Letter from Rev. Dr. J. Perkins, Orûmiah, Aug. 9, 1851 From Mr. Pischon, a pupil of Neander, and now private Secretary to CONTENTS OF No. VI. ARTICLE PAGE II. The Grotian Theory of the Atonement. Translated from the German of Dr. Ferdinand Christian Bauer, Prof. Ordinarius of Evangelical Theology in the University of Tübingen, by Rev. Leonard Swain, III. Life of Zuingli. By R. D. C. Robbins, Professor of Languages, Middle- Labours, Cares, and Studies of Zuingli at Zurich, 1520-1522 Marriage and Domestic Life of Zuingli The First Colloquy before the Council of Zurich; the Invocation The Second Colloquy at Zurich upon the Worship of Images, and Reforms in Switzerland. Publication of the "True and False Re- Change in the Manner of Celebrating the Lord's Supper V. Observations on Matthew xxiv. 29-31, and the Parallel Passages in Mark and Luke, with Remarks on the Double Sense of Scripture. By M. Stuart, lately Prof. of Sacred Literature at Andover VI. The Practical Element in Christianity. By Rev. Charles White, D.D., VII. Remarks on the Idea of Religion, with Special Reference to Psycho- logical Questions, by D. Karl Lechler, Chaplain of the Insane Asylum VIII. Notices of New Publications: 1. Mornings among the Jesuits at Rome III. The Typology of Scripture IV. Stuart's Commentary on the Book of Proverbs v. Works of Lyman Beecher, D.D.. THE BIBLIOTHECA SACRA, AND AMERICAN BIBLICAL REPOSITORY. COMBINED SERIES.-No. V. ART. I. THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY. BY DANIEL R. GOODWIN, PROFESSOR IN BOWDOIN COLLEGE. [The following Article needs some explanation. The Essay in the Democratic Review, to which it refers, appeared in September 1847. This Article was immediately written in reply, and offered for insertion in that Review in the November following. The Editor declined to publish it, giving as his only reason that such discussions were foreign to the purposes of his Review. The manuscript has therefore lain quietly in our desk till the present time, with no expectation on our part that it would ever see the light. And if the views here controverted were peculiar to one individual, we certainly should not have thought it worth while to trouble the readers of the Bibliotheca Sacra with our reply. But similar views are widely held. Similar objections and statements in regard to the doctrine of the resurrection are often made and industriously urged to the unsettling of the minds and the faith of many; and for ourselves we have not seen them distinctly answered. Besides, as the Democratic Review has since retracted nothing and made no explanation, but as articles similar in tone and character to that here replied to still appear not unfrequently in that and other political Journals, we have at length concluded that if those Journals, while they freely open their columns to one party, do not choose to allow a hearing to both sides, it is no more than simple justice that the public should know it. This Article is therefore here presented verbatim et literatim, as it was sent to the Democratic Review, with the exception of one short note which has been added. This fact will explain to our readers the peculiar form in which it appears. We have thought this a better course on the whole than to make any change in it for the purpose of adapting it more perfectly to the usual style of this Theological Review. If we should have leisure, we propose to follow this up with an Essay towards a full historical and dogmatical development of the Christian doctrine of the Resurrection. In that case we shall have an opportunity to make positive amends for the negative character of the present Article.] THIS is the title of an Article in the September number of the Democratic Review, from the general doctrines and conclusions of which, the present writer feels bound earnestly and strongly to dissent. As the resurrection of the body has been a part of the creed of the church catholic in all ages, I trust it will not be insisted that a flat denial of that venerable doctrine shall pass in the pages of this Review, unchallenged and unquestioned. The author of the article referred to acknowledges that this doctrine is one of great speculative importance and of universal practical interest; and, since, at the same time, its discussion does not involve any of the exciting and hackneyed questions of party strife, I trust that the editor will, in this case, so far depart from any rule which he may have laid down to the contrary, as to allow what has already been published in this Review to be controverted in its subsequent pages; provided the discussion be managed with good temper and an honest love of truth. With the author, from whom I beg leave to dissent, I have not the honour of the slightest personal acquaintance. I know nothing of his creed or character, of his age or standing, of his social, political or ecclesiastical connections; absolutely nothing but what I learn from the article in question. He will, therefore, not interpret anything which I may say as having an offensive personal application; and I hope he will not consider it discourteous that an entire stranger should, in a spirit of earnestness and candour, call in question his published opinions. He opens the discussion thus: "In treating this subject, the starting point is to determine two things, viz., what is, and what is not; the body either does or does not rise again." We have meditated upon this statement, and analyzed it in every way we can think of; but must acknowledge ourselves utterly unable to divine what it means. It seems either to require such a vast comprehension of the knowledge of all