Q. What do you mean by initiation?

A. Baptism.

Q. And does this procure remission of sins?

A. Yes, if rightly received; for forgiveness of sin was promised to all who were baptized in the name of Christ: therefore all who did perform the things necessary to the receiving the ordinance, did also receive the benefit of the ordinance; which is, remission of sins, (Mark i. 4. Acts ii. 38.) Q. What do you mean by continuation?

A. As baptism, received with all necessary qualifications, was efficacious in procuring the remission of sins committed before the administration of the rite; so, thus made members of the church, they receive remission of future sins by repentance.

Q. What share then has faith in this work?

A. As the children of Israel, when bitten by fiery serpents, were healed by looking on the brazen serpent, (erected by Moses) and believing; so is repentance efficacious in healing us of the desolating ravages of sin, if it be accompanied by faith in the sufficiency of the atonement made: an entire reliance on the sacrifice of Christ, as the meritorious ground of hope.

Q. State the ground of necessity for a belief in this article.

A. 1. Because there can be no consolation without this persuasion.

2. That we may sufficiently esteem God's goodness, and our happiness.

3. That we may be inflamed with the love of God; for in proportion to our sense of the debt forgiven, will be our love.

4. To teach us what we owe to Christ. (Acts xiii. 38.)

5. It is necessary to believe that remission of sins is wrought by the blood of Christ, to remind us of the condition required; for if we would have the benefit of a covenant, we must perform our part in it, and the condition on our part is repentance. (Acts v. 31. Luke xxiv. 47.)

Q. What is the eleventh article?

A. "The resurrection of the body."

Q. Do the Greek and Latin creeds deliver this article in these terms?

A. No; they use the term, "the resurrection of the flesh."*

Q. Why was the word "flesh” used?

A. To guard against the ambiguity which might have arisen from the use of the word "body," from a consideration of celestial and spiritual bodies; some thereby acknowledging the resurrection of the body, who would deny that of the flesh.

* The Greeks, σapids åváσtaσiv, the Latins, "carnis resurrectionem."

Q. What did the ancient creeds understand by the word "flesh."

A. The body of man, and not any other flesh. Q. What then do we understand in translating that word body?

A. A body of flesh, of the same nature which it had, before it was by death separated from the soul.

Q. Have you any proof of this agreement with the ancient creeds?

A. In the language of the baptismal service: "dost thou believe the resurrection of the flesh?"

Q. Since the body, when left by the soul, putrifies, consumes, and returns to dust, how can you profess to believe in its resurrection?

A. The reply to this question will be found in the illustration of Christ's resurrection.

Q. But the body of Christ, though deposited in the sepulchre, never saw corruption; which is not the case with our bodies, which after the soul has deserted them, "go down to the bars of the pit, and rest together in the dust:" the whole tabernacle is dissolved, every part crumbled into dust and ashes, scattered and confounded with the dust of the earth; how then do you confute those who deny a resurrection under such circumstances?

A. No man can deny it, because it is not in itself impossible.

Q. Prove this.

A. We know a creation to be possible; wherefore then should a restoration be impossible? But, if a resurrection be impossible, it must be either in reference to the agent, or in relation to the patient.

Q. Can it not be so in respect to the agent?

A. We attribute it to God, whose understanding is infinite, whose power is omnipotent, and with whom nothing is impossible.

Q. May it not be in regard to the patient?

A. Nothing is impossible with God, but that which involves a contradiction; and there can be no contradiction in this, that he which was, and now is not, should hereafter be what he was before. The same omnipotent breath which made flesh of the first dust, of which man was made, can make flesh of that dust returning from the bodies of men into the earth. Certainly, it is as easy to make that to be again which once hath been, as to make that to be which before was not.

Q. Having proved a resurrection possible; does it further appear, on general considerations, probable?

A. If we consider the principles of humanity, the parts of which we consist, we cannot conceive this present life to be proportionable to our composition. The soul of man is immaterial and immortal, and his body framed to be a companion for his spirit; these remain united on earth but a short time, in comparison of many animals and plants

how can this be accounted for, but on the presumption that this is not the only life, and that at a future day the soul shall resume its body? Again; looking on ourselves as free agents, and capable of doing good or evil, we are, consequently, liable to reward or punishment.

Q. So were the angels, yet they rise not again. A. The angels who sinned, received their punishment without a death; because, being only spirits, they were subject to no other dissolution than annihilation: those who continued in their station were rewarded and confirmed for all eternity. Therefore there being no death, there can be no resurrection from the dead.

Q. How does your argument apply to beasts? A. They are capable neither of reward nor punishment; and therefore though they die, shall never rise, because there is no reason for their resurrection.

Q. As liable to reward or punishment, is it necessary the body should rise to participate in the condition of the soul?

A. We cannot think the soul alone shall hereafter experience joy, or undergo sufferings; when, in this life, without the body it can neither do nor suffer any thing.

Q. Are there any considerations connected with things without us, which bespeak the probability of a resurrection"?

A. In the revolution of day and night: the