THE TWO RESURRECTIONS.

The mind must be in entire subjection to the authority of God’s word in order to receive the truth of our Lord’s second coming and its kindred doctrines. Faith is the only principle fitted to deal with these great mysteries, and all is confusion and perplexity the moment man’s proud reason comes in to ask the foolish question of Nicodemus, “How can these things be?” It is not the province of reason to exalt itself above the testimony of God, but rather, to sit like Mary, humbly and reverently at the feet of Jesus and learn of Him. The proper inquiry is not, “How can these things be?” but “what has God said,” and the very instant that is known, there should be an end of controversy, and doubt, and hesitation. The doctrine of the Incarnation, for example, staggers and overwhelms the human intellect, for it teaches that the self-existent Jehovah who made the worlds, who is from everlasting to everlasting, and who fills Immensity with His presence, became man, and so was, and continueth to be, God and man, in two distinct natures, and one person forever. Reason can not comprehend it, but faith believes it, and rejoices in the exhibition it gives of infinite love moving for the salvation of lost sinners. The doctrine, also, of His death upon the cross as an atoning sacrifice and of His resurrection from the grave, lies beyond the reach of reason, for although clearly revealed in the Old Testament, and plainly predicted by our Lord, the disciples themselves “understood none of these things: and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken,” (Luke xviii: 34). When they substituted reason in place of faith, they failed to grasp the simplest and most fundamental truths of the gospel.

But our own resurrection, as well as the resurrection of Christ, belongs wholly to the domain of faith, and hence it is worse than useless to speculate about it. We may advance arguments from analogy, and draw illustrations from nature, but after all we can receive the doctrine only because it is distinctly revealed in the Scriptures. Paul preached it to the Athenian philosophers on Mars’ hill, “and when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said, we will hear thee again of this matter,” (Acts xvii: 32). Some reasoned and some believed, as we read, “certain men clave unto him and believed.” We know that Christ died for our sins by belief of God’s testimony given in His word, and precisely in '' the same way we know that we shall rise from the dead. The time and manner of our resurrection, therefore, can not possibly be determined by reason, but by the decision of revelation. If delivered from the bondage of human authority, and divested of prejudice, we come to the study of those passages in which our resurrection is mentioned, we may surely learn under the promised teaching of the Holy Ghost, all that it has pleased our Father to reveal to His children upon the subject. That it is a subject which held a much more prominent place in the esteem of the inspired writers than it does in the discourse or thoughts of modern Christians, is a fact that will not be disputed; and it is owing perhaps, to the neglect into which this important truth has fallen that there are such vague conceptions of it afloat in the church.

If these conceptions could be gathered up and expressed in words, it would be found that most persons are expecting the struggle between light and darkness to be continued indefinitely in the future, with an increasing victory of the former, until a thousand, or as some suppose, three hundred and sixty-five thousand years shall witness the universal triumph of Christianity on the earth. At the expiration of this long period, it is admitted by post-millennialists who have given the slightest attention to the doctrine of our Lord’s second advent “there shall come a falling away,” and then it is supposed Christ shall appear as the Judge of the whole world, when all that are in the grave, righteous and unrighteous, shall arise together, and appear at His bar to hear the sentence which will decide their eternal state. Such is the common view of the resurrection which it is here proposed to examine. Nor let any one imagine that it is of little consequence whether the view is or is not correct. It is a dangerous device of Satan to turn the mind away from these momentous themes by the suggestion that they are of no practical value, but at best mere theories, fit only for the dialectics of the schoolmen, or as it is sometimes expressed, that they merely illustrate the “fanaticism of dogma.” Every truth is valuable, and every error is hurtful, for they exert a direct influence upon the character and life. The growing indifference to truth exhibited by much the larger part of the church is one of the worst signs of the times, and plainly shows that the vaunted strides in knowledge of the past few years have been made in a direction that leads precisely away from the spiritual millennium which so many fancy to be just at hand.

It is quite the fashion now even for clergymen to sneer at “doctrinal preaching” as worthless in comparison with the interesting facts of this busy age. These shallow thinkers do not seem to know that the doctrines of the Bible are the most tremendous facts in the universe. It is a fact that the Son of God, co-equal and co-eternal with the Father, came down from heaven to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. It is a fact, that “he that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him,” (John iii: 36). It is a fact, that “neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved,” (Acts iv: 12). It is a fact that we must be born again—that the Holy Ghost abideth forever with the new creation effected by the exceeding greatness of His power—that there is no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, and that they shall not come into judgment, but are passed from death unto life. Precisely so, it is a fact, and an unspeakably important fact to every human being, “that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust,” (Acts xxiv: 15); “for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil unto the resurrection of damnation,” (John v: 29). There can be no dispute, therefore, concerning the fact that there is to be at some future period a resurrection of the whole human family, but it is not so clearly seen by all that the resurrection of the righteous difters from the resurrection of the unrighteous both as to its character and the time of its occurrence.

