If, then, this is a firmly established fact, that God is to make such a mighty manifestation of his power as to reanimate the scattered dust of those whom the grave has consumed from time's earliest morn, there must be some cause for such an action. This great event has a tremendous bearing on the question of the intermediate state, and all views of this subject must be adjusted to harmonize therewith. If any view is entertained which virtually renders such an event unnecessary, it must be shown that the resurrection as here defined is not taught in the word of God, or it must be admitted that the doctrine which nullifies it is unscriptural.

1. The Doctrine of the Resurrection Destroys the Theory of the Immortality of the Soul

The important inquiry now arises respecting the popular view, If the real being, the intelligent responsible entity, ceases not its life and consciousness at death, but continues on in a more enlarged and perfect sphere of existence and activity, what need is there of the resurrection of the body? If the body is but a trammel, a clog to the operations of the soul, what need that it should come back and gather its particles from the silent tomb, and refetter itself with this material robe?

William Tyndale, defending the doctrine of Martin Luther, that the dead sleep, addressed to his opponent the same pungent inquiry. He said: "And ye in putting them [departed souls] in heaven, hell, and purgatory, destroy the argument wherewith Christ and Paul prove the resurrection. . . . If the souls be in heaven tell me why they be not in as good case as the angels be? And then what cause is there of the resurrection?" Andrew Carmichael says: "It cannot be too often repeated: If there be an immortal soul, there is no resurrection; and if there be any resurrection, there is no immortal soul. "Dr. Muller says: "The Christian faith in immortality is indissolubly connected with a promise of a future resurrection of the dead."

We now propose to show that the resurrection is a prominent doctrine of the Bible; and if this can be established, it follows, upon the judgment of these eminent men, that the immortality of the soul cannot be true. We need not stop to notice that impalpable and groundless theory which makes the resurrection take place immediately at death, by supposing it to be the rising of the soul from the earthly house of this tabernacle, and its entering at once into its spiritual house; -- this to be inhabited, and the former abandoned, forever; for in this case there is no resurrection; since the soul lives right on, and does not die at all. The resurrection which the Bible brings to view is a resurrection of the dead. It cannot be applied to anything that continuously lives, however many change it may pass through. A person must go down into a state of death before he can be raised from the dead. Hence this theory is no resurrection at all, and so is at war with all the Bible says about the resurrection of the dead. Moreover, it is utterly impossible to harmonize this with the many references to the general resurrection at the end of the world.

2. The Resurrection a Necessity

Another point to be noted in considering the subject of the resurrection, is that the resurrection is absolutely necessary to any future existence. The reader is requested to turn to the preceding chapter on the Condition of Man in Death, and mark that all the arguments there presented and all the scriptures there referred to are so many proofs showing the condition of the dead to be such that they can have no further existence, unless they are raised from that condition. It is utterly futile to try to reconcile the doctrine of the immortality of the soul with that of the resurrection of the dead, as will still further appear in the following pages.

3. Identity in the Resurrection

But it is objected that, from the standpoint of the unconsciousness of the dead, a resurrection is impossible; for if a person over ceases to exist as a conscious being, the reorganization of the matter of which he was composed would be a new creation, but not a resurrection. It is sufficient to say in reply, that continued consciousness is not necessary to preserve identity of being. This is proved by nearly every member of the human family every day. Did the reader ever enjoy a period of sound, unconscious sleep? If so, when he awoke, how did he know that he was the same individual he was before?

How does any one know, after a good night's sleep, that he is the same person that retired to rest the night before?-- Simply because his organization is the same on awaking that it was when he became unconscious in sleep, and his consciousness, through his mental organization, is resumed. Now suppose that during this period of unconsciousness, while the soul itself (if there is in man such a distinct entity as is claimed) is also unconscious, the body of a person could be cut up into innumerable fragments, the bones ground to powder, the flesh dissolved in acids, and the entire being, soul and all, destroyed. After remaining in this condition a little time, suppose all those particles could be put back again substantially as they were before, the general arrange- ment of the matter, especially of the brain, the organ of the mind, being identically what it was; and then suppose that life could be imparted to it again, and the person be allowed to sleep on till morning; when he woke, would he be conscious of any break in the line of his existence? Any one must see that he would not. Being organized just as before, his mind would resume its consciousness just as if nothing had happened.

So with the dissolution of death. After its period of unconsciousness is passed over, in the resurrection the matter necessary to the new body is reorganized and rearranged essentially as it existed in the person at the moment of death, and it is then reanimated; then the line of life is taken up, and the current of thought resumed just where it was laid down in death, it matters not how many thousands of years before. This the power of God can do; and to deny this is to "err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God." In this way we can have a true and proper resurrection, a living again of the whole person, as the Bible affirms. On the supposition of continued consciousness, this is impossible; for in this case the real man lives right on, the body, which the Bible makes of so much importance, being only the garment with which it was temporarily clothed; and in this case the resuscitation of the body would not and could not be the resurrection of the man.

