Volume 1. Number 3. October 6, 1823, pp. 18-23.

• The Clergy.--No. I. by Alexander Campbell, pp. 18-21.
• [Introductory Remarks on Essay by Philip] by Alexander Campbell, pp. 21-22.
• [On the Resurrection of Jesus Christ] by Philip (Walter Scott), pp. 22-23.

      NO class or order of men that ever appeared on earth have obtained so much influence, or acquired so complete an ascendancy over the human mind, as the clergy. The christian clergy have exercised, for about fifteen hundred years, a sovereign dominion over the bible, the consciences, and the religious sentiments of all nations professing christianity. Even kings and emperors bowed with deference to their authority, acknowledging their supremacy, and not daring to wield the sceptre until consecrated and crowned by a minister of religion.--Though vials of wrath have been poured from heaven upon the kingdom of the clergy; though many of them have gnawed their tongues and bit their lips with pain, at the loss of their former magnificent and mighty sway--yet, still their dominion, though much impaired, exists to an alarming extent; and their eagerness to have an unrivalled control over public sentiment, in all religious affairs, remains unabated. Behold the arrogance of their claims! and the peerless haughtiness of their pretensions! They have said, and of them many still say, they have an exclusive right, an official right to affix the proper interpretation to the scriptures; to expound them in public assemblies; insomuch, that it would be presumptuous in a layman to attempt to exercise any of those functions which they have assumed. They must "christen" the new born infant; they must catechise and conform the tender stripling; they must celebrate the rites of matrimony; they must dispense all ordinances in religion; they must attend the corpse to its grave, preach a funeral sermon, and consecrate the very ground on which it is laid. This dominion they at first obtained by slow degrees; but from its great antiquity and general prevalence, it is almost universally acquiesced in, approved, yea, even admired by the devout community. From this dominion over the feelings and consciences of mankind, it was not difficult to slide the hand into the purse of the superstitious. The most artful and, indeed, the most effectual way, to get hold of the purse, is to get a hold of the conscience. The deeper the impression is made on the one, the deeper the draft on the other. Thus it came to pass that the clergy obtained worldly establishments, enriched themselves, and became an order as powerful in the state as in the church. The history of France before the Revolution, and of Spain until the establishment of the Constitution and the Cortes, is a convincing proof of the truth of these positions. Niles, in his "Weekly Register," informs us, that in Spain, before the Revolution, "the number of secular [18] clergy, monks and friars, &c., was one hundred and forty-eight thousand, two hundred and forty-two. Nuns and religious women, thirty-two thousand; total, one hundred and eighty thousand, two hundred and forty two. These persons occupied three thousand convents." "The property," adds the same writer, "belonging to the clergy, in lands and buildings, amounted to the enormous sum of eight hundred and twenty-nine millions of dollars! exclusive of tithes and various other taxes and dues."

      In the kingdom of the clergy there are many ranks and degrees, as respects influence, authority, wealth, and dignity. From the haughty pontiff that sits upon the throne of an imaginary St. Peter, down to the poor curate who sells his fifty-two sermons per annum, for a starving advance of twenty per cent. on the first cost; what a diversity of rank, of authority, of wealth, and dignity!! Perhaps it may be said, that the kingdom of the clergy was designed to bear a resemblance to the kingdom of nature, which exhibits an endless variety, that it may please, delight and instruct us. Thus, from the mighty elephant, down to the oyster that clings to its native rock, what a variety! And from the gorgeous majesty and wide dominion of his holiness, down to the humble class-leader, marching at the head of twelve "candidates for immortality," what a diversity! But with all this diversity, what a unity of spirit, of aim, and of pursuit!! The class-leader would become a local preacher; the local preacher, a circuit-rider; the circuit-rider, a presiding elder; and the presiding elder, a bishop. Then the highest round of the ladder is possessed. No further exaltation; no higher preferment in one province of the kingdom of the clergy. But in another province of the same kingdom, there is a greater diversity of gifts, honors and emoluments; but still the spirit, and temper, and aim, are one and the same. The bishop is an inferior dignitary in another province of this realm; he views with envious eyes the superior dignity of the lord archbishop, and when promoted to this honor, his ambition is circumscribed by his circumstances. Every member, then, of this kingdom of priests is aiming for one and the same object; and though, in other provinces, the ranks may be fewer, and the honors less, the desires, and aims, and pursuits of the priesthood are specifically the same. To say that every individual of this nation of clergy is actuated by such motives, and such only, is very far from our intention. There have been good and pious kings, and there are good and pious clergy. Yet we confess it is much easier to be a good and pious king, than a good and pious clergyman. There are, in the Christian religion, constitutional principles that must be trampled upon, before a man becomes a priest; but none that impede his advancement to the throne as a president or as a king. The exceptions to the general spirit and aim of the clergy, are, however, so few, that we may safely ascribe to them as an order of men, the above views, aims, and pursuits.

