nd puts on
its body fashioned appropriately for it. So, according to Paul's
conception, when a man is buried, the material corpse is not the
resurrection body that shall be; but the living soul which
occupied it is the germ that shall put on a new body of
immortality when the spring tide of Christ's coming draws the
buried treasures of Hades up to the light of heaven.

A species of proof which has been much used by the advocates of
the dogma of a bodily resurrection is the argument from analogy.
The intimate connection of human feeling and fancy with the
changing phenomena of Nature's seasons would naturally suggest to
a pensive mind the idea, Why, since she has her annual
resurrection, may not humanity some time have one? And what first
arose as a poetic conceit or stray thought, and was expressed in
glowing metaphors, might by an easy process pass abroad and harden
into a prosaic proposition or dogmatic formula.

"O soul of the spring time, now let us behold The stone from the
mouth of the sepulchre roll'd, And Nature rise up from her death's
damp mould; Let our faith, which in darkness and coldness has
lain, Revive with the warmth and the brightness again, And in
blooming of flower and budding of tree The symbols and types of
our destiny see."

Standing by the graves of our loved and lost ones, our inmost
souls yearn over the very dust in which their hallowed forms
repose. We feel that they must come back, we must be restored to
each other as we were before. Listening to the returned birds
whose warble fills the woods once more, gazing around on the
verdant and flowery forms of renewed life that clothe the
landscape over again, we eagerly snatch at every apparent emblem
or prophetic analogy that answers to our fond imagination and
desiring dream. Sentiment and fancy, especially when stimulated by
love and grief, and roving in the realms of reverie, free from the
cold guidance and sharp check of literal fact and severe logic,
are poor analysts, and then we easily confuse things distinct and
wander to conclusions philosophy will not warrant. Before building
a dogmatic doctrine on analogies, we must study those analogies
with careful discrimination, must see what they really are, and to
what they really lead. There is often an immense difference
between the first appearance to a hasty observer and the final
reality to a profound student. Let us, then, scrutinize a little
more closely those seeming analogies which,