usage upon which we have before commented, in which 'body' is used in the singular, whereas, on the common apprehension, we can see no reason why the plural' bodies' should not have been employed. From repeated intimations we are assured that our resurrection-bodies are to be of the same nature with that of Christ. Of such bodies is the whole redeemed and glorified church to be possessed. A specimen of them was afforded at the transfiguration, when the bodies of Moses and Elias, the models of those of all the saints, were evidently of the same divine structure with that of Christ, ethereal in substance and clothed with a robe of light. The present we deem an announcement of a similar condition, as the prospective lot of the whole multitude of the saints in the day of their final manifestation; an event not to transpire in the natural, but in the spiritual world. Into such a state we have endeavored to show that the righteous enter individually at death, and the evidence of this must first be got rid of before we can understand the language of Paul in this text as teaching a contrary doctrine. But, in fact, even if the words be taken as they usually are, as having reference to the change that shall pass upon the bodies of individual believers at the last day, how can it be shown that the apostle has not rather in view the translation of the living, than the resurrection of the dead saints? He expressly says elsewhere, of some whom he denominates 'we,' that " we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed." And this is to take place at the time of Christ's second manifestation from heaven, which we have already seen the apostle anticipated as not unlikely to occur in his own day. Now the allusion in the present passage is evidently to the same time; for he says in the preceding verse, "For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ; who shall change," &c. How then can it be proved that this changing the vile bodies' does not concern the same persons? In other words, that he speaks of translation, and not of resurrection? GR. 2 TIM. II. 16-19. Τὰς δὲ βεβήλους κενοφωνί ας περίστασο· ἐπὶ πλεῖον γὰρ προκόψουσιν ἀσεβείας, Καὶ ὁ λόγος αὐτῶν ὡς γάγ γραινα νόμον ἥξει· ὧν ἐστιν Υμέναιος καὶ Φίλητος, ENG. VERS. But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymeneus and Philetus. Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the re Οἵτινες περὶ τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἠστόχησαν, λέγοντες τὴν ἀνά. στασιν ἤδη γεγονέναι, καὶ ἀνα-surrection is past already ; and τρέπουσι τήν τινων πίστιν. ̔Ο μέντοι στερεὺς θεμέλιος τοῦ Θεοῦ ἕστηκεν, ἔχων τὴν σφραγίδα ταύτην· ἔγνω κύριος τοὺς ὄντας αὑτοῦ, καὶ ἀποστήτω ἀπὸ ἀδικίας πᾶς ὁ ὀνομάζων τὸ ὄνομα κυρίου. overthrow the faith of some. Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity. In order to the correct understanding of this passage, it would seem to be necessary to ascertain, if possible, what resurrection they maintained to be already past, and on what grounds their opinion rested. But this is not an easy mat ter. Commentators, for the most part, intimate that the apostle, by ' the resurrection, means the general resurrection, and, consequently, the error of Hymeneus and Philetus they suppose to have consisted in affirming that the true resurrection was the spiritual resurrection of the saints from the death of trespasses and sins. But in this view it will be seen that the one idea is destructive of the other. The general resurrection is understood to include all mankind, good and bad, while the spiritual resurrection is the peculiar privilege of the saints of God. Such a resurrection they could not of course have substituted in their theory for a general resurrection of the whole race. Nor, upon this supposition, could they have asserted a spiritual resurrection to be past already; for it could not be past till it had embraced all who are destined to be the subjects of it. But the process of spiritual resuscitation had then but just commenced; the Lord was adding to the church daily such as should be saved; and there is no conceivable ground on which they could have affirmed such a resurrection to be past. So long as a single soul remained to be brought out of darkness into light, the resurrection, thus understood, must be considered as progressive, and not as past. In the absence of any definite knowledge of what they really held on the subject—as to which all ecclesiastical testimony halts-it cannot be properly affirmed that the error charged upon their creed by the apostle is one that is chargeable also, on the same grounds, upon the view we are now advocating. This view makes the resurrection indeed to be passing, but not past. Men are not raised from the dead till they die, and they do not die till they live. It is only past when it has embraced the totality of its subjects. We have now gone over all the important passages in the Gospels and Epistles usually cited as proving, either by direct assertion or plain implication, the doctrine of the resurrection of the body. We are not conscious to ourselves of having submitted them to any other than a fair and uncensurable exegesis. We have at least honestly endeavored to elicit the true mind of the Spirit as conveyed by them, and though we have undoubtedly made our previous inductions a criterion by which the absolute truth of the Scriptural dicta on the subject are to be judged, yet we conceive that we have taken no unwarrantable license in adopting this course. If our rational results are sound and impregnable, is it possible that the true sense of Scripture should be in con flict with them? Is not all truth of necessity in harmony with itself? How the evidence adduced may strike the reader, we know not. To our own minds it is amply sufficient to establish the conclusion, that the resurrection of the body is not a doctrine sanctioned either by reason or revelation, as far as we have hitherto interrogated the testimony of each. It now remains to consider the tenet in certain other Scriptural relations, and to see how far the main conclusion is confirmed or confuted by their genuine purport. It will be seen that the fundamental principle of our interpretation recognizes the prominent influence of the Judaic Christology and Eschatology in moulding the New Testament disclosures of the sublime future. If the soundness of this principle be denied, our inferences will of course so far lose their force; but in that case it will certainly be admitted as a fair requisition, that the denier should show, upon adequate grounds, that the Jewish church was, as a body and in all ages, mistaken in the sense of their own prophecies. That they mistook the person of their expected Messiah, is admitted, but that they equally mistook the fortunes and issues of the kingdom which he was to establish, is not admitted. The great work of the Christian interpreter is to show that the main Messianic anticipations of the Jews are and are to be actually fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth. CHAPTER IX. The Resurrection viewed in Connexion with the Judgment. It is by no means improbable that the conclusions to which we have come, and which we have so distinctly propounded in the foregoing pages, would meet with a far readier assent on the part of our readers, were it not for their apprehended conflict with the clear teachings of Scrip ture in respect to what is termed the final judgment ''the day of judgment'the judgment of the great day,' &c., as it is variously denominated. The intimations of this august event are deemed so clear and unequivocal in themselves, and so indissolubly inwrought into the texture of those announcements which predict the resurrection, that it is at once assumed, that whatever process of reasoning or exposition goes to modify our established views of the one, must necessarily bear with equal weight upon those of the other. This is undoubtedly true. The whole system of Scriptural Eschatology, though made up of distinct or distinguishable parts, is yet so framed into a compact and symmetrical whole, that no one portion of it can be in any way dislocated from its fixed junctures and attachments, without affecting the integrity of the entire fabric. If the anticipated judgment really coincides, according to the true tenor of revelation, in point of time with the resurrection, and the real resurrection ensues immediately at death, then all argument is useless either in support or in denial of the fact,` that each individual soul must be, in effect, judged as soon as the spirit leaves the body. Our sentence, in truth, is passed before our graves are dug. And that such a fact must have a most decided bearing upon the tenet of a general judgment, to be held at some particular epoch of time or eternity, is obvious at a glance. Still it is very possible that this altered view may be the true one. If adequate evidence has been adduced that the resurrection, upon accurate inquest, actually expands itself into an unfolding process, covering the lapse of successive generations, it is far from inconceivable that the judgment, when submitted to the same rigid test, may present itself under the same aspect; and that, too, without losing any portion of its power as a great moral sanction under the divine administration. Constituted as men are, the idea of a final adjudication ordained to sit upon the conduct of all mankind in the present life, is, indeed, in every view, an indispensable element in |