First, as to its character, the believer is taught that his body “is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption: it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power: it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body,” (1 Cor. xv: 42-44). Again it is written, “our conversation [or citizenship] is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: who shall change our vile body [or rather, the body of our humiliation,] that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the power whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself,” (Phil, iii: 20, 21). Again, “If the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you,” (Rom. viii: ii). It is needless to say that this class of texts can not be applied to the resurrection of unbelievers. We know that their bodies are not raised up in honor, nor are they fashioned like unto Christ’s glorious body, nor does the Holy Spirit dwell in them as His earthly temples to raise up the shattered ruin from the dust of death, and embellish it with celestial beauty, and establish it in sinless immortality. If therefore it could be proved that believers and unbelievers rise from the grave at the same time, and stand together before the judgment seat of Christ, as commonly represented, nevertheless it must be conceded that they will be totally unlike in appearance, and form two great classes essentially different in every respect.

Of the one we are told that “the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout; with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first: then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord,” (1 Thess. iv: 16, 17). Not a word is said in this passage about the dead out of Christ, nor about unbelievers who shall then be living on the earth; and it will be admitted, no doubt by all, that the latter at least, shall not share in the rapture of the saints, and shall not mount up with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air in answer to the “shout,” which properly means a call or word of command to one’s own. But, even if it is true that believers and unbelievers are raised at the same time, it will be further admitted by all who believe God’s word that Christ comes for the complete redemption of the one class, and for the eternal destruction of the other. The one are quickened by the Spirit to hear, like an awakened bride, the glad shout of her approaching bridegroom; the other must be dragged forth like guilty prisoners from their dungeons at the stern summons of a judge. The one will spring up like a happy lark on a dewy morning as it sends forth its sweet song in its heavenward flight; the other will seek to hide in the dens and rocks of the mountains from a wrath more intolerable than death itself. This is said upon the supposition that there will be a simultaneous resurrection of the righteous and the unrighteous; for it is important to show that in any view there will be a marked distinction between the character and condition of the two hereafter, although the foul legalism that prevails at the present day has well nigh obliterated the distinction between the two here.

But, second, there is not the slightest Scriptural authority for asserting that the resurrection of believers and unbelievers will occur at the same time. The doctrine rests entirely upon inference, and a careful examination of the passages in which so many think it is taught will convince the unprejudiced reader that the inference can not be sustained. John Bunyan well says, “Now, when the saints that sleep shall be raised thus incorruptible, powerful, glorious and spiritual; and also those that then shall be found alive, made like them; then forthwith, before the unjust are raised, the saints shall appear before the judgment-seat, of the Lord Jesus Christ, there to give an account to their Lord the Judge, of all things they have done; and to receive a reward for their good according to their labor. They shall rise, I say, before the wicked, they being themselves the proper ‘children of the resurrection,’ that is, those that must have all the glory of it, both as to pre- eminency, and sweetness; and therefore they are said, when they rise to rise from the dead; that is, in their rising, they leave the reprobate world behind them. And it must be so, because also the saints will have done their account, and he set upon the throne with Christ as kings and princes with him to judge the world, when the wicked world are raised.” Such is the view substantially of very many writers who have lived since the beginning of the Christian era, and if the names of some of them were here given, it would be seen that they have not been surpassed in their scholarly attainments, their Christian devotedness, and especially in their knowledge of the word of God. The distinguished Toplady, for example, writes, “I am one of those old-fashioned people who believe the doctrine of the Millennium; and that there will be two distinct resurrections of the dead; first, of the just, secondly, of the unjust; which last resurrection of the reprobate will not commence till a thousand years after the resurrection of the elect. In this glorious interval of one thousand years, Christ, I apprehend, will reign in person over the kingdom of the just,” (Works, Vol. iii: p. 470).

But without citing human testimony, let us go directly to the testimony of Christ and His inspired servants, and we can judge for ourselves whether the resurrection of the just is to precede that of the unjust. In looking at the discourses of our Lord we must be struck with the manner in which he alludes to the resurrection in the few instances that have been recorded for our instruction. Thus we find him saying, on a certain occasion, “When thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind: and thou shalt be blessed; for they can not recompense thee: for thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just,” (Luke xiv: 13, 14). The question might be raised, why did the Saviour speak of the resurrection of the just? Why did he not simply say, thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection, without distinguishing it as the resurrection of the just, if there is to be a resurrection both of the just and the unjust at the same time? It seems almost certain that His hearers understood him as referring to a resurrection prior to that of the unjust, which they expected, according to the cherished belief of the Jews, at the commencement of the millennial kingdom under the reign of their promised Messiah. Hence it is immediately added that “when one of them that sat at meat with him heard these things he said unto him. Blessed is he that shall eat bread in the kingdom of God.” The man evidently associated the resurrection of the just with the establishment of the kingdom of God for which the Jews were anxiously looking, and which they believed would be established before the final resurrection at the end of the world. Upon the meaning of the phrase, “the resurrection of the just,” Ryle remarks in his admirable commentary, “This expression is remarkable. I can not think that our Lord used it in deference to an opinion common among the Jews, that resurrection was the special privilege of the righteous. It seems to me far more probable that our Lord refers to the first resurrection, spoken of in the twentieth chapter of Revelation. It is hard to put any other sense on the expression than this, that there is a resurrection of which none but the just shall be partakers,—a resurrection which shall be the peculiar privilege of the righteous, and shall precede that of the wicked.”