It is further urged, by way of objection against this view of the resurrection, that if persons come up in the resurrection as they went down in death, we should have a motley group, bloated with dropsy, emaciated with consumption, scabbed, scarred, ulcered, maimed, and de- formed; which would be both unreasonable and disgusting. And this, it is claimed, is a necessary consequence from the view that the same body is raised that went into the grave, and so far reorganized according to its previous arrangement as to constitute identity of being. But when we speak of the rearrangement of the particles of the body, is it not evident to all that there are fortuitous and abnormal conditions which are not to be taken at all into the account? And that the essential and elemental parts are only to be understood? Who would imagine that the body might not differ in the resurrection from what it was before, as much, at least, as it differs at one period in its earthly history from its condition at another, and yet its identity be preserved? But we are sometimes in health, sometimes in sickness; sometimes in flesh, and sometimes wasted away; sometimes with diseased members, and sometimes entirely free from disease--and in all these changes we are conscious that we have the same body. Why? --Because its essential elements remain, its organization is continued, and the mental organs, the source of consciousness, remain. Whatever change can take place in our bodies during our earthly life, and our identity be continued, changed to the same or even a greater degree may the body be when raised from the dead, and yet it be the same person. But a missing member might be instantly replaced, a diseased limb healed, the consumptive restored to the bloom of health, or the body, swollen with dropsy, reduced to its natural size, and the individual still be conscious that he was the same person.

It is said still further, by way of objection, that the matter of one body, after being decomposed by death, is absorbed and taken into other bodies, and becomes constituent parts of them; so that at the resurrection the same matter may have belonged to several different bodies, and cannot be restored to them all; therefore the doctrine of the "resurrection of the body" is unphilosophical.

As set forth above, it is not here contended that all the matter of which a body is composed at the moment of death must be restored to constitute that resurrection "of the body" of which the Scriptures speak. Unessential changes may take place, involving the larger proportion of the material. But identity must be preserved; and this can be done only through consciousness and the power of, memory, without which all past life, and even a previous existence, would be a blank. But the power to go back in memory over a past life is possible only because that portion of the brain through which memory is exercised, has experienced the changes and received the impressions of that life. In no other way could that brain matter be brought into the condition it is in at the moment of death; and no other brain matter but that would produce the consciousness of that past life. Thus every man's identity is preserved. This much is essential to the new body. It is peculiarly organized by the experience through which it has passed; and that same matter and that identical organization being restored, the individual is conscious that he is the same person, whatever other changes in his system may appear. New matter could not be taken and organized into these memory cells in a new being, so that the new-made person would be able to look back over a past life, and think he had lived that life when he had not; for "God cannot lie."

The question now before us is how the future life, passing over the time between death and the resurrection, is connected with the present life so as to be a continuation of the same. At the moment a person loses consciousness in death, he can look back and remember the events of a past life. He can do this through the power of the mind, which is dependent on the action of the brain, and particularly that portion of the brain in which resides the power of memory. Memory can thus assert its sway only because that brain matter through which it is exercised has been brought into a peculiar state of organization or condition essentially its own, by the experiences through which it has passed on the plane of this life. Any other brain matter to be identically the same, must have been brought through the same process. This is why no two lives will ever clash, because God has not seen proper to give two individuals the same identical experience any more than the same identical countenance.

Now is it not evident that, at any future time, the same matter brought back into the same condition and revivified, will resume its consciousness just where it was dropped, run back over the same track of memory, and thus connect the future life truly with the past? This is all that will be required; but the amount of matter necessary for this operation is very small compared with the entire body; and there is no liability of its ever becoming inseparably mingled with any other matter, and no possibility of its ever becoming an essential part of any other being. Thus the objection arising from the supposed confusion of matter in the resurrection, vanishes entirely away.

But as all vital phenomena result from organization, and the matter of which the body is composed consists only of certain chemical elements, the question may arise why the same chemical elements, without reference to the previous body, put together, or reorganized in the same manner, would not be all that is necessary in the resurrection, or to constitute the resurrection. Largely this would be very true. One limitation only would seem to be necessary; and that is that that portion of the body through which consciousness and memory had been exercised during its earth life, should enter into the new body. And why this necessity? -- Because no such matter elsewhere exists in the universe, inasmuch as this matter has been brought into the condition it is in, only by the experience through which the body has passed; and hence without this matter, identity of organization would be an impossibility. Therefore the Lord could not take, at random, a sufficient amount of chemical elements, for instance, for two bodies, and organize them precisely as two other bodies had been organized as they went down into the grave, and giving them life, thus cause two individuals to think that they had lived lives which they had not; or, organizing them precisely alike, cause two individuals to think they had lived the same life, which they had not; for the Lord will keep himself within the absolute bounds of truth. He could, of course, if he saw fit, cause two individuals to live identically the same life; and then, in the resurrection, they would have identically the same organization, and be able to look back over a life identically the same, which would all be true if each had lived that life, but not otherwise. But this the Lord has never done, and therefore each one's life in the resurrection will be identically his own.