facts to "start" with, or so to confound the "starting point" with the goal, or both, that we cannot flatter ourselves with having got any glimpse of its true sense. And yet, no doubt the author had a distinct and logical meaning, which he has logically ex pressed; for his very next words are, "to reason at all we must reason on fixed principles." Still, as with our best efforts we cannot find his "starting point," he will excuse us for not following the course of his argument in his own order. We shall take the liberty of the epic poets, and begin in mediis rebus. We think the statement of our author's general doctrine will be found in the following paragraph : "If this identical body was raised, how painful, how awful would be the sight! There would be the lame, the blind, those who had lost limbs, who were crippled, the maniac, the savage! This must be if the identical body is raised up; for any different body would not be a resurrection of the body; in fact, would be no resurrection at all, but would be a new creation; so that, if the resurrection of the body takes place at all, it must be this identical body, or else it is no resurrection, but a new creation of some other body." We suppose it is clear from this that the author means, by the "identical body," strictly and precisely the body as it exists and is constituted at the moment of death. This must be so, or there can be no motive for the horror expressed at the resuscitated forms of the lame, blind, maimed, crippled and crazed. If we may go back to one day before death to find the "identical body," which is to be raised, how can any theoretical limit be set to the right of retrogression? We understand the author's major proposition, therefore, to be: that if the resurrection of the body takes place at all, it must be a resurrection of each body precisely as it existed and was constituted at the moment of death. His minor proposition, as gathered from the general drift of his article, is: that it is impossible that each body should be raised precisely as it existed and was constituted at the moment of death. Ergo, there can be no resurrection of the body. Such, if we understand it, is his argument reduced to a syllogistic form. For the sake of brevity and convenience of reference we shall beg leave to retain throughout these remarks the designations major and minor proposition, as we have just applied them. Now, we utterly protest against and deny the major proposition. But, inasmuch as our author has vouchsafed no proof of it except what may be contained in the strong assertions of the paragraph just quoted, we shall defer for the present what we have to say on that head. He spends his strength in endeavouring to establish his minor proposition. If he has failed in this, of course his conclusion fails; and if he has succeeded in this, the major proposition yet remains to be tested before his conclusion is established. Let us see, in the first place, how he succeeds in proving that the resurrection of "this identical body" is an "utter impossibility." He begins very scientifically and learnedly with proving at large, that, as far as can be ascertained by chemical or any other physical tests, the human body is subject to the same general laws of development, growth, and decay, while it lives; and of dissolution, decomposition, and dispersion, when it dies, as those to which the bodies of the ox and the horse are subject. All this is "what is ;" and, of course, it is no news to any body. But what does it prove? Does it prove that therefore it is impossible for God to reconstruct and re-animate the human body? Is it therefore to be thought a thing incredible that God should raise the dead? We can see no such force of proof in those facts. We are not aware that any body has undertaken to bring positive evidence of a resurrection of the body from chemistry or natural philosophy; and we cannot conceive what disproof there is in the absence of proof derivable from those sciences. But, (it is insisted,) after the minutest chemical analysis, after the most patient and thorough testing by all known agents and re-agents, after the most careful examination, and after ages of experience, we have never found any more signs of a tendency to a resurrection in the body of a dead man than in that of a dead dog. And what then? Therefore there is and can be no resurrection of the human body? Most lame and impotent conclusion! As though we already knew everything pertaining to the powers, properties and possibilities even of material things; as though we were not prying deeper and deeper into the secrets of nature every day; as though there were not evidently dynamics and laws at work in the material world, which elude all our chemical tests and physical re-agents; and, as though we could see distinctly around and above the power of Almighty God, which, with its higher, and perchance for ever inscrutable, laws, presides over and controls all the laws and functions of nature. All positive evidence for a resurrection of the body must be sought for in the teachings of Revelation; and that evidence, be it more or less, is not in the slightest degree affected by this chemico-physical argument; it is left just as it was and where it was, entire and intact. But, says our author, "if these remarks serve to prove this fact, viz., that the same particles which now form our bodies will [may?] hereafter enter into the formation of others, which none can successfully deny, it at the same time will make selfevident [make self-evident?] the fact, that the moment a body is resolved into its elementary principles, they at once cease to |
