ture spiritual. If the face of man formed out of the dust of the earth often beams with intelligence and glows with elevated emo- tions, what may be expected of a countenance made like unto that of the Son of God.
If then our future bodies are to retain the human form ; to be easily distinguished by those who knew and loved us on earth ; if they are to be endued with an unknown power ; if they are to be incorruptible, immortal, and spiritual ; if we are to bear the image of the heavenly, we may well bow down with humble and joyful hearts and receive the exhortation of the Apostle : " There- fore, my beloved brethren, be ye steadfast, unmovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord."
§ 2. History of the Doctrine.
The doctrine of the resurrection of the body is not exclusively a doctrine of the Bible. It is found, in different forms, in many of the ancient religions of the world. This is the more remarkable as it is in itself so improbable, and so much out of the analogy of nature. One generation of plants and animals succeeds an- other in uninterrupted succession ; but the same individuals never reappear. The case is the more remarkable when we consider the difficulties with which the doctrine is beset; difficulties so great that it is rejected and even ridiculed by all in this genera- tion who do not recognize the sacred Scriptures as an authority from which they dare not dissent. When such doctrines are found not only in the Bible but also in the religions of heathen nations it may be assumed that the Hebrews borrowed them from their heathen neighbours. This is the hypothesis adopted generally by rationalists. They urge in its support that the doc- trine of Satan, of the resurrection of the body, and of the de- struction and renovation of the earth, do not appear in those portions of the Scriptures which were written before the Babylo- nish captivity. To carry out this argument they refer Job, Dan- iel, and a large portion of Isaiah to a period subsequent to the exile, contrary to evidence both external and internal in favour of the greater antiquity of those books. Even if it be conceded that the doctrines do not appear distinctly in any but the later writings of the Old Testament, that would not justify the as- sumption of their heathen origin, provided that their genesis can be traced in the earlier books of Scripture. Nothing is more ob- vious, or more generally admitted than the progressive character
voj* in. 50
786 PART IV. Ch. n. — the resurrection.
of the divine revelations. Doctrines at first obscurely intimated, are gradually developed. This is the case with the doctrines of the Trinity, of the personality of the Holy Spirit, of the divinity of Christ, of the nature of his redemption, of the future state ; and, as might be expected, of the resurrection of the dead. It is just as unreasonable and as unhistorical to say that the Church received the doctrine of the resurrection of the body from the heathen, as that it received from Plato the doctrine of the Trinity. There is another consideration on this subject, which for the Christian is decisive. The doctrines which in the New Testa- ment are declared to be part of the revelation of God, are thereby declared not to be of heathen origin. The heathen may have held them, as they hold the doctrine of the existence of God and of the immortality of man ; that does not prove that such doc- trines have only a human origin and human authority.
These things being premised, it is admitted as a remarkable fact that belief in the resurrection of the body did prevail among the ancients prior to the advent of Christ. Reference is some- times made to the Brahminic doctrine of the constant succession of cycles of countless ages in the history of the universe, one cycle being a reproduction or renewal of another, as having an analogy to the Christian doctrine of the resurrection. " The first appear- ance of this notion of a bodily restoration," says Mr. Alger,1 " which occurs in the history of opinions, is among the ancient Hindus. With them it appears as a part of a vast conception, embracing the whole universe in an endless series of total growths, decays, and exact restorations. In the beginning the Supreme Being is one and alone. He thinks to himself ' I will become many ' [This is a figure of speech ; for according to the Hindu sys- tem the Supreme Being, the Absolute, cannot think] . Straight- way the multiform creation germinates forth, and all beings five. Then for an inconceivable period — ■ a length of time commensu- rate with the existence of Brahma, the Demiurgus [This again is a mixture of ideas, for Brahma of the Hindus does not corre- spond with the Demiurgus of the Greeks] — the successive gen- erations flourish and sink. At the end of this period all forms of matter, all creatures, sages, and gods, fall back into the Uni- versal Source whence they arose. Again the Supreme Being is one and alone. After an interval the same causes produce the same effects, and all things recur exactly as they were before."2
1 Alger, ut supra, p. 488.
2 Wilson, Lectures on the Religion of the Hindus, London. 1862, vol. ii. pp. 91, 95, 100- 103.