That such part of the old body is necessary to the new, to preserve continuity of consciousness and memory, is made necessary in view of the statements of the Scriptures, which show that when the dead are raised, they must come from certain definite localities. Thus Isaiah says: "Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust," etc. Isaiah 26:19. ``All that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth." John 5:28. And the prophet, doubtless referring to the resurrection, records the words of the Lord, as follows: "I will say to the north, Give up; and to the south, Keep not back: Bring my sons from far, and my daughters from the ends of the earth." Isaiah 43:6. And in the last gathering to the Judgment, it is said that "the sea gave up the dead which were in it." Revelation 20:13.

Now why call the dead out of the graves where they have been buried; why from the north and the south; and especially why from the sea, if the bodies can all be made up together from chemical elements found in common in any convenient locality? But more than this, why not form all the bodies necessary from better material up in heaven, and save the trouble of coming down here to form the bodies out of earth's poor elements, and take so great a multitude of bodies back to heaven? A few angels only would suffice to gather the righteous living.

It is the resurrection of the body of which the Bible treats. It knows no other. In 1Corinthians 15:35, 36, Paul asserts an obvious fact, that nothing can be quickened (revived or resuscitated, as from death, or an inanimate state. -- Webster), except it first die. To talk of a quickening or making alive of that which does not die, or of a resurrection from the dead of that which does not go down into death, is richly deserving of the epithet which Paul there applies to it.

And what is it that shall be quickened in the resurrection? The word of God replies, This mortal body. Romans 8:11: "But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus Christ from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you." Again, in verse 23, Paul says: "Even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body." And in 1 Corinthians 15 Paul is as explicit as he well can be on this subject. Verse 44: "It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body." What does he mean by the natural body, and by its being sown? -- He means the burial of our present bodies in the grave. So he says, in verses 42, 43: "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." What is sown? -- The natural body. Then what is raised?-- The very same thing. IT is sown; IT is raised--raised in incorruption, in glory, in power, a spiritual body. Raised in this manner, the natural body becomes a spiritual body. Why? -- Because the Spirit of him that raised up Christ quickens, resuscitates, or makes it alive again, as Paul wrote to the Romans. Should it be said that there is a natural body and a spiritual body in existence at the same time, we answer that, according to Paul, that is not so. He says (verse 46): "Howbeit, that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual." In verse 49 he says we have borne the image of the earthy, and we shall bear (future) the image of the heavenly; and this will be when this mortal and corruptible, which is this mortal body, puts on incorruption (verses 52, 53), or is clothed upon with the "house from heaven." 2 Corinthians 5.

To the Philippians, Paul testifies again on this point: "For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body." This language is explicit. A change is to be wrought in the vile, mortal, or corruptible, body of this present state, not a spiritual body released from it, which never sees death and needs no change; and the change that is promised is that this body, taken as it now is, is to be fashioned, changed over, into the likeness of Christ's glorious, immortal body.

4. Bible Testimony for the Resurrection

Having thus shown that a future resurrection is an event of the most absolute necessity, inasmuch as without it there is no future existence for the human race (a fact which entirely destroys at one blow the doctrine of the immortality of the soul), we now propose to notice the prominence given to this doctrine of the resurrection in the sacred writings, and some of the plain declarations that it will surely take place.

1. The resurrection is the great event to which the sacred writers looked forward as the object of their hope. In the far distant ages, a day rose to their view in which the dead came forth from their graves, and stood before God; and before the coming of that day, they did not expect eternal life.

So Job testifies: "I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: and though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God." Job 19:25, 26.

David entertained the same satisfactory hope. "As for me," he says, "I shall be satisfied when I awake with thy likeness [that is, awake from the sleep of death]." Psalm 17:15.

Isaiah struck some thrilling notes on the same theme: "Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust: for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead." Isaiah 26:19.