Passing on to another important declaration made by the Saviour, we read, “The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: but they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of the resurrection,” (Luke xx: 34-36). It is surely worthy of notice that our Lord speaks of some who are accounted worthy to obtain the resurrection from the dead. What can be the meaning of this language, if all are compelled to rise, and to rise at the same time? Worthiness to obtain the resurrection from the dead certainly implies that some will not be esteemed worthy, and hence will not be partakers of the resurrection which is here mentioned. This conclusion is strengthened by the literal rendering of the words which Ryle translates, “the resurrection out from the dead.” But the language in the original is still more forcible, for the article the is placed just before the word “resurrection,” and the same article is used immediately after, while the primary signification of the preposition which follows is “out of, from, or from among so that we may read “the resurrection, the or that k' one out of, or from among the dead.” Then to crown the argument, the Lord speaks of those who are worthy to obtain the resurrection, the one from among the dead, as “being the children of the resurrection,” implying that others will not share in the resurrection to which he alludes, but will be left behind. Those, then, to whom he refers shall have a resurrection like His own, which was out of or from among the dead, and in this sense we can understand why the disciples were “questioning one with another what the rising from the dead should mean,” (Mark ix: lo). Here the same preposition is used, meaning “out of, from among,” and this accounts for their perplexity. They would have felt no difficulty in understanding a general resurrection, or resurrection of all the dead, for this was plainly taught in the Old Testament Scriptures, but they questioned one with another concerning a resurrection from among the dead, leaving some in the grave while others would come forth to life.

A type of this great truth appears at the death of Jesus, when “the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves after His resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many,” (Matt, xxvii: 53, 53). Here there was a resurrection out of or from among the dead, and although the opening of the graves is connected with the death of the Son of God, the saints did not arise till after the resurrection of their Lord, when they doubtless went with him to glory, the first trophies of His finished work on the cross, and of His victory over death, and the glad harbingers of an innumerable multitude that, like them, shall ascend from among the dead to meet him in the air. A still more striking type is furnished in the resurrection of Christ himself, who arose from among the dead, leaving the millions of slumberers who were around him undisturbed in their deep repose. It must not be forgotten that His resurrection has special relation to those who believe on him unto salvation, for it is written, he “was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification,” (Rom. iv: 25). His resurrection, therefore, possesses a meaning and a power for believers which it can not possibly have for unbelievers, and hence the resurrection of the former as secured and symbolized by the resurrection of their Lord is held forth to their eager contemplation as a peculiar privilege and an exceeding great reward. The evil can hardly be over-estimated which has resulted from the modern habit of substituting death, although seldom mentioned in the New Testament, in place. of resurrection; and especially from the common view of embracing the resurrection of believers and unbelievers in one act, and for one end of being judged together. The resurrection of Christ from among the dead ought to be a sufficient pledge that those who are united to him by faith shall have a similar resurrection, and go up to the enjoyment of the inheritance of the saints in light. For such the judgment is already past as to the tremendous question of sin, which was so fully and so finally settled at the cross, that “there is, therefore, now no condemnation,” no curse, no guilt, no wrath upon the believer. It is true that he will be manifested before the judgment-seat of Christ, but he will find that judgment-seat as friendly to him hereafter as the mercy-seat is here.

This association of the believer in the resurrection of Jesus entirely apart from any interest the unbeliever has in it, is clearly asserted in the word of God, as we read in the epistle to the Corinthians, “Now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the first fruits of them that slept. . . . But every man in his own order; Christ the first fruits; afterwards they that are Christ’s at His coming,” (1 Cor. xv: 20-23). There is not the slightest allusion here, nor in the entire chapter to the resurrection of the wicked, of whom Christ is not the first fruits, but who are reserved for the resurrection of judgment. Still further the passage conclusively proves that none but believers will rise at the second advent. “Christ the first fruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at His coming.” If the apostle had meant to teach the doctrine of a general and simultaneous resurrection, he would have said, “All that are in the grave at His coming.” But if he designed to teach the doctrine of a resurrection confined to His own people, he used the very language to set it forth. It is hardly possible that he really included all the dead in the statement, “Christ the first fruits; afterwards they that are Christ’s at His coming.” The language thus understood as applying only to believers is in perfect harmony with the testimony already quoted from the epistle to the Thessalonians, where we read, “The Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air.” In both places the resurrection of the saints is the only fact mentioned, and if the resurrection of the wicked occurs at the same time, it is unaccountable that no hint is given of it here or elsewhere. Grace has made wide the separation between the two in the present life, and it is a separation which will be still more strikingly manifested in their different resurrections.

