ing seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth."-Heb. 11: 8, 9, 13. (1) The promise was to Abraham personally-"to thee." (2) It was to Isaac and Jacob personally. (3) It was to their seed, "which is Christ." (4) It was the identical land, Canaan, where Abraham sojourned. (5) God never gave him while living so much as to set his foot on. (6) "Yet he promised that he would give it to him for a possession." (7) "These," the heirs of promise, "all died in faith not having received the promises," still believing in the promise and the faithfulness of the Promiser. If God ever fulfills the promise to those worthies he must raise their material bodies to life again as he did that of Christ. The promise of Christ, Matt. 5: 5, "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth," demands the resurrection of a material body in order to its fulfillment; and the triumph of the redeemed (Rev. 5: 9, 10), "We shall reign on the earth," demands a physical resurrection.

Dr. Warren continues:

"2. The body of the resurrection, though not the same as the present material body, is derived from it."

But Paul wrote: "This corruptible shall put on incorruption, and this mortal shall put on immortality." It is not Joseph Cook's "non-atomic enswathement of the soul" that dies, or is corruptible, or mortal, but this mortal body. Dr. Warren does not pretend that the non-atomic body was ever dead, or subject to death.

The Doctor's third proposition is involved in his second, and therefore is answered in the reply to that. He continues:

"4. The body of the resurrection being derived from the living earthly body, must have germinally originated in that body under its proper laws of life."

Nay, but Paul affirms, not that it is derived from the living body, but that it is the "mortal" itself which puts "on immortality." Where Scripture speaks let philosophy be silent. As to Joseph Cook's "axiomatic," "clear, cool precision," &c., I have said already, in my review of Dr. Warren's book, about all I care to say. I will therefore content myself at this point by quoting from Rev. J. T. Tucker, D.D., in the Congregationalist of March 31st, page 98: "Mr. Cook deals with nothing on the surface merely, but with the elements and foundations of things. He makes an elaborate, an almost ostentatious, display of analytical and logical exactness. He plumes himself upon his fulness and definiteness of statement. His pages bristle with numbered propositions-linked chains of argument,-which carry the look of strength and demonstration beyond the challenge of audacity itself. He is a devotee of axiomatic terseness and certainty; and yet the links of these catenæ are sometimes duplicates, making no advance, and their joinings are not always to bear, without separating, the rap of the hammer." "This incompleteness and obscureness is observable in some of the more profound theological and ethical discussions." This criticism is just.

Dr. Warren says farther:

"5. That the resurrection body emerges from this natural body at death."

Does the body which "emerges," &c., ever die? Is it mortal, or immortal? If not mortal, it is not that

66

which puts on immortality. Is it corruptible, or incorruptible? If incorruptible, it cannot be it which puts on incorruption. But the natural body is sown in corruption." Then it is the one which "puts on incorruption."

Dr. Warren says:

"It shocks all our instincts as well as our reason, to conceive of Him as going into the charnel house for the materials of our future bodies."

I never read or conceived of Jairus being shocked, or the widow of Nain, or Mary and Martha, or the people of Jerusalem at the sight of the "many" saints whose bodies came from the charnel house. The representations of Scripture are the reverse of Dr. Warren's sensibilities. The saints of God of all the ages have rejoiced with exceeding joy, at the thought of embracing again the material bodies of their "loved lost." All that is mere sentimentalism for effect.

ANASTASIS.

A few words on this subject are next in place. Dr. Warren says:

"The first fact which they [the Scriptures] disclose, is, that there is a future life. This, strictly speaking is, the signification of anastasis, literally a 'standing again.' Death in all ordinary cases is a lying down.' To rise up, therefore, after such a prostration and stand again, would be a natural way to express a restoration to life."

·

This is true. But does "the non-atomic enswathement of the soul" ever lie down? If not, how is it to rise, or "stand again"? If it never died, how can it have "a restoration to life"? Only that which falls, or is down can rise. Only that which is dead can be "restored to life."

Dr. Warren asks:

"Did not Dr. Litch know that I held that the resurrection of that body always occurs at death ?"

Yes, he did. But he showed the position to be utterly groundless, by giving the testimony of Scripture, chapter and verse, to prove that Christ's resurrection body only came forth, or "stood again" the third day after death. Did Dr. Warren know that? What he says of sheol and hades is all well enough, and I do not care to dwell on the subject.

II. THE NATURAL RESURRECTION.

This, Dr. Warren says, is what all men experience alike irrespective of character. It is "inevitable and universal." To this I give my hearty assent.

III. THE BETTER RESURRECTION.

This, he says, "is a special object of attainment, to be sought for as a heavenly reward." Here we are at one again. No unconverted person will ever attain that better resurrection. It is what Christ calls "the resurrection of the just," when those who feed the poor in his name shall "be recompensed." Under the head of this better resurrection, he says:

66

"When our Lord on the cross said, 'It is finished,' he entered in spirit into the realm of the dead. In the language of the most ancient of our creeds, he 'descended into hell,' into hades, the place where all souls had gone before him. On the third day he rose from the grave and became 'the first fruits of them that slept.' He appeared in bodily form to his friends and disciples, and was seen of them forty days . . and then ascended in the sight of the twelve from the summit of Olivet to heaven."

...

This is sensible, reasonable, and Scriptural. Why will not Dr. Warren leave it there just as the Scriptures

do? I think with him, that "all speculations are futile," for the reason that "He is to possess the uttermost parts of the earth, and sit on the throne of his father David, and reign over the house of Jacob forever," and the kingdoms of this kosmos are to be his and he "reign forever and ever," as say the Scriptures,-—all of which requires the eternal perpetuity of just such a body of David's flesh as the Scriptures ascribe to him after he came out of the tomb. And where God has spoken, "all speculation" is out of place.

In the foregoing quotation, Dr. Warren abandons his position taken in his book and re-affirmed in the article under consideration, of the resurrection at the moment of death; and the utter impossibility of the existence of a soul without a body; and teaches that Christ did go "in spirit into the realm of the dead" and that as the most ancient of our creeds has it, "he rose the third day." I wish he would keep on in his course of improvement. But after admitting as he does the material manifestation of Christ, and the physical tests which he gave, he apostasizes and says, that to his "mind it seems most probable that it was really his spiritual body, temporarily taking upon itself such capacities as were necessary to render it an object of perception to the senses of the appointed eye-witnesses."

Now Dr. Warren's trouble lies simply in his failure to recognize the fact that in the language of Scripture, physical things are very frequently called spiritual. For instance, the Israelites in the wilderness, "did all eat of that spiritual meat; and did all drink of that spiritual drink." The meat was manna and quails; the drink was water. The contrast which Paul draws