It was the hope of Paul, that eminent apostle, through all his sufferings and toils. For this he could sacrifice any temporal good, and take up any cross. He assures us that he considered his afflictions, his troubles on every side, his perplexities, persecutions, stripes, imprisonments, and perils, but light afflictions; yea, he could utterly lose sight of them; and then he tells us why he could do it: it was in view of "the glory which shall be revealed in us," "knowing," says he, "that he which raised up the Lord Jesus shall raise up us also by Jesus, and shall present us with you." 2Corinthians 4:14. The assurance that he should be raised up at the last day, and be presented with the rest of the saints, when the Lord shall present to his Father a church without spot or wrinkle or any such thing (Ephesians 5:27), sustained him under all his burdens. The resurrection was the staff of his hope. Again, he says that he could count all things loss, if by any means he might attain to a resurrection (exanastasis) out from among the dead. Philippians 3:8-11.

Another passage expresses, as clearly as language can do it, the apostle's hope. 2Corinthians 1:8, 9: "For we would not, brethren, have you ignorant of our trouble which came to us in Asia, that we were pressed out of measure, above strength, insomuch that we despaired even of life: but we had the sentence of death in ourselves, that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God which raiseth the dead." Paul could not trust in himself, because he was mortal. He must therefore put his trust in God; and he tells us why he does this: not because God had promised him any happiness as a disembodied soul, but because he was able and willing to raise him from the dead. Paul "kept back nothing that was profitable," and did not shun "to declare all the counsel of God;" yet he never once endeavored to console himself or his brethren by any allusion to a disembodied state of existence, but passed over this as if it were not at all to be taken into the account, and fixed all his hope on the resurrection. Why this, if going to heaven or hell at death be a gospel doctrine?

2. The resurrection is the time to which prophets and apostles looked forward as the day of their reward. Should any one carefully search the Bible to ascertain the time which it designates as the time of reward to the righteous, and punishment to the wicked, he would find it to be, not at death, but at the resurrection. Our Saviour clearly set forth this fact in Luke 14:13,

14: "But when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind: and thou shalt be blessed; for they cannot recompense thee; for thou shalt be recompensed,"--not at death, but -- "at the resurrection of the just."

Mark also the language by which the Lord would restrain that voice of weeping which was heard in Ramah. When Herod sent forth and slew all the children in Bethlehem from two years old and under, hoping thereby to put to death the infant Saviour, then was fulfilled, says Matthew, what was spoken by the prophet, "In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted because they are not." But what said the Lord to Rachel? See the original prophecy, Jeremiah 31:15-17: "Thus saith the Lord; Refrain thy voice from weeping, and thine eyes from tears: for thy work shall be rewarded, saith the Lord; and they shall come again from the land of the enemy. And there is hope in thine end, saith the Lord, that thy children shall come again to their own border."

Not thus would the mourning Rachels of the 19th century be comforted by the professed shepherds of the flock of Christ. They would tell them, "Refrain thy voice from weeping; for thy sons are now angel cherubs, chanting their joyful anthems in their heavenly Father's home." But the Lord points the mourners in Ramah forward to the resurrection for their hope; and though till that time their children "were not," or were out of conscious existence, in the land of death, the great "enemy" of our race, yet, says the Lord, they shall come again from the land of the enemy, they shall return again to their own border, and thy work shall be rewarded; and he bids them refrain their voices from weeping, their eyes from tears, and their hearts from sorrow, in view of that glorious event.

The apostles represent the day of Christ's coming and the resurrection as the time when the saints will receive their crowns of glory. Says Peter, "And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away." 1 Peter 5:4. And Paul says that there is laid up for him a crown of righteousness, and not for him only, but for all those also that love his appearing, and which shall be given him in that day (the day of Christ's appearing). These holy apostles were not expecting their crowns of reward sooner than this.

All this is utterly inconsistent with the idea of a conscious intermediate state, and rewards or punishments at death. But the word of God must stand, and the theories must bow to its authority, and be made to harmonize with its teaching.

In 1Corinthians 15:32 Paul further tells us when he expected to reap advantage or reward for all the dangers he incurred here in behalf of the truth: "If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? Let us eat and drink; for to- morrow we die." If without a resurrection he would receive no reward, it is evident that he expected his reward at that time, but not before. His language here is, moreover, a reiteration of verse 18, that if there is no resurrection, "they which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished."

Our Lord testifies that of all which the Father had given him he should lose nothing, but would raise it up at the last day. This language is also at once a positive declaration that the resurrection shall take place, and that without this event all is lost. To the same effect is 1Corinthians 15:52, 53: "The trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality." Here is a plain announcement that the resurrection will take place; that the change mentioned will be wrought at that time; and that this change must take place, or we cannot inherit the kingdom of God. Verse 50. Therefore without a resurrection, none who have fallen in death will ever behold the kingdom of God.

