An able article by Professor Robinson of the Union Theological Seminary, N. Y., on the Nature of Our Lord’s Resurrection-body will be found in the _Bibliotheca Sacra_ for 1845, p. 292. He thus distributes the opinions on the subject: “On this subject three different opinions have prevailed more or less at various times in the church. Some have held that the body of Christ was changed at the resurrection as to its _substance_, so that it was in its substance a different and spiritual body. Others have regarded the Lord as having had after the resurrection the _same_ body as before, but glorified; or, as the earliest writers express it, changed as to its qualities and attributes. The third and larger class have supposed that the body with which Christ rose from the dead was the same natural body of flesh and blood which had been taken down from the cross and laid in the sepulchre.” This article we had not read until after writing chapter 19, but our convictions are confirmed by his thorough discussion of the subject. He concludes that the evidence of the reality of our Lord’s human body, from the Resurrection to the Ascension, is even stronger than that for any other forty days, since Jesus was specially careful to assure his disciples of the fact. [6] History, etc., p. 335. [A] For example, it is an entire misconception of Luke’s Gospel to conclude from it that the ascension was the same day as the resurrection; and his account in Acts makes this certain, it being conceded that both works were by the same writer. [7] Paul seems to have grouped appearances. We may paraphrase thus: “And that he was seen of Cephas; then of the twelve _on three occasions_.” [8] Defence, etc., p. 105. [9] See _ante_, c. 16, p. 89. [10] The Gospel Miracles, etc., p. 48. [11] As quoted by Dr. Taylor, p. 41. [12] The Bible, etc., p. 51; Renan, p. 135. [B] See Rev. vii. 9-17. [13] Those who came out of the tombs “after his resurrection,” it may be presumed, had recently deceased (for they were recognized, as it would seem), and they appeared only to those who, like Simeon and Anna the Prophetess, had been looking “for the consolation of Israel;” and not to those who had rejected him. Their coming was so overshadowed by the principal events to which it was merely an incident, that it is mentioned only by Matthew, and even he gives no information of who they were, or anything of their subsequent history. [14] The Apostles, by Ernest Renan, p. 227. CHAPTER XX. LOGICAL RESULTS. Of these we mention only the following: