dying affirmed of the seed is not strictly parallel with the dying which holds good of the body. In the one case it takes place after the subject is deposited in the earth, in the other before. But another consideration of still greater weight is derived from the contrast which follows between Adam and Christ. "And so it is written, the first Adam was made a living sou (won), the last Adam a quickening spirit." But how does this illustrate the case of the natural and spiritual body? The answer to this is suggested by the import of the terms which the writer employs. The original word for soul (yvzn) is that which is always employed by the apostle to denote the animal soul, or the life of the natural or animal man, as contradistinguished from spiritual. It is the substantive from which is formed the adjective yuzinós, always translated in the New Testament natural. Now the apostle had just said that "it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body." Here he refers us to the origin of these two bodies. The one is derived from Adam, the other from Christ. In Adam we are sown a natural body, in Christ we are raised a spiritual body. His object is to teach that there is just such a difference between our natural and spiritual body, as there is between the nature which we receive from Adam, and the nature which we subsequently receive from Christ. The 'sowing' therefore is our birth in Adam, or in the nature of Adam, and our resurrection but the finished result of our birth by regeneration in Christ; "for as the Father

to this earth, is his being sown, and not when, being dead, he is put in the grave, as is evident from St. Paul's own words. For dead things are not sown; seeds are sown, being alive, and die not till after they are sown. Besides, he that will attentively consider what follows, will find reason from St. Paul's arguing to understand him so.”—Paraph. and Notes on the Epistles, p. 101.