same, in this sense at least, that it is known as such, and is the seat of the same intelligence. Will this not give us an identity of body substantially the very one, which we have in the present life? Our bodily identity here is such mainly in reference to our intelligence, as a continuous seat of the samesuch in reference to the spontaneous impressions and judgments of that intelligence-not affected by the flux and change of particles. Which is the identity here, that of atoms with no mental recognition, or that of recognition without reference to atoms?-Now suppose, that the Scriptures teach what we call a resurrection of the body;-that in this new body shall dwell the same intelligence, having the same recognition of identity between the new and old body, which it had, while in the body on earth, does not this give identity in essentially the same sense in which we now have it?— This seems to me to be the material part of the matter; and the question, Whence came the particles of the new. body? we may safely leave to God; not knowing, it is wise not to affirm or deny.

The author may say, that unless we have identically the very same particles in both bodies, we have no resurrection. This is basing an argument upon a mere word, and amounts to this, viz. the resurrection being the reassemblage of the identical particles of the body that dies, unless those particles. be reassembled, there is no resurrection. It is a mere assumption of knowledge as to the manner, the interior philosophy of a process and result, called the resurrection; an assumption no sooner made than converted into evidence against the possibility of the resurrection. Let the author prove that the reassemblage of the identical particles is essential to the resurrection,—such as will give substantially the same bodily identity that we now have.

The reviewer is very ready to confess his want of certain knowledge as to the manner in which the relation of identity or sameness is to be established between the two bodies; as to the extent and limits of this identity. He has entered upon the previous suggestions simply to show, that the au

thor, in declaring such a relation inconceivable on philosophical grounds, has put forth an assumption, which sober philosophy itself repudiates. He has assumed in his argument a criterion of bodily identity, such as philosophy neither admits, nor requires-which indeed cannot be accepted without converting into a fiction what God has made a reality;— and then by the force of this assumption he has sought to demonstrate the absolute impossibility of the resurrection. The object of the preceding strictures has been to set this matter in its true light so far as philosophy is concerned, by revealing the falseness of his fundamental assumption, as well as the weakness of his several arguments, whose logical force centres at this point. How far success has attended the effort, is a question now submitted to the reader.

It will be perceived, that the biblical question has not been reached in the previous remarks. Whether the resurrection be a doctrine of the Bible or not, is a simple question of exegesis. We have canvassed the author's philosophy, so far as was necessary to show, that for any thing therein contained, it might be a doctrine of the Bible. He told us, in substance, that it could not be-giving his reasons, upon which we have ventured to join an issue with him. In so doing we have spoken freely and plainly-with none other than the kindest feelings towards the author-but with an unqualified dissent from the general scope of his philosophy, and not less so from the arguments applied to both the positive and negative portions of his system. He neither proves what his system asserts to be true, nor sustains the impossibility which he alleges. He agrees with the skeptic in denying the possibility of the resurrection, but does not agree with him in denying the truth of the Bible. His book, therefore, has presented a fair occasion for weighing the philosophical argument against the resurrection of the dead. This we have endeavored to do, not intending to blink the question in a single particular.

ARTICLE III.

EXPOSITION OF 1 PETER 3: 18-20.

By Rev. JOHN G. HALL, South Egremont, Mass.

"For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit by which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; which sometime were disobedient, when once the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls, were saved."

Or the many disagreeing interpretations of this passage, it is our design to notice only two; two opposing interpretations ; for the most part held by two differing classes of professing Christians; and which might be called, for convenience' sake, the extraordinary, and the common.

The common interpretation holds the passage in question, as meaning nothing more, than that Christ, by his Spirit, or by the Holy Spirit, in Noah, a preacher of righteousness before the flood, preached salvation ages ago to the disobedient; who, in consequence of their continued and perverse disobedience, are now confined in prison; by prison being meant the hell of the lost, where their worm dieth not, and their fire is not quenched.

