the latter. Still, the Lord's rising almost immediately after the crucifixion, may be taken as strong presumptive proof that man's resurrection must follow immediately after his natural decease. And thus the doctrine which puts off the resurrection to some distant day abandons the parallelism which it ventures to assert. Moreover, such a postponement appears to us to be unfavourable to virtue. When the wicked are taught that the punishment of their crimes is a long way off, the motive is weakened which might otherwise induce them to desist from their misconduct: and when the good learn that the rewards of their faith and virtue are to be postponed to some indefinite period, they cannot but feel discouraged in the pursuit of those heavenly graces. And who does not see that such a delay would be really an indulgence to the wicked, and, also, that to the good it would be an injustice. How certain is it, then, that the doctrine of a material resurrection must be a mistake. Some, indeed, will say that the body will be changed: this at once relinquishes the whole position; if it is changed it ceases to be material, and cannot be the same.
But the apostle having argued for the resurrection of man, from the resurrection of the Lord, contemplated a distinction between the two phenomena; for he said, "Some will say, How are the dead raised, and with what body do they come?"[1] And his reply is at once strong in its terms and striking in its philosophy. "Thou fool," says he, "that which thou sowest is not quickened except it die: and that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat or some other grain: but God giveth it a body as it hath pleased Him, and to every seed his own body." He then