Hence we hear the apostle in another place expressing the most earnest desire to be found in Christ, “That I may know him,” he adds, “and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death; if by any means I might attain unto, the resurrection of the dead,” (Phil, iii: 10, 11). The first question that arises on reading these remarkable words is suggested by the apostle’s intense effort to attain unto the resurrection of the dead. If the wicked are to be raised at the same time with the righteous, surely it was a most useless effort, for there was nothing- unto which he could attain. He would be compelled according to this view to rise from the dead, and hence that which was inevitable could produce no anxiety lest he might fail of reaching it. But if the saints are to be raised separately that they may enter into glory at the coming of Christ, we see abundant reason for his ardent longing and steadfast exertion to attain unto such a resurrection. The second question that arises is suggested by the peculiar structure of the sentence, “if by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.” The Greek word for resurrection is Anastasis, but here the apostle actually invents a new word to set forth this distinct resurrection, unto which he desired to attain. It is composed of the ordinary word, Anastasis together with the preposition ek or ex, which as already stated means, “out of, from, or from among.” Not only so, but the article the is repeated after this compound and unusual word, and followed by the preposition ek again. Hence a literal rendering of the passage is as follows: “If by any means I might attain unto the out resurrection, (or as we might say, the elect resurrection) the one, or that one from among the dead.”

Now, why did the inspired writer use a form of expression so peculiar, if there is to be a simultaneous resurrection of the righteous and the wicked.? Dr. David Brown says, “The simple answer is, it was not the general resurrection he was striving to attain to—it was not a resurrection common to both classes. It was a resurrection peculiar to believers,—a resurrection exclusively theirs,—exclusive, however, not in the time of it, but in its nature, its accompaniments, and its issues.” But still it seems almost impossible that so singular a combination of words could be employed to designate a resurrection which embraces all the dead. If the apostle had wished to state that all the dead rise together, he would hardly have used the preposition “out of” in connection with the word “resurrection,” or placed the same preposition before the word “dead.” It will be observed that he does not say, the resurrection from death or from the grave, but the resurrection of, out of, from the dead, and surely such language implies that some of the dead were to be left behind at the resurrection unto which Paul desired to attain. Dr. Brown labors strenuously to show that this view is in direct conflict with the testimony of Daniel who says, “many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake; some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt,” (Dan. xii: 2).

It is strange that a writer having the acuteness of intellect possessed by this able opponent of the truth did not perceive that the text fails to prove a general and contemporaneous resurrection of the righteous and the wicked, for it does not say all, but only many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake. Even admitting, then, that the righteous and wicked rise together, it can not be shown from this passage that all will rise, for the resurrection is expressly limited to many. Tregelles, everywhere recognized as one of the most eminent of all our Biblical scholars and critics, translates the passage as follows: “Many from among the sleepers of the dust of the earth shall awake; these shall be unto everlasting life; but those [the rest of the sleepers] shall be unto shame and everlasting contempt.” He goes on to say, “I have given I believe, the most literal rendering of this verse; it speaks of a resurrection, not the general, when all shall be called forth, but one of an eclectic character, ‘many from amongst the sleepers.’ “This passage” he adds, “has been understood by the Jewish commentators in the sense that I have stated.” So far, then, from proving a simultaneous resurrection of believers and unbelievers, it proves the reverse, and is in precise accordance with the declarations of the New Testament which have been noticed. In conformity with all this we read in the Psalms, “Like sheep they are laid in the grave; death shall feed on them; and the upright shall have dominion over them in the morning; and their beauty shall consume in the grave from their dwelling. But God will redeem my soul from the power of the grave; for he shall receive me,” (Ps. xlix: 14, 15). It requires no exposition to show what is meant by the “morning,” nor to prove that the beauty of the wicked will be consumed in the grave, while the righteous shall be redeemed from its power.

We come now to the well-known passage which distinctly asserts the doctrine here advocated. “And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, and cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled; and after that he must be loosed a little season. 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 thousand years were finished. Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years,” (Rev. xx: 1-6).

Upon this passage Dean Alford, the eminent Commentator, makes the following remarks: “I can not consent to distort the words from their plain sense and chronological place in the prophecy, on account of any considerations of difficulty, or any risk of abuses which the doctrine of the millennium may bring with it. Those who lived next to the apostles, and the whole church for three hundred years, understood them in the plain literal sense; and it is a strange sight in these days to see expositors who are among the first in reverence for antiquity, complacently casting aside the most cogent instance of consensus which primitive antiquity presents. As regards the text itself, no legitimate treatment of it will extort what is known as the spiritual interpretation now in fashion. If, in a passage where two resurrections are mentioned, where certain persons lived at the first, and the rest of the dead only at the end of a specified period after that first,—if, in such a passage, the first resurrection may be understood to mean spiritual rising with Christ, while the second means literal rising from the grave;—then there is an end of all significance in language, and Scripture is wiped out as a definite testimony to anything. If the first resurrection is spiritual, then so is the second, which I suppose none will be hardy enough to maintain; but if the second is literal, so is the first, which, in common with the whole primitive church and many of the best modern expositors, I do maintain, and receive as an article of faith and hope.” Those, then, who hold the doctrine of two resurrections, the one at the beginning, and the other at the close of the millennium, need not be disturbed when told that they are regarded as “eccentric,” or “crazy;” for according to the testimony of this distinguished scholar, they stand “with the whole primitive church and many of the best modern expositors.”

The Commentary of which Dr. David Brown is one of the Editors, referring to the word souls in the testimony of St. John, says, “This term is made a plea for denying the literal first resurrection, as if the life and reign of souls were raised in this life from the death of sin by vivifying faith. But ‘souls’ expresses their disembodied state at first; ‘And they live again’ implies their coming to life in the body again, so as to be seen by John, as vs. 5, ‘This is the first resurrection’ proves: for as ‘the rest of the dead lived not (again) until’ &c., must refer to the bodily general resurrection, so must the first resurrection refer to the body. If the first resurrection be not corporeal, then the saints do not rise at all; for they do not rise with ‘the rest of the dead.’. . . . Paul was beheaded, and shall share the first resurrection, in accordance with his prayer that he ‘might attain unto the resurrection from out of the rest of the dead’ [exanastasis],” Again the Commentary describes the dead small and great, who stand before the great white throne after the thousand years at the final judgment, as “the rest of the dead, who did not share the first resurrection, and those who died during the millennium.” Of course it would be unfair to represent these statements as expressing the present belief of Dr. Brown, but it is at least comforting to find him associated with a colleague who can give such sound expositions of Scripture. Auberlien takes the same view, and after showing that those who were seen by the Apostle, as risen at the beginning of the thousand years, include all the saints who had lived up to that time, he says, “This is the first resurrection, as distinguished from the second, general one, which is mentioned in the twelfth verse. Of this first resurrection our Saviour likewise speaks (Luke xiv: 14), and designates it as the resurrection of the just; and Paul also (l Cor. xv: 23), where he evidently distinguishes three gradations of resurrection: Christ, the first fruits, rose first; then they who belong to Him at His appearance; then—eita, corresponding to epeita, that preceded, and again introducing a considerable interval—the end, that is the general resurrection.”

Bishop Newton, also, after stating that the passage teaches “a particular resurrection preceding the general one at least a thousand years,” goes on to say, “This prophecy therefore remains yet to be fulfilled, even though the resurrection be taken only for an allegory, which yet the text can not admit without the greatest torture and violence. For with what propriety can it be said, that some of the dead who were beheaded, ‘lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years; but the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished;’ unless the dying and living again be the same in both places, a proper death and resurrection? . . . If the martyrs rise only in a spiritual sense, then the rest of the dead rise only in a spiritual sense, but if the rest of the dead really rise, the martyrs rise in the same manner. There is no difference between them; and we should be cautious and tender of making the first resurrection an allegory, lest others should reduce the second into an allegory too, like those whom St. Paul mentions, (2 Tim. ii: 17, 18), ‘Hymeneus and Philetus, who concerning the truth have erred, saying, that the resurrection is past already, and overthrow the faith of some.’ It is to this first resurrection that St. Paul alludes, when he affirms (1 Thess. iv: 16,) that ‘the dead in Christ rise first,’ and (1 Cor. xv: 23,) that ‘every man shall be made alive in his own order, Christ the first fruits, afterwards they that are Christ’s at His coming, and then cometh the end,’ after the general resurrection,” (Newton on the Prophecies, p. 586-7).

Olshausen, too, in an able introductory chapter on the book of Revelation says, “This simple radical idea, is merely, that as, in regard to an individual man, God by the Saviour redeems not merely a particular part of him, his spirit alone, or his body alone, but the whole man, his body, soul, and spirit, so the redeeming power of Christ has for its object the deliverance of the entire human race, [except of course, unbelievers] and of the creation, m general, from the yoke of sin. . . . Proceeding from this fundamental idea, the Revelation teaches in sublime imagery, agreeing perfectly with the statements of our Lord and the apostles (which are less formal, and rather take the doctrine for granted, and thus are more incidental,) that a period will come in which not only, as has already been the case, the Spirit of Jesus Christ should prevail in secret, and guide men’s minds, but should also gain the victory externally, and found a kingdom of peace and righteousness upon earth. Now, that with the arrival of this reign of peace there will be connected on the one hand, the appearance of Jesus Christ and a resurrection of many saints and pious men? and, on the other, a previous mighty struggle on the part of evil—does indeed follow very naturally from the fundamental idea, and the supposed development of good and evil; but these points are only incidental. . . . It would not have been worth while, with our present purpose, to say even the little we have said on this subject, were there not so many well-meaning men of real piety, who, notwithstanding the most striking historical proof, can never prevail upon themselves to admit the Revelation to be a genuine apostolic production, and therefore entitled to a place in the canon, and thus to become a rule of faith, because they feel that they- must in consequence admit the reign of God upon earth in their circle of belief, which they suppose they neither can, nor ought to do. May such be led to a thorough investigation of this, idea, and of all the passages of Scripture which relate thereto, that the acknowledgment of evangelical truth in this respect may be promoted, and its fulfillment be rendered near at hand.”

On the other hand, Mr. Barnes, speaking for the large school of expositors to which he belongs, says, “The following points, then, according to the interpretation proposed, are implied in the statement respecting ‘the first resurrection,’ and these will clearly comprise all that is stated on the subject.

(1.) “There will be a reviving, and a prevalence of the spirit which actuated the saints in the best days, and a restoration of their principles as the grand principles which will control and govern the church, as if the most eminent saints were raised again from the dead, and lived and acted upon the earth.

(2.) “Their memory will then be sacredly cherished, and they will be honored on the earth with the honor which is due to their names, and which they should have received when in the land of the living. They will be no longer cast out and reproached; no longer held up to obloquy and scorn; no longer despised and forgotten, but there will be a reviving of sacred regard for their principles, as if they lived on the earth, and had the honor which was due them.

(3.) “There will be a state of things upon the earth, as if they thus lived and were thus honored. Religion will no longer be trampled under foot, but will triumph. In all parts of the earth it will have the ascendency, as if the most eminent saints of past ages lived and reigned with the Son of God in his kingdom. A spiritual kingdom will be set up with the Son of God at the head of it, which will be a kingdom of eminent holiness, as if the saints of the best days of the church should come back to the earth, and dwell upon it. The ruling influence in the world will be the religion of the Son of God, and the principles which have governed the most holy of His people.”

In addition to such astounding statements, he makes two other remarks to tell us, “It may be implied that the saints and martyrs of other times will be employed by the Saviour in embassies of mercy; in visitations of grace to our world to carry forward the great work of salvation on earth,” and “In connection with these things, and in consequence of these things, they may be during that period, exalted to higher happiness and honor in heaven.” Such is the exposition of this important passage as given by the most popular writer among our post-millennial brethren, “and these” he gravely informs us, “will clearly comprise all that is stated on the subject.” If this is so, it Is not rash to assert that every doctrine of the Bible can be easily explained away, and the Sacred Scriptures are not worth a straw as a rule of faith and practice. Mr. Barnes exhibits in his commentaries great fondness for the little words, as if, and when he comes across a doctrine which does not happen to strike his fancy, he speaks of it as if it were true. On such a principle of interpretation as this, want of logic, and God’s sovereign grace are the only safeguards against utter infidelity. The Universalist reads the words, “He that believeth not shall be damned,” (Mark xvi: 16), and says it can only mean as if he shall be damned. The Unitarian reads the words, “Christ came, who is over all, God blessed forever,” (Rom. ix: 5,) and says it means as if Christ were over all, God blessed forever. Thus the explicit testimony of the Holy Ghost is quietly set aside unless it accords with the predilections or prejudices of the reader, and the book that contains the revealed will of God is pushed beyond the reach of any man’s understanding, or is left a prey to every man’s fancy. This wicked habit on the part of many theological writers of dealing with the plain statements of the word of Jehovah as if they were true is more dangerous, and is doing more to undermine the foundations of Christianity than the boldest assaults of Rationalism, Deism, and Atheism.

Mr. Barnes insists that when the apostle saw certain persons who once were dead, living and reigning with Christ a thousand years, but the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished, he only saw a revival of the martyr spirit and a restoration of the principles which actuated the saints in the best days. But why should there be a revival of the martyr spirit during the millennium.'’ It is certainly torturing language as severely as the enemies of the cross tortured those who were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and who had not worshipped Antichrist, to make their resurrection mean a revival of their heroic spirit in the Church; but the exposition becomes absolutely incredible when we remember that there will be no occasion for the display of the martyr spirit during the reign, either personal or spiritual, of Christ over earth. The spirit of the martyrs will be out of place when there will be no persecution, and no visible opposition to the cause of the Redeemer. Mr. Barnes himself, borrowing from Dr. David Brown, says that the period to which the inspired writer here alluded “will be characterized by the universal diffusion of the revealed truth “that it will be marked by unlimited subjection to the sceptre of Christ,” that “there will be great progress in all that tends to promote the welfare of man;” that “it will be a period of the universal reign of peace;” that “there will be a general prevalence of evangelical religion and surely in such a period there will be almost as little to call forth the steadfast endurance which led men to be beheaded for the witness of Jesus, as there can be in heaven.