The antagonist, or extraordinary interpretation, supposes that Christ, after the crucifixion, while his body yet lay in the tomb, made his way in spirit to the regions of the departed, and preached the gospel to the imprisoned; since they had died without having heard it: the disobedient in the days of Noah being mentioned on account of the great multitude who shared in that sudden destruction.

To this main idea of the extraordinary theory, are attached many other points of importance; points of implication and consequence, which deserve, by virtue of their enormity, a special notice; and which may be occasionally glanced at in the various remarks which follow.

The strong points of the interpretation extraordinary, s to be mainly three:

seem

1. That there is strict antithesis in the 18th verse, between Davazadels pèv oaoxí, "being put to death as to his flesh," and ζωοποιηθεὶς δὲ τῷ πνεύματι, (not " quickened by the Spirit,” but)" maintained alive as to his spirit;" in which, i. e. in which spiritual state of existence, he went and preached unto the spirits in prison.

2. That if Christ preached only through Noah, the words "he went" and preached, are redundant.

3. That this version is sanctioned by numerous passages in the Bible containing allusions to a time when the mediatorial kingdom shall be completed, and all things shall be made new in restitution; and when things from all worlds, above and beneath, shall be subdued to righteousness, that God may be "all in all."

Concerning this last argument, and which is the main pillar indeed of the extraordinary theory, it is sufficient here to say, that it is built on much that is doubtful and beclouded, and even purely imaginative. Its foundations, to say the least, are uncertain. Its most prominent points, it plainly assumes. It assumes that the final restitution of all things, spoken of in the Scriptures, includes the restoration of all fallen and lost men to the blessings and holiness of "sons of God;" and, of course, the restoration of the cast-out angels also. It assumes that God cannot close up the mediatorial reign, cannot subdue all things to himself, and be "all in all," without opening with the arm of sovereign mercy, and, with the sound of redemption, the gates of the eternal prison. No man may say that these are not points of unequivocal assumption. Have not the majority of the learned and pious world, of all known ages, been against them? Does not the same majority now, while it receives the scriptural intimations that the mediatorial reign is one day to close, at the same time reject the annexed condition of universal and indiscriminate ransom, as a point of mere conjecture or fancy; to say the least, a point of extreme uncertainty? If so, then this argument is of no positive

account at all in support of the alleged truth of the extraordinary exposition of this passage.

Upon the second argument, the alleged redundancy of the phrase, "he went" and preached, it may be simply remarked, that it rests as a mere matter of taste whether this be a redundancy or not. Perhaps as many readers would regard Peter as designing to convey nothing special by it, as the contrary. Or, it might have been a mere matter of taste with the writer. Another apostle might have left out the words "he went," and simply have said, "by which also he preached." And then again, a third might have written with Peter," by which also he went and preached."

But if it be insisted on, that the words are expressive of motion, then it may be inquired how it was unnatural in Peter, when speaking of the Lord of glory, whose appropriate residence was in heaven, preaching unto the sons of men who had made themselves vile, and their earth vile, as going to preach unto them? How was it improper? It may also be said that such or similar phrases, with reference to the persons of the Godhead, are in common use in the Bible, and in common use among Christians of modern days. "The Lord came down," it is said in Genesis, "to see the city and tower which the children of men builded." "The Lord came down on Mount Sinai." "He bowed the heavens, and came down," etc. And we daily pray to that Spirit, who is every where present and never afar off, to come down, to descend, to draw near, and bless. And to the Ephesians, who had never seen Christ in the flesh, Paul says that he "came and preached peace" unto them, when they were afar off. It is no marvel, then, that Peter should say, concerning the Redeemer, even before his incarnation, that by his Spirit he went and preached unto the disobedient in the days of Noah.

The remaining argument of the extraordinary theory, is based upon a proposed rendering of the phrase worоmais δὲ τῷ πνεύματι ; by which it would have these words carry the meaning of kept alive in spirit; or the like.

But where can any thing be found to countenance this?