Anastasis : or, The doctrine of the resurrection of the body, rationally and scripturally considered

Front matter

5 ^^

^0 £2 : « xP *V

.0'

Preface

It is, I am persuaded, but seldom that a work is presented to the public under a more oppressive load of conscious solemn responsibility than that which presses upon my own spirit in delivering over to the verdict of the Christian community the present volume. By no possibility can I disguise from myself the fact, that the results which it announces are of very momentous import to the interests of revealed truth. From the inevitable relations *the doctrine of the Resurrection to the cognate announcements oi the great scheme of Scriptural Eschatology, or the doctrine of the last ihi7igSy a course of reasoning, or a theory of interpretation, which goes essentially to change the estabhshed view of that tenet, must necessarily work a correspondent change in our estimate of a whole class of subjects bearing upon the theme of human destiny in another life. Now it is certain that the conclusions to which I have arrived, and which will be found embodied in the ensuing pages, must, if built upon sound premises, present the grand future under an entirely new aspect. The ^ resurrection of the body, if my reasonings and expositions are well-founded, is not a doctrine of revelation.

I cannot be unaware of the shock which such a declaration is calculated to give to the settled preconceptions of a great portion of Christendom. Nor can I be insensible to the imputation, which it can scarcely fail to draw after it, of an uncommon degree of temerity in thus virtually assuming to arraign and to convict of error the currrent creed of the Church for the space of eighteen centuries. The severity of judgment reasonably to be expected on this score I know can be propitiated only by an overwhelming cogencyof proof of the truth of the main position. This it would be doubtless rash to promise ; but it may go some-

IV PREFACE.

what, perhaps, in arrest of a condemning verdict to assure the reader, that 1 have profoundly weighed all the considerations which naturally urge themselves upon one who ventures to such a length of rational and exegetical hardihood as he will probably think evinced in the work before him. I beg him also to believe, that nothing short of the most intense conviction of the truth of the principles on which my conclusions rest, could have prevailed upon me to stand forth so much in the attitude of an impugner of the fixed belief of good and great men both of the past and the present. For to say nothing of the rashness of hazarding a dubious theory upon a cardinal doctrine, I have, in a worldly point of view, every thing at stake : as no former services in the cause of biblical truth can be expected to redeem any man from the consequences of a subsequent radical error. It is doubtless reasonable that this avowal should carry with it some weight in evidence of the strength of myown convictions of the truth of the positions I have assumed to maintain, although I am well aware that this is not the kind of evidence necessary to secure the convictions of the reader.

If any thing can be cited in the way of apology for thus going against the prevalent views of the Christian world on an important point of doctrine, it is the estabhshment of the principle maintained in my Introduction, of the progressive development of Scriptural truth. This principle I believe to be a sound one, and under its tutelage my conclusions must take shelter. ^ On a candid review of the whole subject, I cannot divest myself of the impression that both my premises and my conclusions are sound. If so, let it not be thought strange that my sohcitude for the result embraces my readers as well as myself. Truth has the same claims upon them that it has upon me. As it must necessarily be a matter of serious moment with me to propagate that which is false, so it cannot be a thing of light import witli them to reject that which is true. It is at any rate certain, that no one can justly feel himself at liberty, in the forum of his own conscience, to repudiate or decry the positions assumed in this book without a thorough examination of the grounds on which they rest, and a competent exegetical expose of the fallacy of my reasonings. I feel, with great force, the justice of my demand, that the argument shall be fairly met, and this it cannot be but by a process of investigation similar to that which I have myself

PREFACE. V

instituted in the ensuing pages. No candid mindj therefore, can fail to appreciate the earnestness with which I enter my protest against the hasty verdict of mere prejudice and preconception* Putting, as I do, every thing at stake on the score of reputation^ influence, usefulness, and temporal well-being, I feel that I have a right to be heard in defence of conclusions so fraught with weal or woe to to their author. When such a hearing can be secured on the part of enlightened minds, I cannot say that I cherish much concern as to the issue. I have the utmost confidance that the evidence, when fairly presented, will strike them as it does me. Yet but a slight acquaintance with the history of opinion, and particularly of religious opinion, is requisite to beget the anticipation, that the work will be condemned, if at all, by those who will be so much offended at the conclusion, that they will not deign to 'put themselves in possession of vthe premises. It is, however, a consolation to which I should blush to be insensible, that Truth has Omnipotence for its Patron, and that, like Wisdom, it will eventually be "justified of its children."