3. The resurrection is made the basis of many of the comforting promises of Scripture. 1Thessalonians 4: 16, 17: "For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the Archangel, and with the trump of God: 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." Although this passage has already been referred to, we quote it again, to show that God designed that from these promises we should comfort ourselves and one another in that keenest of all our afflictions, and the darkest of all our hours-- the hour of bereavement. For the apostle immediately adds, "Wherefore comfort one another with these words." Is it to such facts as these -- the second coming of Christ and the resurrection of the dead -- that the theology of our day appeals to alleviate the sorrow which the human heart will feel for the loss of departed loved ones? Here, if anywhere, and on this subject, if on any that the apostle has anywhere taken up, should come in the modern doctrine of uninterrupted conscious existence in the intermediate state, if this doctrine is true, and the one from which we are to derive consolation the hour of bereavement. But Paul was evidently against any such doctrine, and so denies it a place on the page of truth, but passes right over to the resurrection as the place where comfort is to be found for the mourners.

As the resurrection is inseparably connected with the second coming of Christ, the words of Christ in John 14:1-3 are equally in point on this question. When he was about to leave his sorrowing disciples, he told them that he was going to prepare a place for them; he informed them, moreover, of his design, that they should ultimately be with himself. But how was this to be accomplished? Was it through death by which a deathless spirit would be released to soar away to meet its Saviour?-- No; but says he, I will come again and receive you unto myself, that where I am there ye may be also. Should any say that this coming of the Saviour is at death, we reply that the disciples of our Lord did not so understand it. (See John 21: 22, 23.) Jesus incidentally remarked concerning one of his followers, "If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? Follow thou me;" and the saying went immediately abroad among the disciples, on the strength of these words, that that disciple should not die. So death was not to the disciples the coming of Christ.

The eminent and pious Joseph Alleine also testifies:

But we shall lift up our heads, because the day of our redemption draweth nigh. This is the day I look for, and wait for, and have laid up all my hopes in. If the Lord return not, I profess myself undone; my preaching is vain, and my suffering is vain. The thing, you see, is established, and every circumstance is determined. How sweet are the words that dropped from the precious lips of our departing Lord! What generous cordials bath he left us in his parting sermon and his last prayer! And yet of all the rest, these are the sweetest: "I will come again and receive you unto myself, that where I am, there ye may be also."

Dr. Clarke, in his general remarks on 1 Corinthians 15, says:

The doctrine of the resurrection appears to have been thought of much more consequence among the primitive Christians than it is now. How is this? The apostles were continually insisting on it, and exciting the followers of God to diligence, obedience, and cheerfulness through it. And their successors in the present day seldom mention it. . . . There is not a doctrine in the gospel on which more stress is laid; and there is not a doctrine in the present system of preaching which is treated with more neglect.

Ezekiel's vision of the valley of dry bones (chapter 37) is entitled to a prominent place in the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, as it not only affirms in the most positive manner that such an event as the literal resurrection of the body is to take place, but also sets forth the manner of its accomplishment.

The prophet was set down in a valley full of bones which were very dry; and the question was asked him whether these bones could live. He was then commanded to prophesy upon them, and the command was accompanied with marvelous promises of what God would do for them. He prophesied, and there was a stir among time bones; each sought its requisite place; flesh and sinews came upon them, and skin covered them. But as yet they were lifeless; for no breath was imparted to them. Being commanded, he prophesied again; and when he did so, breath came from the four winds, and entered into them, and they lived, and stood up upon their feet, an exceeding great army.

The Lord then explained to the prophet the meaning of the vision. He said that these bones represented "the whole house of Israel;" and it was designed as a visible representation of a promise which he was commanded to give them in these words: "Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, O my people, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel. And ye shall know that I am the Lord, when I have opened your graves, O my people, and brought you up out of your graves, and shall put my Spirit in you, and ye shall live, and I shall place you in your own land: then shall ye know that I the Lord have spoken it, and performed it, saith the Lord." Ezekiel 37:11-14.

It is sometimes said that this representation was simply a figure to show to Israel that they would be rescued from their captivity; that while they were in bondage, they might well be compared to men buried in the grave, and the opening of the grave and bringing them forth and causing them to live, simply represented the fact that they were to be in due time released from their captivity, and again established in the land of their fathers. We reply that, even if this is the correct view of it, it is equally to our purpose in the present argument; for it must still be admitted that dead men are taken to represent the house of Israel in captivity; and the bringing of these dead men to life is made to represent the restoration of Israel to the land of their nativity. But it would be most manifestly improper to represent anything as transpiring in reference to the dead (excepting, of course, in a parable, which this is not), no matter what it was to illustrate, which never was to transpire in their cases. If the bones of dead men are never to come to their places, and no sinews, flesh, and skin are ever to cover them, and breath enter into them, and they live, such a representation could not truthfully be made, and hence certainly never would have been used on the inspired page. Therefore the very use of such a representation, no matter what we may consider it to illustrate, is proof positive that the dead will live again, and will live in the manner and by the means there set forth. Should we admit that the prophecy may refer primarily to temporal blessings upon the literal Israel, we still think it must have a broad and ultimate application including the "whole" house of Israel, even the patriarchs who died without receiving the promise, and all the "seed of Abraham," even those who become such through Christ (Galatians 3:29); and that it sets forth the literal resurrection of the dead, that being the means by which the true Israel are to be brought to their promised heavenly inheritance (Acts 26: 6-8), and the only means by which this can be secured.

