raised in glory: he is sown in weakness; he is raised in power: he is sown an animal body, or a body with a soul an undying property; he is raised a spiritual body.

*

When our Savior arose from the dead, he arose with a body of flesh and bones. As his flesh saw no corruption, the same body was quickened, with its natural features, no doubt, and the scars of his crucifixion. This was the resurrection of Christ, who is the first fruits of them that slept, the head of every man, the whole body, the church. Was this

raised body of his with flesh and bones, a spiritual body? or was it what is called a natural body? With this body he appeared to his disciples, in a house, when the doors were shut. It may be remarked also that before his resurrection, he passed through a multitude unperceived, when they had led him to the brow of a hill to cast him down headlong.

From the analogy of things, used in scripture, and from the resemblance of our divine head in his resuscitated state, the argument is greatly in favor of the idea, that mankind will arise in bodies of flesh and bones. Without this conclusion much of the Apostle's reasoning conveys to us no rational ideas. But then, we are told that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. If a resurrection in bodies of flesh and bones,

SOMA PSUCHIKON, corpus animale.

mean the same as flesh and blood which cannot inherit the kingdom of God, are we not now brought into difficulty? We undoubtedly are, if the resurrection, in its first process, introduce us to a state of full perfection, or to a state that admits ho sort of change. If Christ arose with a body of flesh and bones, as he himself asserts, was that "his glorious body" or was his resuscitated body changed? And if his body were changed, is it unreasonable to suppose the raised bodies of men may be changed in a manner, similar to their divine head?"The first man," says the Apostle, "is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly."

The question will now be asked, can an incorruptible or immortal body be changed? In reply to this, let other questions be proposed. Was Christ's resuscitated body corruptible or mortal? No; for it never corrupted, nor died. Did he or can he never change it? If not, he must forever have flesh and bones. Flesh is one of the articles, which St. Paul said could not inherit the kingdom of God. We may, therefore, conclude it is not a composition of Christ's glorious body. Then we in travelling with our divine head, are "to look for the Savior, the

Lord Jesus Christ, who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself."

In the fifth and last division of our subject, to which we will now attend, we were to no tice the following question: Are we to consider physical operations, though exercised by divine power, ever to be made the exclu sive cause of moral effects?

Perhaps this question may appear at first hearing foreign to our subject, but it is conceived it embraces a very important part. That the resurrection of the dead is a physical operation, is evident from the similitude St. Paul used to describe it. Yet it is evidently performed by a peculiar energy of divine power. Our question then is, whether the idea of man's being cleansed from all moral defilement, is necessarily embraced in the resurrection from the dead. On the affirmative of this question is urged the supposed purity of spiritual bodies, of incorruptibility and immortality. On the side of the negative are considered the scriptures which are discussed in the two first of these Lectures, treating of future judgment and punishment, besides a variety of others. I shall endeavor to maintain the negative of this question in opposition to the affirmative.

Let us now carefully attend to the meaning of the words incorruptible and immortal. If

we examine almost any English dictionary, we shall find the meaning of the first incapable to be corrupted; the second, exempt from death. Now does it follow of necessity that á being who possesses these properties must without exception be holy, virtuous, and happy? There is nothing in the definition of the words of which I have any knowledge, that necessarily embraces such a thing; and as to the nature of the case, it is what human experience has not attained. Can any person des cide that it would be impossible for God to have immortalized earthly bodies if he pleased, and continued them with the sensitive faculties that they now possess? The lives of the antediluvians may be mentioned as an example, whose earthly constitutions would hold out eight or nine hundred years. He who extended their lives so much beyond ours, could have extended them, without doubt, six or seven times as long, on the same principles as those by which their lives were continued. Such a life would be thought almost an approximation to immortality. If then at the close, they were to be changed and not die, could they ever with propriety have been cal led mortal?

It is commonly held that man possesses an immortal soul, yet it is thought to be morally corrupted, and of course must receive a change. There is nothing of an earthly nature that we believe is capable of conversion theavenly principles. These must be de

stroyed, not saved. If every thing that may be styled immortal is pure from moral defilement, all men must be alike holy and happy in this life at all times; for if they have immortal souls they are incapable of a moral change, or regeneration; and if they have not, they possess nothing but earthy principles.

In some passages before us, we find a dis. tinction of character in the resurrection. "Marvel not at this," says our Lord; "for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation." The only way to avoid considering this text a clear proof of future punishment, is to give it a moral or spiritual interpretation. It is difficult to conceive how this can be done, in perfect consistency with those scriptures that speak of a spiritual resurrection. Those that are quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins, are brought from a sinful state to a righteous one. In this we always find a change of character. But in the resurrection described in this text, we find no moral or spiritual change. They that have done good come forth to life; and they that have done evil, to condemnation. The application of this passage to the Jews of our Savior's day, never appeared to me according to its natural import. It must receive a very forced construction to be thus accommodated,