After all, I know not that a mainly deprecatory tone is that which the true ^character of my work most properly warrants. If I could deem myself to have come forth as an opponent to the great truth involved |in the doctrine of the Resurrection— if I had invaded in a ruthless way the faith of a future life, of immortality, of retribution — I might have stronger motives for seeking to soften the sentence which I could not hope to avoid. But it is not in this character that I claim to appear before the tribunal of the Christian public. There is nothing destructive in the bearings of the theory here presented. I have advanced nothing that is intrinsically calculated to weaken the force of the great moral sanctions of the Gospel. I leave the sublime announcements of the Resurrection — the Judgment — Heaven — Hell — clothed with all their essential practical potency, as doctrines of revelation, though placed, as I trust,, upon their true foundation, and eliminated from the mixtures of long adhering error. I may venture, then, to say, that whatever sentiments of repugnance the views here broached may encounter in limine, they will arise rather from the hearsay results which I have announced, than from a calm and candid scanning of the entire argument. The issue of this I am confident will be a far more

VI PREFACE.

elevated and satisfying view of man's ulterior destiny, than that which is afforded by the common construction of the subjects I have treated. The theory here announced of the Resurrection, while it perfectly obviates the objections from Reason, clothes the Scripture statements with a new interest, from the bare fact that they are seen to be capable of uttering their oracles in harmony with the dicta of science and philosophy. Every exhibition of Scriptural truth which goes to wrest its weapons from the ^ hands of a cavilling skepticism, in fact achieves for it a new triumph ; and the more perfectly it can be shown to echo the voicjEi of Nature and of Law, the more complete must be its authority over the human mind.

It is far from improbable that some lapses of statement — some errors in reasoning— some faults of exposition — may be detected in the minor details of the discussion. For the exposure of such blemishes I shall be truly grateful, while at the same time the candid critic will feel that the argument claims to be met at its strong J as well as at its weak points. Especially would I express the hope that the avowed substantial identity of the theory with that of Swedenborg may not operate to the undue disparagement of the whole work. That I have been here and there indebted to Mr. Noble's able and interesting " Appeal in Behalf of the Views of the Eternal World and State held by the New Jerusalem Church," will be seen from the several quotations I have made from it ; but I here repeat that my main results have been arrived at by a purely independent process. But the course of argument pursued by that writer I regard as sound and successful; and neither my convictions nor my habits allow me to consider the force of truth as neutralized, by being found in connexion with incidental error. As to the claim of Swedenborg to have received his doctrine on this or other points by a supernatural illumination, I have nothing to say. The acquaintance I have been led to form with his character and writings have inspired me, on the whole, with sentiments of respect for the man, while at the same time the very principle which he so strenuously inculcates, of admitting no ^evidence but that which satisfies the reason, prevents me from acceding to many of his leading views, particularly in the interpretation of Scripture. His psychology I regard as standing on an entirely different basis, and to be judged of by its own evidence. This is certainly

TREFACE. Vll

worthy of a degree of attention which I am persuaded it will eventually receive ; and I would fain have it distinctly understood, that it is in reference to this part of his system exclusively that any such concession is made.

The reader will perhaps be prompted to inquire why, as I have treated the Resurrection in connexion with the Judgment, I have not also displayed it in its definite relations to the Second Advent, with which it would appear to be equally intimately associated in the great scheme of Eschatology. To this I reply, that an accurate examination of what I have advanced on the general subject will readily disclose my own opinion that the Second Advent of the Saviour is not affirmed to be 'personal^ but spiritual and providential^ and that the event so denominated is to be considered as having entered upon its incipient fulfilment at a very early period of the Christian dispensation. To this view I am compelled to adhere, so long as the declaration stands unrepealed — " Verily I say unto you, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." If the word of inspiration can be shown to contain the announcement of any other Second Coming than that which commenced in the lifetime of the generation then living; and if this can be proved to be truly a second^ instead of a third coming, I shall be ready at once to embrace it. In the mean time I must confess my mind to be so constructed as to be incapable of receiving an alleged doctrine of revelation, without adequate evidence that the interpretation upon which it is founded is sound.

I shall, however, after all, deem it strange, if it should not be said, that my argument amounts to little, for the reason that it assumes to know what God has not been pleased to reveal. The simple yac^ of a resurrection, it will probably be maintained, is all that the Scriptures announce ; and that it can be nothing short of perilous presumption to attempt to determine anything as to the nature of the raised body, or the mode by which its resurrection is effected. All such attempts are, in the opinion of multitudes, to be set down to the account of mere empty speculation, and of being wise above what is written. They go, it is said, on the principle of subjecting Faith to the ordeal of Reason, and are to be peremptorily frowned down by all the genuine reverers of holy writ.