The manner of the resurrection of the dead seems also to be clearly taught by implication in 1Corinthians 15:29: "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? Why are they then baptized for the dead?" What connection has baptism with the resurrection of the dead? -- Just this: by baptism we show our faith in the burial and resurrection of Christ. As Christ was buried in the sepulcher, so the believer is buried in the water; and he is raised up out of his temporary tomb as Christ was raised from the dead. By this act he illustrates and manifests faith in these great events in the life of Christ. But if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not raised, and these events have never occurred in his experience; and why, then, do we perform an act which shows our faith in them, and subject ourselves to all the inconvenience and jeopardy involved in a profession of his name? Why are we then "baptized for [huper, on account of] the dead," a dead man, a dead Saviour?

But this affirmation that baptism is a figure of the resurrection through which faith is expressed in that great event, shows that the resurrection of all believers is to be like that of Christ, a bodily resurrection out from an opened grave.

Before dismissing the subject of the resurrection, a few collateral thoughts may be entitled to a passing notice. We have not maintained the necessity of identity of matter in the resurrection; that is, that all the same identical particles of matter which composed any body when it went into the grave, must be brought up again from the grave to constitute a resurrection of that body. On the other hand, we have shown how identity could be preserved by an identical reorganization, not of all the matter of the body, but of the essential elements of which that body was composed. But this position is not taken as in any sense a concession to the claim that the resurrection of the dead is an impossibility because the matter of the deceased body may be scattered to the ends of the earth, and be indistinguishably lost, or that it may, in the process of years and the course of its mutations, compose half a dozen different bodies; and as they cannot each have these same particles, the doctrine of the resurrection must be discarded. We have seen how extremely improbable it is that any one body would ever become, under any circumstances, an essential part of any other body, and how easily possible it is that it should never be so. Hence we may set this down as an "opposition of science, falsely so called."

The poet wrote of Wycliffe, whose bones the papists dug out of the grave, burned in the fire, and then scattered the ashes into a neighboring brook, the Avon:

The Avon to the Severn runs,
The Severn to the sea;
And Wycliffe's dust shall spread abroad,
Wide as the waters be.

And suppose that the dust of all the bodies of the dead was scattered to the ends of the earth, is it not all still in the world? And what is the world itself in God's sight?-- A mote in the sunbeam, a single grain of the small dust of the balance. It is not possible for the denizens of this little world to scatter the dust of God's people a great ways from his presence; and we imagine he could easily find it all again and gather it together, if such an act were necessary.

Take the mature man of thirty years. From whence have come the particles which compose that full robust body? -- They have come through the workings of God's providence and the operation of his laws, from every land, and every wind, and every sea, under the canopy of heaven. How long has it taken to gather them? --On the ground that every living body passes through an entire physiological change every seven years, it has taken but seven years to gather and build up that body. All that the doctrine of the resurrection requires, is that God should do in a moment what he ordinarily does in a little space of time. And shall we deny that he can do this? Cannot he who can build up a human body in seven years with matter gathered from all over the world, do the same thing, if he so chooses, in seven thousandths of a second? Cannot he who with a word brought into existence the matter of the world itself, also with a word gather together the scattered dust of any of its inhabitants from any part of its surface? To deny this is to come under the rebuke of Christ, "Ye do err, not knowing the Scrip- tures nor the power of God" and we wish the objection to stand in its true light.

The resurrection is simply a question of God's promise and his power. Whatever he has said he will do, he can and will do. Into this field, philosophy with its rushlight has no right to come. We may not be able to see how a thing can be done, nor explain the modus operandi of his work; but it is neither piety nor philosophy to make the limits of our finite powers the measure of his might.

Again, as to the nature of the matter of the immortal body beyond the resurrection, our conceptions must be exceedingly imperfect and obscure. "It is raised," says the apostle, ``in glory." "It is raised a spiritual body." "Changed in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye." "For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and the mortal must put on immortality." "Fashioned like unto his glorious body." 1Corinthians 15:43, 44, 51-53; Philippians 3:21. Of the nature of this change we can form no adequate conception. What the constitution of our bodies will be, or the nature of the matter that will compose them, we cannot tell. We have only these expressions to guide us: "in glory," "in power," "in incorruption," "spiritual." If any one should say that the change is so radical and complete that it will not be the same matter that it was before, how can it be proved that it will not be? Chemists tell us that charcoal and diamonds consist of the same element -- pure carbon. Yet to all outward appearance, how different their substance and properties!