      But, to descend from general to particular remarks on the kingdom of the clergy, let us inquire how they came to invest themselves with such authority and dominion? If we mistake not, they acquired their authority and dominion by the use of two grand means; the first is, that of an alledged special call of God to what is commonly called the work of the ministry; the other, the necessity of a consociation of these called ones, for the better administration of their government, and the securing what were called the interests of the church. Many sermons have been delivered on the necessity and importance of a special call to the ministry; on the necessity and importance of the confederation of the ministry, to the form of general councils, synods, assemblies, associations, and conferences; to order to their securing the interests of religion, which seem so completely identified with the interests of the clergy, that many have been tempted to think that the phrase, "the interests of religion" means, the interests of the clergy.

      Now, although I feel myself as able to demonstrate and prove that both the one and the other of these positions is false, as I am to prove that there is a God, the creator of heaven and earth; yet, I cheerfully admit that there are now, and there were formerly, many good men who have advocated the necessity, and expatiated on the importance, of a special call of the Holy Spirit to the work of teaching the Christian religion, and, also, who have earnestly contended for that confederation of the ministers of religion as above stated. Nay, that many good and eminent men have really thought such things indispensable to the promotion of Christianity. But shall we be deterred from examining any principle because good and great men have espoused it? Nay, verily! Should we adopt this course, all examination of principles is at an end. We shall then venture to ask one of these called ones to furnish us with the evidences of his having been specially called by the Holy Spirit, to the preaching and teaching of the Christian religion. The purposes to be answered by such a call, it is replied, render it necessary. What then are the purposes to be answered by such a call? It is answered, that they are two; first; the qualification of the preacher himself; and secondly, the regard to be paid to the instructions which he communicates. Doubtless, then, it is necessary that the call be evidenced to those to whom he is sent. For if the instructions are the more to be regarded, because of the preachers call by the Holy Spirit, it is absolutely necessary that his call be well authenticated, that his instructions may be well received. It must either be criminal or not criminal to disregard the instruction of a teacher of the Christian religion. On the supposition of its being criminal, the criminality must arise from the neglect or despite of his authority to instruct; but his authority to instruct must be rendered apparent and manifest before it is criminal to neglect or despise it; therefore, it is necessary that he demonstrate his authority, to render it criminal to neglect or despise his instructions. How then does he demonstrate his authority? By producing a license, or a certificate, from Papists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists, or Baptists, that they considered him competent and authorized to preach and teach Christianity. Does this prove that he is called by God. No, assuredly; for then God calls men to preach different gospels and to teach different kinds of Christianity! This will not satisfy the conscientious. Will his saying or his swearing that he is moved by the Holy Spirit to preach and teach Christianity, prove that he is so moved? No; for many have thought that they were so moved, who afterwards declared and exhibited that they were mistaken. And many have said that they were so moved by the Holy Spirit, who were conscious at the moment that they were not so moved, but sought the office for filthy lucre's sake. Nothing of this kind will be admitted as evidence [19] that any man is specially moved by the Holy Spirit to preach or teach the christian religion. Neither a license from any established sect, nor his own saying or swearing that he is specially moved by the Holy Spirit to the preaching or teaching of the christian religion, is a proof sufficient to render it criminal in any to neglect or despise his instructions. Nothing short of divine attestations or miracles can evince that any man is especially called by the Spirit of God to instruct us in the christian religion. Can those who say they are moved by the Holy Spirit to teach the christian religion, produce this sort of evidence? No, no. It is then in vain to say they are so moved. Who is called to believe any thing without evidence? Does God command any man to believe without evidence? No, most assuredly. When, then, I hear a modern preacher, either with or without his diploma in his pocket saying that he is an ambassador of Christ, sent by God to preach the gospel, moved by the Holy Ghost to take upon him the work of the ministry; I ask him to work a miracle, or afford some divine attestation of his being such a character. If he cannot do this, I mark him down as a knave or an enthusiast; consequently, an impostor, either intentionally or unintentionally.