But if the theory that the revival of the spirit of the martyrs exhausts the meaning of the first resurrection is absurd, the supposition that it refers to the restoration of their principles during the thousand years is equally opposed to common sense. Let us look at the words of the apostle: “But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.” Did the rest of the principles live not again until the thousand years were finished.? The rest of what principles? The principles that controled and governed the saints in the best days? Did they not live again until the thousand years were finished? Or does the apostle allude to the principles that did not control and govern the church in the days of the martyrs? This can not be, for he speaks of only one class, a part of which lived and reigned with Christ, and the rest of which lived not again until the thousand years were finished. But we read in the next verse: “Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death had no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.” We may conceive of principles reigning, but how can principles be priests of God and of Christ? Elsewhere in the book of Revelation we read; “Unto him that loved [or loveth] us, and washed us from our sins in His own blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto God and His Father,” (Rev. i: 5, 6). Christ certainly does not wash His principles in his own blood, and yet the kings and priests of one passage must mean the same thing as the kings and priests of the other passage, or as Alford says, “there is an end of all significance in language, and Scripture is wiped out as a definite testimony to anything.”

But the post-millennialists go to still greater lengths in their determination not to receive the plainly revealed truth of two resurrections, for while admitting that the resurrection after the millennium is literal, they claim that the resurrection at the beginning of the millennium is figurative. The beloved disciple saw three classes of the dead, those whom he had first seen sitting upon thrones as representatives of the glorified church, those who were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and those who had refused to worship Antichrist during his brief but dreadful supremacy, and they lived and reigned with their Lord a thousand years. “But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.” Obviously, therefore, it is a wretched and ruinous mode of interpretation which views one part of the dead in a figurative, and the rest of the dead in a literal sense. What would be thought of a writer of history if he should speak of one part of an army as crossing a river, but the rest of the army did not cross for a week, when he really meant that in one case certain principles, and in the other literal persons passed over, though the army itself crossed together? Manifestly, if “the rest of the dead” must be understood literally, so must the other dead who lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years, but if these are to be taken figuratively, so must the rest of the dead, and hence we have no resurrection at all in the passage now under consideration. But if a literal resurrection is not taught here, it is not taught anywhere in the word of God, for the testimony of Christ and the apostles given in other portions of Scripture can be explained away as easily as the language which affirms that there is a first resurrection at the beginning of the millennium, and that the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. Well does Bishop Newton say, “we should be cautious and tender of making the first resurrection an allegory, lest others should reduce the second into an allegory too.”

It may be urged, however, that this is the only place where the doctrine of the first and second resurrection is taught. This is not true, as previously shown, but even admitting it to be so, it will at once command the faith of the soul that is in subjection to the authority of God’s word. There are only two places in the New Testament, where the resurrection of the wicked is plainly asserted, but these are enough to satisfy the mind that is willing to believe what the Lord has spoken. Nor does the objection, urged at great length by Dr. Brown, that only the martyrs are here said to live and reign with Christ a thousand years, disprove the doctrine of two distinct resurrections separated by the millennium. The fact is the objection omits the first class seated on thrones, representatives of the church seen in the fourth and fifth chapters, to which the apostle adds two other classes who had been beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and who had not worshipped the beast; but if only the martyrs arise, and “the rest of the dead” include the whole of the human family besides, still there would be two resurrections. Nor does the fact that the resurrection of the just and the unjust is mentioned together, show that there is to be a simultaneous rising from the grave. The Saviour says, “The hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear His voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation,” (John v: 28, 29). But just before he had said, “The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God; and they that hear shall live,” (John v: 25). As we know that the “hour” for hearing and living has already continued for more than eighteen hundred years, so the “hour” for rising from the graves may be extended through a thousand years that the Scripture may not be broken.