5. The Resurrection of the Wicked

In view of the general and comprehensive statements of the Scriptures concerning the resurrection, it is impossible to discriminate between the two classes, the righteous and the wicked, and affirm that while the one class, the righteous, are to be raised, the other, the wicked, are never to be brought out of their graves, as some now contend. This position, it is not needful to answer here in detail. We leave its individual arguments to be answered by those texts which assert that the same "all" who die, shall also be made alive (1Corinthians 15:22); that all who are in their graves shall hear his voice and shall come forth; they that have done good unto the resurrec- tion of life, and they that have done evil unto the resurrection of damnation (John 5:28, 29.); that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust (Acts 24:15); and that after the first resurrection, embracing all the righteous dead (Revelation 20:6), the "rest of the dead," which must include all the wicked, lived not again for a thousand years (verse 5), when of course they will live again. It will be sufficient here to speak only of the philosophy of God's dealings with the children of men, the underlying principle of which forever settles the question of the resurrection of the wicked. In the light of this principle, as a few words will suffice to show, it can be clearly seen that all the wicked must have a resurrection, and be judged for their personal acts and punished therefore; and that the close of this present life, no matter under what circumstances, nor for what purpose it may occur, cannot by any possibility pay the penalty for the sins of this life, and release the individual from all further accountability to God.

It will be admitted by all that Adam was placed on probation, and that the penalty of death, absolute and irrevocable, was affixed to the violation of the command not to eat of the forbidden tree. There was no provision made for mitigation or removal of this penalty. While yet he had no posterity, he partook of the forbidden fruit, and the sentence passed upon him, "Unto dust shalt thou return;" till which time he was to eat his bread by the sweat of his brow.

How did that affect those who were to come after I --Adam could bequeath to his posterity no higher nature than he himself possessed -- a nature, after his transgression, not only liable, but inevitably doomed, to death. The same plane of being was his children's only heritage-- a heritage of wearing toil during the period of their life, and after that, death. And this, remember, was because their father Adam had sinned in the matter of the forbidden tree.

The apostle makes an explicit statement of this fact. He says (Romans 5:12): "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." When did death pass upon all men? -- When the natural father of all men subjected himself to death by sin. From that moment it became a fixed fact that every human being who should appear in this world, would be subject to death. Instead of the words "for that" in the last clause, "for that all have sinned " he Greek has eph ho, "through," or "on account of," whom all have sinned. The margin has "in whom;" that is, in the "one man," Adam, by whom sin entered into the world. Again the apostle says (1Corinthians 15:22), "In Adam all die."

Adam's sin, trial, and sentence marked the end of probation with him, so far as it concerned that fret offer of life which God had given him, which was suspended upon his obedience. And had nothing more been done, it would have been the end of probation for all. So long as God saw fit to let men propagate themselves upon the earth, their lot would have been simply a hopeless life, to be terminated by an inevitable and eternal death.

But immediately upon Adam's failure under that first arrangement, supervened the plan of salvation through Jesus Christ. Before the first penalty was fully carried out, there was time for Adam to have another trial; and through the intervention of Christ, this opportunity was given him. There was promised a "seed of the woman" who should bruise the serpent's head. Adam was placed upon a new probation. In the promised seed, the Redeemer, a new hope was set before him; and he was taught how to manifest faith in that Redeemer by typical services, sacrifices, and offerings.

This arrangement also looked forward into the future, and included all Adam's posterity; else we had had no hope. A pertinent inquiry now arises; namely, How could the sentence of death already rendered, be inflicted upon the whole human family so that there should be no sacrifice of authority, principle, or prestige on the part of God, and yet the new blessing of a hope of life through Christ be placed within their reach? -- It could be done in this way: Let men live, and, without any reference to their own personal actions, let them die in Adam, as the apostle assures us that they do. This fulfils the Adamic penalty for the Adamic sin, under the Adamic covenant. Then let all men, irrespective of character, be brought by Christ out from this condition of Adamic death, into which they fell through no fault of their own, once more to the plane of life; and being then alive beyond the extreme limits of the effects of the Adamic covenant, and fall, and death penalty, nothing remains but that they answer for their own course of conduct; and receive such destiny as shall be determined thereby-- if guilty, through their own sins, to suffer the same penalty for their sin that Adam suffered for his, which is death, and which to them is the "second" death, and will be eternal, because no further plan of redemption relieves them from it, as Adam's would have been had it not been for the plan of salvation introduced by Christ and if righteous, through faith in Christ, to enter then upon a life which will be eternal.

This is the result to be reached, and the way here indicated being the only possible way to reach it, we may set it down as the actual arrangement in the case. And so Paul, when he declares that all men die in Adam, immediately adds, "even so in Christ shall all [the whole human family] be made alive." 1Corinthians 15:22. Let the situation before and after Adam's sin be clearly understood. Adam was placed upon probation with life or death before him under the unconditional test of obedience or disobedience. Before he had any posterity, he sinned. His probation ended, and the sen- tence (which no arrangements had been made to avert) was pronounced upon him, arid immediately began to be executed; that is, his nature, before capable of life, was now fixed to a state of mortality and decay; and at the end of nine hundred and thirty years, the sentence was fully carried out in his death. This settled the account with Adam and Eve, under that first arrangement: a penalty was affixed to sin, as was right and just; the sin had been committed, and the penalty paid, as God had said.

By the plan of salvation which was then revealed, God and Christ graciously granted man another trial. Adam was placed upon a new probation; but this did not affect in the least the sentence of death passed upon him for his failure under his first probation. But now he had only a mortal, dying nature, and he could entail nothing better than this upon his posterity; therefore they all must die as well as himself. But there was this difference: When Adam died, it was in his case the penalty of his own personal sin under his first probation; when his posterity die, it is not to them a penalty for their own personal sins, but a result to them of Adam's sin, by which he acquired a moral nature and transmitted it to them. When Adam was placed upon a new probation, of course it gave to all his posterity a probation for themselves; for he begat them to the same condition with himself. Being on probation, they are of course subject to all the condi- tions of a probation; namely, life and death set before them, a judgment to decide upon their actions, and sentence to be rendered and executed according to their works -- death for disobedience, and life for righteousness through repentance and faith.

But how can this be carried out, since we are all under the sentence of death, anyway, on account of Adam's sin? Answer: The plan of salvation involves the resurrection of all men, irrespective of character, from the first death, to place them beyond the results of Adam's trans- gression, that they may be judged on their own personal merits. Therefore, as in Adam the author of the fall, all men die, so in Christ, the author of the plan of redemption, all men are raised from that death, and then stand before the bar of judgment on their own merits, to receive according to their own deeds. Now to say that God will not raise and judge and execute a person because it is known that he threw away the period of his probation in sin, is to say that God will deviate from his plan, fail to fulfill his own threatenings, and reduce this portion of his government to a farce.

We are now prepared still further to draw conclusions. When Adam, some nine hundred and thirty years after his experience in Eden, died, he died because he ate of the forbidden tree, not because of anything he did after that event. But if, after the Judgment, Adam shall be found worthy of the second death, and be consigned to that fate, it will not be because he ate of the forbidden tree, but because of what he did, and did not repent of, after that event. When Methuselah and Noah and Abraham died, it was not because of any sins they had personally committed, but because their father Adam had transmitted to them a mortal nature. And when Caligula, and Nero, arid Caesar Borgia, and Catharine de Medici, and Jeffreys, and Claverhouse died, it was not because they were themselves monsters of iniquity, but because they belonged to a death-doomed race. And when the antediluvians, and Sodomites, and Egyptians, and incorrigible Jews died, it was not because of their personal sins, but because, in the beginning, death had passed "upon all men." Therefore all these men must be raised to give account of their own personal actions to God.

Such is the inevitable conclusion from the established fact that we die the first death only in Adam, not on our own account. The second death is the only death in which is involved the result of our own personal actions; and this death is reached only after a person has passed through the first death, and is the termination of a second state of being.

Does not God, then, ever visit judgments upon men in this life for their sins --He certainly does, but to what extent?--Only so far as to anticipate by a brief period time death to which they are already doomed. And this is all that he could do; for the penalty of the second death cannot be reached till we have passed the first death.

Take the antediluvians, whose cases will illustrate all others. Their conduct became so intolerable that God could not suffer them to live out their days. Therefore he anticipated by a time the death which, on entirely other ground, was their inevitable portion. Had he not brought the flood upon them as a manifestation of his displeasure against their sins, they would have died anyway after a few years more of life; and had they been paragons of piety, they would have died just the same. But the death, whenever it came, would have been only the death in Adam, which must first be inflicted, because it had passed on all men; and in this death one's own personal righteousness or guilt is in nowise involved.

Therefore the personal account of the antediluvians, and of all others who have gone down under special judgments, still remains unsettled; and they must have a resurrection to answer therefore, and then receive the penalty for the same, which will be the second death. And so it will be with all the wicked. And this is no wanton act of cruelty on the part of God making men alive on purpose to put them to death again. But it is only carrying out the conditions on which alone a second probation could have been offered to man, and which, once offered, God could not ignore and remain true to himself. And so "every one of us shall give account of himself to God" (Romans 14:12), and "all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad." 2Corinthians 5:10.