      But again--It was said that a special call of the Divine Spirit is necessary to qualify a preacher of the gospel. Let it be asked, in what respect to qualify him? Doubtless to give him the knowledge of the christian religion, and the faculty of communicating it. But do those who say they are moved by the Holy Spirit to assume the work of the ministry, possess this gift of knowledge, and this gift of utterance? If they do, let them show it. Have they not, for the most part after they profess to be thus called, to go to study the religion, and to study languages in order to communicate their ideas intelligibly? Then, indeed, their call does not qualify them! The meaning of this call, then, is, "Go and learn the religion, and learn the use and meaning of words that you may communicate your knowledge of it; and then I will send you to preach, and lay you under a woful necessity of declaring the religion." This is the special call of the Holy Spirit contended for. What an abuse of language! nay, rather, what an abuse of principle!!! This man is especially called to do a work, or to go a warfare at his own expense! But did this called clergyman hear a voice? He answers, Yes, or No.

      If he heard a voice, how does he know whose voice it was? If the voice of God, how is it proved to be such? If he says he heard no voice, why then does he say that he is called? Suppose this same man who contends for a call, without a voice, had a son ploughing in his field, and his son leaves the plough and goes to visit his friend. After some time he sends a message for his son. His son appears; and when asked why he forsook the plough, and went about riding and feasting with his friends, he answers, Father, you called me from the plough, and commanded me to visit your and my friends. Nay, son, replies the father, did you hear my voice calling or commanding you to such a course of conduct? No, father, replies the son, I did not hear your voice specially calling or commanding me, but I had a deep impression on my mind that it was your wish and my duty to leave the plough and go a visiting. Go, sir, answers the irritated father, to your plough, and remember it is time enough to consider yourself called when your hear my voice. I say, suppose one of those who contend for a call, without a voice, were thus addressed, would they not be constrained to condemn themselves? But to test this mode of reasoning, let us see how it applies to those who said, in holy writ, that they were called to the work of the ministry. The Lord, we are told, called twelve men of the Jews during his life time, to be eye and ear witnesses of all that he said and did. These he afterwards called to be apostles, or ambassadors, or ministers of the New Testament, as they are equally distinguished by any of these names or titles of office. These he called by his own voice, and qualified them to preach and teach infallibly the whole scope of their commission. Their instructions always extended to their commission. In other words, their instructions or qualifications, and their commission were co-extensive. In their first call and commission they were sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and were commanded to announce the approaching reign, saying, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." And to despise or neglect their instruction was criminal in the highest degree. He that despised them, despised him that sent them. But this could not have been the case, had they had no means of convincing their hearers that they were so called and sent. For this purpose they healed the sick, they cast out demons, they cleansed the lepers, they raised the dead; and as they received these powers without money or price, they freely, without money or price, imparted their benefits. In their second commission, and in the special commission of Peter to open the door of faith to the Gentiles, as "the keys" had been committed to him; and in the call of Saul of Tarsus to become an apostle to, and a preacher and a teacher of the truth among the Gentiles, the same circumstances accompanied their call. A voice was heard, the gift of wisdom, the gift of knowledge, the gift of utterance, and the gift of working miracles, were communicated and exhibited. It is evident that all who were called to the ministry by God or by his Spirit, possessed every thing that has been contemplated as necessary in the antecedent remarks. When other persons called in question Paul's call to the work of the ministry or to become an ambassador of Christ, how did he contend for it? By referring to the wonders he had wrought, as well as to the labors he had endured. See 2 Cor. xii. 12. "Truly," says he, "the signs of an apostle were fully wrought among you with all patience; by signs, and wonders, and powers." Again he tells them, chap. xiii. 6. "But I trust when I make you a visit, that ye shall know that we are not without proof"--"of Christ's speaking by me."

      From these premises we may conclude, that every one moved by the Holy Spirit, or specially called to the preaching or teaching of christianity, is possessed of these three requisites:--

      1st. He has heard the voice of God calling him.

      2d. He is qualified to speak infallibly.

      3d. He is capable of confirming his testimony by divine attestations, or by the working of miracles.