Vm PREFACE.

Now if it is implied by this, that there is really any more assumption on the theory which I propose than on the common one, I deny the truth of the implication at once. Indeed, it is precisely on the ground of the assumed knowledge of what is not and cannot he known, that I dissent from the popular view. That view takes it for granted that the truth of Scripture teaches the re -construction of the future body out of the dissolved and dissipated remains of the present one ; and that, too, by a pure miracle, in entire independence of the working of the vital principle. This fact is assumed to be known, because it is held that revelation teaches it ; and the knowledge is necessarily made the standard by which the alleged ignorance of any contrary theory is to be judged and convicted ; for how can any sentiment be arraigned on the score of ignorance or error, without some assumed criterion of knowledge and truth ? Now I distinctly charge upon this assumption, that it is groundless, fallacious, and false. I hesitate not to aver, that the knowledge and certainty claimed for the prevalent views of the resurrection, and on the ground of which vain speculation is charged upon the contrary, have no foundation. When once submitted to the ordeal of the understanding, they are seen to involve ideas at war with each other, and therefore cannot be intelligently received. There is, then, to say the least, as much specidation on the one theory as on the other ; and if that which is here proposed does not satisfy the reason, just as little is reason satisfied by the common view.

But here I am accosted again by the stern interrogatory. What right has Reason to demand satisfaction at all on a point of doctrine addressed solely to Faith 1 To this I reply, that Reason certainly has a rightful claim to be clearly informed as to what 2S the doctrine to be believed ; nor can it possibly be required to forego its prerogatives in dealing with a professed revelation from heaven, containing the points to which our assent is demanded. While it is the office of Reason reverently to receive all that God has clearly and incontrovertibly taught. Reason must still act in determining the true sense of what He has taught. It is human Reason that originates the rules of interpretation for the inspired volume ; and we claim nothing more for it than its appropriate function, when it is thus called in to decide the meaning of revelation. This meaning, when really at- 'Sained, must always be in harmony with its own oracles.

PREFACE. IX

All truth must of necessity be eternally consistent with itself. No man is required to hold views of revelation to which a sound and enlightened science or philosophy can solidly object. No intelligent believer in the Bible will yield the rationality of his faith to the skeptical assailant. He will give to no one on this score a vantage ground on which he can laugh in his sleeve at the weakness or credulity which receives, as points of faith, dogmas at war with known facts or unimpeachable deductions. If the averments of that word which professes to have emanated from the Omniscient Spirit, clash with any positive, fixed, irrefragable truth in the universe, then the word itself must be a forgery and a lie ; for God would never set one truth in contradiction to another. Panoplied by this principle, which is as firm as the perpetual hills, if, in the careful scanning of that word, the letter speaks a language contrary to clearly ascertained facts in nature and science, he will take it as type, figure, allegory, metaphor, symbol, accommodation, anthropomorphism — any thing, rather than the declaration of absolute verity. His Bible comes from the same source with the philosopher's boasted Reason. God is the Infinite Reason, and it is impossible that the reception of his word can involve the denial of that lofty prerogative in man.

May I hope then for exemption from any special severity of judgment, on the score of the freedom with which I have entered upon the examination of the doctrine of the Resurrection as popularly held? Our grand object of quest, as rational and accountable creatures, is Truth. What possible interest can any man have in adhering to error rather than truth ? What conceivable motive can weigh with any one to close his eyes to the real difficulties which may encompass any particular article of his faith ? Can he wink them into non-existence ? Is it not better to look them full in the face, and acknowledge all their force ? Is it not well to inquire if there be not some solution of them which shall be consistent at once with right reason and with sound interpretation ? This is the task which I have essayed in the present volume. With what success remains to be seen.

The idea maintained throughout the work, that the Resurrection is effected by the operation of natural laws, may strike some of my readers as a virtual " limiting the Holy One of Israel," who, as he was originally free and sovereign in the establishment of these laws, must be regarded as equally free to dis-

X PREFACE.

pense with them in any part of his procedures. This we may doubtless admit, provided there is any thing in the nature of the case, or in his own declarations, which lays the foundation for such a belief. Otherwise, the presumption undoubtedly is, that he will adhere to the fixed constitution of things, in bringing about the proposed results of his providence, however grand or stupendous, or baffling to our comprehension. In the present ceise, we believe nothing can be cited from the express intimations of his word, which enforces upon us the necessity of referring the event announced to the purely miraculous agency of Omnipotence; and we know too little of the laws operating throughout the universe of being, to affirm their incompetency to the production of the result in question.

