Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

of that glory which shall be revealed in them. Some, however, conceive that the resurrection of the ungodly will not take place at the same time with that of the saints; but that an interval of a thousand years will elapse after the second coming of Christ; during which he will reign in person with his saints upon this earth. As, however, it appears to me to be clearly laid down in Scripture that the resurrection of the ungodly will take place at the second coming of Christ; that both the just and the unjust will then be gathered together before him ; and that the latter will go into everlasting punishment at the same time that the former go into everlasting life; and as, on various accounts, I conceive it highly important not to entertain erroneous views upon this solemn point, I shall endeavour to shew that what I have just stated is the view exhibited in the Scriptures.

The passages of Scripture to which I refer upon the subject of the resurrection of the dead are, with one exception, taken from the New Testament. I should, beforehand, expect to find more light thrown upon this subject in the New Testament than in the Old. For it appears evident to me, that one main, though not exclusive, object of the prophetical as well as typical parts of that portion of the word of God which is called the Old Testament, or covenant, or dispensation, was to foretell the first coming of Christ; and to set forth the nature and objects of the kingdom which he would then set up, the doing away of the first or Sinai covenant, the establishment of the second or new covenant or dispensation, and the events connected with and taking place under that dispensation. Hence I should not expect that the second coming of Christ, and the subject of the resurrection would be set forth with equal fulness or clearness before his first coming, and before the first dispensation was done away, and the new or second dispensation set up at the period of his first coming. I should rather expect that these subjects would be treated more fully, and set forth more clearly, after his first coming, in that portion of the Book of God which is emphatically called the New Testament or New Dispensation [Note A].

(A) I use the term dispensation because it appears to me to express the meaning of the word 8vabnxn better, in general, chan either Accordingly I find this confirmed in three ways: First, by Christ's own method of arguing with the Sadducees, in which he proves that there will be a resurrection of the dead (Matt. xxii. 31, 32) by the comparatively difficult way of mere inference, and that, not a self-evident inference, from a declaration which Jehovah made to Moses on Mount Sinai. This, I think, clearly proves that the light vouchsafed, at least in the Books of Moses, upon the subject of the resurrection of the dead was by no means so clear as in the New Testament. Secondly, by the express declarations which I find in the New Testament, concerning the fuller light therein vouchsafed, both in a general view, John i. 4, 17, and iii. 19; and 1 John ii. 8 (the darkness is past, and the true light now shineth); and, upon the subject of life and immortality in particular, 2 Tim. i. 10: But is now made the word covenant or testament. The word covenant implies an agreement between two parties upon certain conditions, in which sense the Mount Sinai &&Onun might be rendered a covenant, though even here, the word dispensation would suit to express Jehovah's dispensing, peculiar blessings and privileges to the nation of Israel upon certain conditions. But, with regard to the second flaOnxn, it cannot, I conceive, be regarded as a covenant between God and his people on any conditions on their part; but as an absolute disposition or dispensation of grace from the Lord to them ; in which he dispenses, in and through Christ, all blessings to them freely as far as they are concerned (Heb. viii. 6 to 10). The word diabnxn signifies an absolute disposal of any thing, as for instance of property according to the will of the disposer; in which sense it is rendered a testament, as in Heb. ix. 16, 17. On the subject of the two testaments or covenants or dispensations, we may remark,– The First, or that from Mount Sinai (Gal. iv. 24; Heb. ix. 1, 4), had Moses for its mediator (Gal. iii. 19), was ratified with the blood of the sacrifices offered up at the time when it was given (Exod. xxiv. 6; Heb. ix. 18), and was done away by the introduction of the second (2 Cor. iii 6 to 13; Heb. viii. 7 to 13) at the death of Christ (Eph. ii. 14 to 16). The second or new dispensation was announced in the promise to Abraham 430 years before the giving of the law from Mount Sinai (Gal. iii. 15 to 17); this promise was confirmed by the oath of Jehovah (Heb. vi. 13 to 17)- it had Christ for its Mediator (Heb. vii. 22 and ix. 15)—was ratified by his blood (Matt. xxvi. 28; Luke xxii. 20; Heb. x. 29)— was established upon better promises, because they are all given in Christ, and are absolute to his people (2 Cor. i. 20; Heb. viii. 6), and is everlasting in its duration (Heb. xii. 28 and xiii. 20); and on all these, as well as other accounts, it is called a better covenant. Upon these subjects the reader, bearing in mind that it is the same word (8rabnxn) in the original, will find light thrown by consulting the Scriptures to which I have referred, and Luke i. 72; Acts iii. 25; Heb. x. 16, and xii, 18 to 24.

manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished deuth, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the Gospel. Thirdly, by the matter of fact, that we find in the New Testament numerous plain passages, which, as all agree, unequivocally relate to the second coming of Christ and the resurrection of the dead [Note B].