      Every ambassador of Christ, mentioned in the New Testament, possessed these three requisites. It is absurd, vain and presumptuous for any now to call themselves ambassadors of Christ, or to say that they are specially called to the ministry of the New Testament, who possess not these three essential attributes of the called ministers of the New Testament.

      But some, unable to resist the evidence of the preceding facts and reasons, will exclaim, What! have we no men among us called and sent by [20] God? Stop, my friend. What use have we for such men? Do we need any new message from the skies? No. Divine messages require divine messengers. If there be no need of a new message from God, or a new revelation of the Spirit then there is no need of new ambassadors, of new revealers, or new prophets. If the message of the twelve apostles, or if the revelation of the New Testament is incomplete, is imperfect, is inadequate, then we have need of a new message and new messengers from the skies. But until some bold genius undertakes to prove that there is need for a new revelation or a new message from God, we shall fearlessly declare, that while we have the writings of the four evangelists, the writings of Paul, of Peter, of James, of Jude and John, we want no new message from the skies--no ambassadors from Christ. In short, there is no need to have men among us professing to be called and sent by God." In the natural world we might as reasonably look for, and expect a new sun, a new moon, and new stars; as, in the kingdom of Christ, to expect new ambassadors, new messages from God, new revelations of the Spirit. On this subject we have much to say; but in the mean time, we shall simply add, to prevent misapprehensions, that, as we have a revelation developing all the mysteries of the love and benevolence of God towards sinners through Christ, a revelation clear, simple, full and complete; it is the duty of every one who acknowledges it to be such, to devote his mind to it, and study it for himself.

      Amongst those who believe and understand the christian religion, there are individuals called, in the subordinate sense of the phrase, to sundry good works, of much profit to men. Those that are rich in this world, professing the faith, are called by the word or God, written and read by all men, to communicate of their substance to the wants of the poor, to be ready to distribute, to be willing to communicate to the wants of the brotherhood, and to the wants of others. When a brother in distress appears in the presence of a brother rich in this world the brother of high degree is called by the word of God and the providence of God, or the circumstances of the case call upon him to put his hand into his pocket and to communicate to his distress. Just in the same sense, a brother who is well instructed into the doctrine of the kingdom of heaven who has attained to the full assurance of understanding of what Paul, and Peter, and James, and John, and the other writers of the New Testament have taught concerning the way of life and salvation; when he finds persons ignorant or unbelieving, either in public or private, is called by the word of God, and the circumstances of the case, to teach and preach Christ, or to show the things that the ambassadors have taught and authenticated; these things he may urge on their authority who confirmed their testimony with signs and wonders. And as it would be absurd and vain for the rich man to say that he was specially called and sent by God, or moved by the Spirit of God to give alms; so it would be absurd and vain for the person possessed of the knowledge of the New Testament, to say that he was moved by the Holy Spirit, or specially called by its operations and sent by trod to preach.

      Besides this there is another fact to which we would advert, viz. that when there is a voluntary association of any number of disciples of Christ, met to any one place to attend to the duties and privileges of a church, should they call anyone of their own number, who possesses the qualifications belonging to the bishop or overseer, laid down by the Holy Spirit in the written word; and should they appoint him to office, as the Holy Spirit has taught them in the same written word--then it may be said to such a person, "Take heed to yourself and to the flock over which the Holy Spirit has made you overseer." But this bishop, of whom we have now spoken, is neither priest, ambassador, minister of religion, clergyman, nor a reverend divine; but simply one that has the oversight of one voluntary society, who, when he leaves that society, has no office in any other in consequence of his being an officer in that. His discharge of the work of a bishop is limited by, and confined to, the particular congregation which appointed him to office. If he should travel abroad and visit another congregation, even of the same views with that of which he was or is bishop, he is then no bishop; he is then in the capacity of an unofficial disciple. To suppose the contrary is to constitute different orders of men, or to divide the church into the common classes of clergy and laity, than which nothing is more essentially opposite to the genius and spirit of christianity. We have seen some bishops, ignorant of the nature of the office, acting very much out of character, placing themselves in the bishop's office, in a church which they might occasionally visit, and assuming to act officially in an assembly over which they had no bishopric. They acted as absurdly and as unconstitutionally as the president of the United States would do, if, when on a visit to London, he should enter the English parliament and place himself on the throne, either solus, or in conjunction with his majesty George IV. and that, forsooth, because he is, or was president of the United States. But of this more afterwards. In the meantime, we conclude that one of those means used to exalt the clergy to dominion over the faith, over the consciences, and over the persons of men, by teaching the people to consider them as specially called and moved by the Holy Spirit, and sent to assume the office of ambassadors of Christ, or ministers of the christian religion, is a scheme unwarranted by God, founded on pride, ignorance, ambition, and impiety; and, as such, ought to be opposed and exposed by all them that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity.

EDITOR.      

      PHILIP, No. II., on teaching the christian religion, not having come to hand, we will insert an article written by him on the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. This article furnishes us with an argument in proof of the fact, which we have never seen noticed by any writer on this most important of all the facts recorded by the four evangelists. The whole machina evangelica turns on this pivot, or the whole christian religion rests upon this fact. If Christ be not risen from the dead, the preaching of Christ and the faith of christians are in vain. No historic fact was ever so well proved as this, and no fact was ever pregnant with such marvellous and exhilarating consequences. It is not only the highest proof of the truth of all Messiah's pretensions; it is not only a pledge to us of the divine acceptance of the atonement of the Redeemer; but, it is to us the surest earnest, and most convincing demonstration of the hope of christians, viz. a glorious resurrection to eternal life. The objects of the christian's hope are the grandest and most exalted in the whole range of human conception A new heaven [21] and a new earth; a new body, spiritual, incorruptible, and immortal; a society transcendantly pure, entertaining, and exalted; transporting joys, unmingled with sorrow, and increasing bliss, unalloyed with doubt, or fear, or pain, constitute the glorious hopes of every true disciple of Christ; which, when reduced to a unit, consist in being made like the Son of God. This glorious hope immediately germinates or springs from the fact, that the Lord is risen indeed. This article, then, will be, not only edifying, but ineffably cheering, to every one that has this hope in him.

      As this argument was derived from no other source than an intimate acquaintance with the four evangelists, it will form a new incentive to those who presume to read the New Testament, without the spectacles of any system before their eyes, and will furnish a new proof of the entertainment, edification, assurance, and comfort to be obtained from a diligent, humble, and persevering perusal of the blissful volume. Oh that all who acknowledge it to be the volume of salvation, the word of the living God, would read it! and, conscious of their need of that wisdom which comes from above, would ask of God, who gives liberally and upbraids not!

[EDITOR.      

      RESPECTING Jesus of Nazareth, the Jewish nation seems to have been divided into two principal parties--that which favored, and that which rejected his pretensions. That the views of his scheme too, entertained by both, were not almost, but altogether political, we have all the reason, I think, in the world, to believe. The opposition party regarded the whole as a political cabal, and its abettors as reformers of the state. Radicals, whose ultimate objects were to put down the prevailing party; to abandon allegiance to the Romans; to assert the independence of the Jewish nation; and, under the conduct of Jesus as their general, or, as his own party would have it, their king, to maintain it sword in hand. This is the only view that accords with the warlike spirit of the times, the popular belief respecting Messiah's reign and kingdom, and with what we read in the four evangelists. Now, it was to check the spirit of that enterprize that the leaders of the opposite party voted the destruction of Jesus, who was looked upon by the great men as the life's blood of this conspiracy. From the moment when Caiphas delivered his sentiments on the grand question, "what was to be done for the safety of the state!" the death of Jesus was eagerly desired by them all. These princes, preferring rank and honor with their present inglorious ease under foreign masters, to the distant and uncertain advantages of a noble and magnanimous declaration of the nations independence--these lordlings, conceived power and pomp to be the chief good and the only thing worthy of ambition.

      They conceived that to form the object of the Lord's ambition also, and endeavored by mean arts to draw from him this secret. The views of his followers were nothing different in kind from those of his opposers; they were equally worldly and political; and both parties, contemplating the destinies of the Lord Jesus under this mistaken and degraded point of view, it is not wonderful that his resurrection from the dead should be an event equally distant from the expectations of all.

      Both parties, too, seem to have considered his decease as an unequivocal refutation of his pretensions--as an event which at once reflected the greatest discredit on the party, and great apparent ponderosity and importance to those who had slain him, and who, during the whole of his public ministry, had steadily persisted in rejecting and disproving his pretensions. Had the Lord then not appeared to some of his followers on that day on which he arose, the dispute of the two parties would not have been whether he had risen from the dead, but only which of them had stolen the body from the sepulchre. This is evident from the easy assent which the two disciples gave to the hasty suggestions of Mary Magdalene. They believed that the opposite faction had stolen the body; John alleging for it as a reason, that the disciples knew not yet that he must rise from the dead. The anticipation of such an event was equally foreign from the conceptions of his murderers, who barricaded the tomb, and sealed it with the seal of the state, not to prevent his resurrection, but, as they themselves said, to prevent his followers from taking the body by stealth. I think too, that the rulers really and sincerely believed his followers to have taken away the body, and that, in the first instance, they regarded the wonders told them by the soldiers, of earthquakes and angels, to be nothing more than cunningly devised fables, trumped up by his disciples for the safety of the guards, who, as they believed, had permitted them (the disciples) undisturbedly, perhaps for a sum of money, to bear away the body in the dark. But their bribing the soldiers again, may seem to contradict this opinion. Well then suppose, for argument's sake, that the rulers did believe the reports of the guards, viz. that the Lord had risen. If they did, then they must have believed that he would also immediately appear among them again in person, to assert the reality of his claims, and maintain the certainty of the confession, for which he had been put to death; for of his ascent into heaven they had no conceptions. If they believed him to be risen, to have said that his disciples had stolen him, would have been a miserable invention, and nowise suited to the exigency of the case. Such an invention would never have counterbalanced one single well attested appearance of the Lord; and we have seen that they, having no just notions of his reign and kingdom, would have expected to see him again in person, if so be they believed the reports of the soldiers. After all, if the Pharisees expected him to rise, why did they put him to death? The rulers, then, believed the guards to be telling a falsehood, and they bribed them to report what the Pharisees themselves conceived to be the true state of the case. As the opposing faction all along regarded the enterprize as a political one, they foresaw that if once its abettors should get the dead body into their possession, they might make it the instrument of greater mischief to the nation than it had been when alive. They foresaw that one of the reformers might personate their former leader, exhibit himself at a distance, and set up for Messiah on the grounds of having risen from the dead. Such an evidence they foresaw would be altogether irresistible; the Jews would flock to his standard, and the cause would derive accessions from all quarters of the land--such accessions, too, as nothing but the arm of the imperial government would be able to break or dissolve. If once the Romans had engaged in the quarrel, their rulers would have seen a realization of all their former fears. The temple and the city, they foresaw, would ultimately have become the grand bone of contention, and this whole enterprize, or, as they called it, last [22] error, issue in consequences more fatal to their place and nation than the first, under the conduct of Jesus of Nazareth. All these forebodings of the rulers seem to have arisen out of what the Lord said or dropt concerning his resurrection. The Pharisees then suspected his followers of having stolen the body, and his followers, with the exception of those who saw him on the first day, seem to have suspected the Pharisees or rulers; a circumstance which in itself indeed proves that neither party had done it; for if either party had stolen the body it never could have conscientiously blamed the other, as we have seen it did; if the rulers had it, the disciples would not have dared to say that it was alive; and if the disciples had it under their control, and said it was alive, they would have embraced the first opportunity of exhibiting him in order to refute the calumny of the rulers, who said the body was in the possession of the party, but it was not alive. These things show us, at all events, that on the first day the body was not where it had been originally laid, and where both parties hoped to find it; they show us that both parties agree in this, viz. that the body was missing from the sepulchre, and now there seems to be only two possible ways of accounting for its departure. Seeing, then, it was not removed by any of the parties concerned, it must either have been taken off by some unconcerned party, or have departed itself; which last opinion, indeed, is the more probable of the two; for to suppose that any unconcerned party would endanger themselves, or bribe the guards for a dead person, about whose fate they had been altogether unconcerned whilst alive, would be nonsense. But to suppose that there was any unconcerned party in the capital where Jesus was crucified, would argue great ignorance of the spirit of the times. He was not stolen by any party, either concerned or unconcerned about his fate; and the only conclusion remaining is, that the body departed itself, that "the Lord Jesus has arisen indeed." He has also ascended up on high; he led captivity captive, and has given gifts to men, who have announced to us by the Holy Spirit, the things which are given to us by God without any cause.

PHILIP.      

[TCB 18-23]