It can scarcely be necessary to remark, that the theory of the Resurrection disclosed in this volume, brings the present into entirely a new relation with the future hfe, and clothes the subject of human destiny with an interest to which no reflecting mind can be insensible. If well founded, it strikes an effectual blow at all those crude anticipations which would throw forward the awards of eternity to an indefinitely future period, interposing an interval of such extent as greatly to relax their force as moral sanctions, and plants us in the closest proximity to the spiritual world, with all its unutterable grandeur of interest and power of appeal. The ordinary gross conceptions of the local relations of heaven and hefl to each other, and to the present sphere of our existence, are done away, and we look to the precincts of our own bosoms for the constitutive elements of each.

It remains but to close with an earnest invocation to the divine Spirit of Truth, to own and crown with his blessing the well-meant labor undertaken and accomplished in the present volume. G. B.

New-York, Oct. 1, 1844.

CONTENTS,

Introduction. — The knowledge of Revelation Progressive, . 13

PART L

The Rational Argument.

Chapter I. — Objections to the Common View, . . . 31

Chapter II, — Distinction of Personal and Bodily Identity, . . 58 Chapter III. — The True Body of the Resurrection as inferred by

Reason, €7

PART IL

The Scriptural ARauMENT*

Chapter Chapter Chapter Chapter

Chapter Chapter

Chapter

I. — Preliminary Remarks,

II. — The Old Testament Doctrine of the Resurrection, III. — Onomatology ; Definition of Terras, IV. — Examination of Particular Passages, Genesis 17 : 7, 8, .

" 17: 15, .

" 13. 14, .

Daniel 12 : 2, V. — The New Testament Doctrine of the Resurrection, VI. — Origin and Import of the word 'Resurrection,'

used in the New Testament, VII. — The Resurrection of Christ, . . . .

144 151

Xll

Contents

Chapter VIII. — Examination of Particular Passages,

" 10: 28, "22: 31,32, .

Acts 2 : 29-35, .

Introduction

The Knowledge of Revelation Progressive,

The proposition which is virtually embodied in the head* ing of the present section, flows by natural sequence from the general and universally admitted truth, that the human race itself is progressive, not merely in physical continuity, but in mental development. That our collective humanity, like each individual that composes it, passes through a childhood, a youth, and a meridian manhood, can scarcely be a question with any one who casts his eye at the page of history or the universal analogies of nature. We should be far from doing violence to truth, should we slightly alter the poetic aphorism, and read — ** Progress is heaven's first law.'' If so, the thesis may stand unassailable, that the knowledge of Revelation, like that of Nature, is destined to be continually on the advance. So far as the latter is concerned it will not be denied by the reflecting mind, that even at this period of the world man has arrived but at the threshold of that august temple of Truth into which he is called to enter, and to become a worshipper at its inmost shrines. He is now in the scene of his pupilage — in the lowest forms of that school in which he has been set to learn the lessons of the universe.

14 INTRODlTCTrON.

In this capacity he has two great volumes placed before him which are to be the theme of his perpetual pondering — the volume of Nature and the volume of Revelation, In regard to both these volumes we know not how to resist the belief that the same great law holds good, viz. , of gradual develop^ ment. No one can entertain a doubt that it has thus far been by slow and toilsome steps, that natural science has achieved its triumphs. The arcana of creation have hitherto been laid open fact by fact, and principle by principle. Ages elapsed before even the true method of prosecuting physical inquiries was fixed by the genius of the immortal author of the Organon. And at the present day Geology, for instance, is but just beginning to unwrap the bandages which have swathed for countless centuries the mummy globe which we inhabit. And so in every other field of the naturalist's investigations the process of discovery has been alike tardy and gradational. Who can question that the most advanced outposts of the territory conquered by the science of this generation, will have dwindled and become scarcely perceptible to the retroverted eye of the philosopher of 1944 ?

If such, then, be the case with the book of Nature is there any reason to doubt that the same law obtains in regard to the book of Revelation ? Is there the least ground for surprise or offence at the intimation, that there may be new discoveries in Revelation, as well as in physical science? — that the diligent study of the sacred volume may open new and unexpected views of truth leading to the most momentous results? There is doubtless a strong predisposition in pious minds to rest in the persuasion, that all the important truths of Revelation have been long since ascertained and fixed, at least in their grand outline. It will perhaps be admitted that its doctrines and disclosures may be more clearly and accurately defined in detail — that the different parts of the great scheme may be more nicely discriminated, balanced, and adjusted — that its separate distinguishing features may be brought out in bolder relief, and their various relations and consequences more distinctly exhibited. But still it is supposed that the system as a whole is well settled and incapable of extending its bounds. The mass of Christians probably look upon the progress of Truth somewhat as they do upon that of a conquering power, like that of Israel in Canaan, which has completely overrun the limits of the invaded country, and attained the ne plus ultra of territorial acquisition, but which yet has a good deal to do within those limits in achieving an entire subjugation, and in parcelling out the region under the new regime.

Or, to vary our illustration somewhat, the views entertained by many, perhaps by most, of the Christian world, on the subject of Revelation, are similar to those entertained on the subject of Geography. We are conscious to ourselves of understanding the general form, dimensions, and divisions of the earth. Its great continents and oceans — its mountains, rivers, and islands — are all mapped out to our mind's eye. And so also of its political distributions into empires and states. We feel entirely assured of having mastered — of having brought within our mental ken — all the grander features of the globe which we inhabit. And if the question were asked what farther knowledge we expect to acquire on this subject, we should at once reply, that our acquaintance with particular regions — their local aspect — their peculiarities of soil, production, and climate-— the manners and customs of the races that inhabit them — may be indefinitely increased. So in the field before us, we admit the possibility of a greater amount of information as to the particulars of revealed truth — the clearing up of certain verbal difficulties and obscurities in the sacred text — and the happier illustration of certain passages from the manners and usages of Oriental life — while at the same time we no more look for any farther grand and momentous disclosures than we do for the discovery of a third continent of equal dimensions with the eastern or western.

This we believe may be safely affirmed to be the prevailing impression and attitude of the Christian mind throughout the world, and we would by no means intimate that there is not a substantial truth involved in this view of the subject. There are doubtless certain great fundamental and paramount facts in revelation which lie open on its very face, and beyond which we cannot possibly anticipate any higher or ulterior disclosures. Who, for instance, could think for a moment of educing from the pages of revelation any truth to be set by the side of the sublime central fact of the atoning work of Jesus Christ in the matter of man's salvation ? This constitutes the very core of all inspired truth imparted by God to man, and neither time nor eternity will develop any thing to supersede or equal it. So, again, as to the great system of moral duties — the code of ethical precepts designed to govern the intercourse of men in their relations with each other — we have no reason to suppose it ever will or can be improved upon, or that any discoveries will ever be made that shall supersede, vacate, or alter its imperative claims. In whatever other department of revealed truth we may look for advances to be made, w^e anticipate none here. It will never be any more nor any less clearly our duty than it now is to love God with all our hearts, and our neighbor as ourselves, and to do to others as we would that they should do to us.

But while we hold this as an impregnable and indispensable position, 'we do not hesitate at the same time to affirm, that many things connected with this mediatorial scheme — many things in its sanctions — many things in its typical shadows — many things in its predicted issues — do admit of, and will doubtless eventually receive, a vastly fuller and clearer exposition than has yet been afforded to the world. And, in reference to the discussion upon which we have entered in the present volume, we cannot but very sensibly feel that we shall labor in vain to commend to our readers' assent the views advanced, so long as the impression is dominant in their minds that the ultimatum of inspired truth has already been attained, and that scarcely any thing new is to be expected in scriptural elucidations. On this point we confess to an extreme anxiety to make our readers partakers of our own convictions. We perceive clearly that in the course of our ensuing investigations we shall be obliged to draw largely on any concessions which they may see fit to grant in the outset, that biblical science, like all other sciences, is progressive ; and what conception can we form of progress in this department which does not modify, and in some cases perhaps supersede established ideas 1

We repeat, then, our main position, that our knowledge of the contents of revelation is destined to he progressive ; and in support of this position we certainly have the advantage of the argument drawn from the general analogy of Nature and of Providence. Throughout the whole range of creation we recognize the perpetual presence and operation of this great law. The principle of progressive advance from the imperfect to the finished — from the rude to the refined — from the infantile to the mature — from primordial elements to elaborate formations — from tender germs to ripened fruits — from initial workings to ultimate consummations— is every where apparent ; and why should it not hold here also ? If progress is heaven's law in every other sphere of observation, ihe presumption certainly is that there is no exception here ; and we are at liberty to affirm the fact, unless some adequate reason can be previously assigned for questioning or denying it. But we appeal to positive proof of the point which we have assumed, and advert —