I do not, by the observations I have now made, intend to infer that any passage in the Old Testament, which does treat of these subjects, should not be adduced upon points connected therewith. I have myself referred the reader, in the subsequent part to one taken from the Book of Daniel; which requires no proof, that it relates to the resurrection, because all will, I believe, agree that it does

But when persons are discussing such a point, as whether the resurrection of the ungodly does or does not take place at the time of the second coming of Christ, they must both be agreed that a passage which is adduced, on one side or the other of the question, does relate to these subjects: otherwise the party who adduces the passage will have to prove this, before he can proceed to deduce any argument from it in favour of his own views

[ocr errors]

B.] When Christ and his Apostles were arguing with the Jews, concerning his first coming, his resurrection, &c. or, as in the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Galatians, concerning the doing away of the first dispensation, they of course would appeal to the prophetical, and typical passages of the Old Testament, in order to prove thereby that he was the Messiah therein foretold ; and that the first dispensation was to be done away, and succeeded by a new and better, of which he was to be the Mediator, and to which that actually introduced under the Gospel answered. And, if I were called upon to argue in the present day with a Jew, I must adopt the same course. But this is evidently different from the course I am called upon to pursue on the present occasion, in two ways. First, because the subject which Christ and his Apostles discussed was different from ours. Their subject was his first coming, and points connected therewith; ours, his second coming, and points connected with that. Secondly, because not only the old Testament alone had been given at that time, but also if the New Testament had been given, those with whom Christ and his Apostles argued only admitted the Old Testament; whereas wc live under the New Testament, and admit its authority, and agree that numerous passages adduced from it, do refer to the second coming of Christ, and to the resurrection of the dead. These two considerations, therefore, appear to me to constitute a decided distinction between the course adopted by Christ and his Apostles in arguing with the Jews; and the course which I conceive we should adopt on an occasion like the present.

upon the point. In the subsequent pages, I have therefore referred only to such passages as all, I believe, allow to relate to these subjects in general ; whereby I have endeavoured to avoid the necessity of any such previous proof. It will, however, be the less a matter of surprise, that these passages are, with one exception, taken from the New Testament, because, as I conceive, all the difference of opinion upon the subject originates from the interpretation of a passage in the New Testament [Note C].

Feeling convinced, as I have just observed, that this is the true origin of the difference of opinion prevailing in the Christian world, it will be necessary in the outset to call the reader's attention to that

passage. And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them : and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. But the rest of the dead lived not again until the

[C. That the Christian Church, so far as we can gather from the three Confessions of Faith, or Creeds, called the Apostles, Nicene, and Athanasian, which were drawn up in the first ages of Christianity, held the doctrine of the Scriptures to be, that Christ would judge all men, both those who have died, and the living at the time of his coming, appears to me evident from the following expressions in the creeds. 1. In the Apostles': From thence he shall come to judge both the quick and the dead. 2. In the Nicene: And he shall come again with glory, to judge both the quick and the dead. 3. In the Athanasian : From whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead; at whose coming all men shall rise again, with their bodies : and shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into everlasting life; and they that have done evil into everlasting fire. And, that the Church of England, in her Liturgy, so interprets the Scripture, appears equally evident, not only from her adopting these three creeds, but from the collect for the first Sunday in Advent; in which we find the following petitions : That in the Last Day, when he shall come again in his glorious majesty, to judge both the quick and dead (2 Tim. iv. I), we may be found an acceptable people in thy sight, fc. And in that for the second Sunday: That at thy second coming to judge the world (Acts xvii. 31), we may be found, &c. And from the petition in the Litany, that the Lord would deliver us in the hour of death and in the day of judgment, 2 Tim. i. 18. And lastly from the collect in the burial service : Anu that at the general resurrection, in the last day, we may be found an acceptable people, &c. I bring this forward merely to shew that this was interpreted to be the doctrine of the Scriptures by those who, in the different ages of the Christian church, composed and adopted those creeds.

manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished deuth, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the Gospel. Thirdly, by the matter of fact, that we find in the New Testament numerous plain passages, which, as all agree, unequivocally relate to the second coming of Christ and the resurrection of the dead [Note B].

I do not, by the observations I have now made, intend to infer that any passage in the Old Testament, which does treat of these subjects, should not be adduced upon points connected therewith. I have myself referred the reader, in the subsequent part to one taken from the Book of Daniel; which requires no proof, that it relates to the resurrection, because all will, I believe, agree that it does

But when persons are discussing such a point, as whether the resurrection of the ungodly does or does not take place at the time of the second coming of Christ, they must both be agreed that a passage which is adduced, on one side or the other of the question, does relate to these subjects: otherwise the party who adduces the passage will have to prove this, before he can proceed to deduce any argument from it in favour of his own views

[ocr errors]

[B.] When Christ and his Apostles were arguing with the Jews, concerning his first coming, his resurrection, &c. or, as in the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Galatians, concerning the doing away of the first dispensation, they of course would appeal to the prophetical, and typical passages of the Old Testament, in order to prove thereby that he was the Messiah therein foretold ; and that the first dispensation was to be done away, and succeeded by a new and better, of which he was to be the Mediator, and to which that actually introduced under the Gospel answered. And, if I were called upon to argue in the present day with a Jew, I must adopt the same course. But this is evidently different from the course I am called upon to pursue on the present occasion, in two ways. First, because the subject which Christ and his Apostles discussed was different from ours. Their subject was his first coming, and points connected therewith; ours, his second coming; and points connected with that. Secondly, because not only the old Testament alone had been given at that time, but also if the New Testament had been given, those with whom Christ and his Apostles argued only admitted the Old Testament; whereas we live under the New Testament, and admit its authority, and agree that numerous passages adduced from it, do refer to the second coming of Christ, and to the resurrection of the dead. These two considerations, therefore, appear to me to constitute a decided distinction between the course adopted by Christ and his Apostles in arguing with the Jews; and the course which I conceive we should adopt on an occasion like the present.

« VorigeDoorgaan »