1. OBSERVATIONS ON MATTHEW 24: 29–31, AND THE

PARALLEL PASSAGES IN MARK AND LUKE,

WITH REMARKS ON THE DOUBLE SENSE OF

SCRIPTURE,

By M. Stuart, lately Professor of Sacred Literature at Andover.

[Concluded from p. 355.]

⚫ 449

II. THE PLATONIC DIALOGUE THEAETETUS-WITH

A TRANSLATION OF THE EPISODAL SKETCH

OF THE WORLDLING AND THE PHILOSOPHER, 468

By Tayler Lewis, LL. D., Prof. of Greek, Union College, Schenectady, N. Y.

By R. D. C. Robbins, Professor of Languages, Middlebury College.

[Concluded from p. 299.]

War between Zurich and the Catholic Cantons; Differences

adjusted by Berne,

490

The Conference at Marburg between Luther and Zuingli,

Renewed Hostilities, Conflict, Defeat. The Death of Zuingli, 493

493

By Calvin Pease, M. A., Professor in the University of Vermont.

507

From the French of J. J. Ampère, by John W. May, Esq., Roxbury.

VI. THE CONSERVATIVE ELEMENT IN CHRISTIANITY, 540

By Rev. Charles White, D. D., President of Wabash College, Ia.

VII. THE SYSTEM OF THE JEWISH CABBALAH, AS

DEVELOPED IN THE ZOHAR,

By Dr. Theoph. Rubinsohn.

.

563

VIII PROLEGOMENA TO TISCHENDORF'S NEW EDI-

TION OF THE SEPTUAGINT,

581

Translated from the Latin by Charles Short, M. A., Roxbury, Mass.

By B. B. Edwards, late Professor in Andover Theological Seminary.

609

V. New Work on the Life and Labors of the Apostle Paul,

VI. History of the Second Church in Boston,

Translated from the German by George E. Day, Professor in Lane

II. ELEMENTS OF CULTURE IN THE EARLY AGES, 686

By M. P. Case, M. A., Newburyport, Mass.

III. PROTESTANT CHRISTIANITY ADAPTED TO BE

THE RELIGION OF THE WORLD,

By Rev. Charles White, D. D., President of Wabash College, Ia.

701

By Rev. Enoch Pond, D. D., Professor in Bangor Theological Seminary.

730

746

VI. THE ALLEGED DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN PAUL

AND JAMES,

761

By E. P. Barrows, Jr., Prof. Sacred Literature in Western Reserve College.

VII. LIFE AND SERVICES OF PROFESSOR B. B.

EDWARDS,

783

A Discourse delivered June 25, 1852, in the Chapel of the Andover

Theological Seminary. By Edwards A. Park.

II. Works of Richard Whately, D. D., Archbishop of Dublin,

III. Memorial of Dr. Popkin, .

835

837

IV. Paul's Analysis of the Hebrew Text of the Book of Genesis, 838

V. Prof. Barrows's Memoir of Mr. Judson,

840

THE

BIBLIOTHECA SACRA,

NO. XXXIII.

AND

AMERICAN BIBLICAL REPOSITORY,

NO. LXXXV.

JANUARY, 1852.

ARTICLE 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 VOL. IX. No. 33.

1

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 honor 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 candor, 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 con