Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming [parousia] of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: [this describes the parousia], and the dead in Christ shall rise first: then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord." By whose authority did Paul say this? Ans. "We say it by the word of the Lord." What did the Lord authorize him to say ? That "the Lord HIMSELF shall descend from heaven," and that "the dead in Christ [not all the dead] shall rise first." First of what? Before the translation of the living; before those who are not Christ's. "The dead in Christ" implies that they only will rise at the parousia, and that the wicked will be left behind, making as stated Rev. 20, two resurrections. Note the time of this resurrection: when "the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trump of God." By what authority does Dr. Warren say this is only the costume of the Parousia? Paul declares it to be "the word of the Lord." It is rather a fearful responsibility for a poor mortal to take on himself to say that it does not mean what the words express. But Dr. Warren disposes of these sublime words by a flourish of his pen-it is only the costume of the parousia. What if it is costume? It is the costume with which the Lord himself has clothed it.

These eight scriptural arguments on the time of the anastasis of the dead-proving that it is not at death,

but at the descent from heaven of the Lord himself, are sufficient for my purpose, although I might fortify these by a large number of others equally unanswerable. But I cannot dismiss this question of the resurrection without noticing Dr. Warren's collateral

ARGUMENT FROM SCIENCE.

On the question, "What is the body?" he proposes to "interrogate science." Dr. Mark Hopkins is summoned. But his answer to the question not being very distinct, President Noah Porter of Yale College is called forward. He "recognizes the threefold nature of man-body, soul and spirit. He attributes the organic force to the psyche, or soul. Soul originally signified the principle of life or motion in a material organism.” He argues that "soul is the elementary principle of bodily life. It originates the bodily organism and actuates its functions." So far, I am in the most hearty accord with Dr. P. But he proceeds: "That the soul begins to exist as a vital force, does not require that it should always exist as such a force, or in connection with a material body. Should it require another such body, or medium of activity, it may have power to create it for itself as it formed the one it first inhabited." This looks much like transmigration-certainly not very much like resurrection. But he proceeds: "Or it may have already formed it in germ, and hold it ready for occupation and use as soon as it sloughs off the one which connects it with earth. These are possibilities,”

etc.

As Dr. Porter has only reached possibilities, Dr. Warren next brings forward Rev. Joseph Cook as the

representative of the German scientists. Of Mr. Cook

he says:

Its

"He claims that it has been made certain that the soul does dwell in such an ethereal, non-atomic body as the President suggests. Mr. Cook says: The late German philosophy holds the view that the soul must be conceived as a property or occupant of a fluid similar to ether; this fluid, however, does not, like ether, consist of atoms. It is Ulrici's view that the soul is the occupant of a non-atomic ether that fills the whole form, and lies behind the mysterious weaving of the tissues. This non-atomic fluid is absolutely continuous with itself. chief centre of force is in the brain; but it extends out from that centre, and permeates the whole atomic structure of the body. The soul, as an occupant of this ethereal enswathement, operates in part unconsciously, and in part consciously. It co-operates with the vital force. It is not identical with that force. It is the morphological agent which weaves all living tissues. It spins nerves. It weaves the muscles and the tendons, the eye, the brain. It arranges each part in harmony with all the other parts of the organism. So far as the ethereal enswathement of the soul is non-atomic, it is immaterial. This non-atomic enswathement of the soul is conceivably separable from the body. It becomes clear, therefore, that when in that state of existence which succeeds death, the soul MAY have a spiritual body. The existence of that body preserves the memories acquired during life in the flesh. If this ethereal, non-atomic enswathement of the soul be interpreted to mean what the Scriptures mean by a spiritual body in distinction from a natural body, there is entire harmony between the latest results of science and the inspired doctrine of the resurrection.'"-Parousia, pp. 223-5.

To the acceptance of these propositions of Mr. Cook as the conclusive demonstration of the existence of such a spiritual body as the habitation of the soul in its separate state, and calling it the same thing as the spiritual body of Scripture, I have several objections.

So far as Mr. Cook's statements go, they are largely hypothetical: "Philosophy holds;" "Must be conceived of;" "It is Ulrici's view;" "the soul may have;" "The existence of that body preserves." This is assumption until something more positive than may

have determines the existence of such a body. "If this ethereal. . . . be interpreted." I do not conceive of this as being very "haughty axiomatic certainty," nor yet very "clear, cool precision."

It

By what means these German scientists arrived at their conclusions as to the existence of this "ethreal enswathement of the soul," he does not inform us in the foregoing propositions. He may have done it elsewhere. But clearly-the discovery is not "microscopic," for its powers are only brought to bear on atomic matter. is not "physiological:" for the "scalpel" does not deal with non-atomic substance. For aught I know, such an enswathement may exist; but so far, the proof is wanting; and before accepting it as a demonstrated fact, I await further information. In the meantime I will say that I have the most perfect confidence in the "proposition" of "the God of Israel," "who made us this soul," as to its enswathement, who states the fact that "the LIFE of the flesh is in the blood."-Lev. 17: 11. And here I rest my faith.

The life (or soul) of the flesh being in the blood, it fills the whole human form, for the blood ramifies every part, and gives the perfect form of the man to the soul. It is the "weaving" and "spinning" agent spoken of by Mr. Cook. When the blood is drawn off, the soul leaves its tabernacle. When the soul leaves the blood, it coagulates, and the material body decomposes. That it is capable of disembodiment and of existing in life in that condition, the Bible clearly teaches: "Fear not them that kill the body but are not able to kill the soul." (Matt. 10: 28). The soul as a disembodied entity will live. Again Christ's soul was in

hades, but not left there: "Thou wilt not leave my soul in hades." "His soul was not left in hades, neither did his flesh see corruption." It was not a spiritual body enswathing the soul that was there. His body was one of flesh, not corrupted, but awaiting the return of the soul into it again.

Says Dr. Warren, p. 230,

"It is only upon the assumption of the resurrection at death that man's immortality can be shown to be probable or even possible.

My dear sir, Jesus Christ was not raised until the third day after death; and he, by existing in a disembodied state those three days and then living again forever, has demonstrated your assertion to be untrue. Dr. Warren quotes from Prof. Wescott: "Pure reason cannot suggest any arguments to establish the personality of the soul when finally separated from the body, and for us personality is only another name for existence."

To this I reply: The Professor is mistaken. Samuel Drew, in his Treatise on the Soul, has "suggested" from "pure reason many arguments to "establish it.” But

it is not reason, but revelation to which we make our appeal on questions of our future being; and that is most explicit on all points which it is needful for us to know, both as to the state of death and that of the resurrection.

Dr. Warren, on 1 Cor. 15: 44, "There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body," says:

"The two are spoken of as co-existing. The verbs are in I canthe present tense, as if alike asserting a present truth. not see how such a form of speech is consistent with the idea that there was at that time no spiritual body actually in exis