The only other place in which the resurrection of the wicked is distinctly mentioned, is in the address of the apostle Paul before Felix when he said, there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust,” (Acts xxiv: 15). But it is begging the question to assume that there will be a contemporaneous resurrection of the two, for nothing is more common in Scripture than to bring together events that are widely separated in their actual occurrence. As Dr. Hodge says, “The predictions of the Old Testament produced the universal impression that the first coming of Christ was to be attended at once by events which we learn from the New Testament require ages to bring about.” For example, our Lord, standing up in the synagogue of Nazareth to read the Scriptures, found the place where it is written, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the broken-hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, to preach the acceptable year of the Lord,” (Luke iv: 18, 19). At this point He closed the book, and gave it to the minister again, and sat down. The quotation is from Isaiah lxi: 1,2, but by turning to the prophecy it will be seen that our Saviour abruptly broke off at a comma in the middle of the second verse, which adds, “and the day of vengeance of our God.” The prophet with a single stroke of the pen included both comings of Christ, but He did not complete the quotation, because His first coming was “to preach the acceptable year of the Lord,” and only at His second coming shall “the day of vengeance of our God” be on hand. The apostle Peter speaks of the ancient prophets “Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow,” (1 Pet. i: 11), and yet it was hard for the disciples themselves to learn that there was to be a wide interval of separation between the sufferings and the manifested glory, because they were so often mentioned in immediate connection. It can not be inferred, therefore, from the statement that “there is to be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust,” that they are to rise at the same time, for the resurrection of the just is mentioned first, and the inference would not hold with regard to many statements which bring the first and second advent of the Lord within the compass of a single verse. By hastening to the unwarrantable conclusion that the predicted sufferings and the glorious kingdom of the Messiah were to be contemporaneous, the Jews were led into a fatal mistake, and we should be careful to look at the entire scope of revealed truth upon any subject which demands our attention, so that we may interpret one text in the light of another.

We read, for example, the familiar passage, “Everyman in his own order, Christ the first fruits: afterwards they that are Christ’s at His coming. Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father.” Every man in his own band or cohort, as the word properly means, or in his own order of succession: Christ the first fruits, who as the divine captain of our salvation is in himself a host, and afterwards they that are Christ’s at his coming. We know that the word afterward embraces more than eighteen hundred years that have elapsed since Christ rose from the dead, although if we did not know it the reader might suppose that the resurrection of the Lord was to be succeeded immediately by the resurrection of His people. “Then cometh the end.” Whether the word then indicates that what follows is to transpire at once, or after an interval be it long or short, can only be determined by its use in other passages. Now in the same chapter it is said “He was seen of Cephas, THEN of the twelve—after that, he was seen of James: THEN of all the apostles,” (1 Cor. xv: 5-7). Here the Greek word which is translated then in both places, unquestionably implies an interval. Elsewhere we read of some who “have no root in themselves, and so endure but for a time: afterward when affliction or persecution ariseth for the word’s sake, immediately they are offended,” (Mark iv: 17). The word translated afterward is the same used by the apostle when he writes, “Then cometh the end.” Again, in the verse, “First the blade, then the ear, after that the full corn in the ear,” (Mark iv: 28), the words then, and after that are the same used to indicate the coming of the end subsequent to the resurrection of the saints; and therefore no man has a right to say that the end is contemporaneous with the resurrection of the just at the advent of Christ. From the manner in which the word then is employed in the New Testament, it is obvious that a thousand years may elapse before the end when Christ delivers up the kingdom to God, even the Father.

Nor is there any force in the objection to this view founded on the judgment scene described by the Saviour himself. “When the Son of man shall come in his glory,* and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory; and before him shall be gathered all nations,” (Matt, xxv: 31, 32). In the first place, the word rendered nations is the term used by the inspired writers to describe the “Gentiles,” and is so translated ninety-two times, while four times it is translated “heathen.” In the second place, there can be neither nations nor Gentiles as such in the eternal state, and, therefore, the scene here can not be the final judgment. In the third place, it is witnessed, as the context plainly shows, at the coming of Christ, which, it has already been abundantly proved, will precede the millennium. In the fourth place, the titles our Lord here assumes, as Son of man and king, are not those He would take at the final judgment ushering in eternity. In the fifth place, there is not the slightest intimation of a resurrection, or a hint that the dead will then stand before the throne of His glory. In the sixth place, there is nothing to indicate that the books will be opened, or that the judgment will take place on the ground of the judgment that will occur after the thousand years. In the seventh place, there is not the slightest mention of faith in Christ as the test question upon which destiny is decided. In the eighth place, the principle on which the judgment here proceeds is totally inapplicable to an immense majority of the human race, who have never heard of the “brethren” of Christ, much less have they had an opportunity of treating these brethren kindly or cruelly. In the ninth place, no Christian could express surprise, or confess ignorance, as the “sheep” here do, when the king informs them that ministry to His brethren is service to Himself; for every child of God knows that Christ and His people are one. In the tenth place, the scene evidently implies persecution, and this has not been true of multitudes of Christians. In the eleventh place, we are told that Christians will be associated with the Lord in the judgment of the world, and this is the only place where the promise can be fulfilled. Without going further, enough, probably, has been said to justify the remark of Greswell, when he declares his belief that not one Christian, now living, or living in the past, was intended by the Speaker to be comprehended among the “sheep,” who are clearly distinct from the “brethren,” and are accepted because their kind treatment of Christ’s messengers manifests their longing for Christ himself in an evil and perilous day.

The truth is, “these my brethren” are not judged at all at that time, but it is plain that the judgment here mentioned has reference only to the living nations or Gentiles, and is in precise accordance with the repeated testimony of the old prophets, among whom, we find Joel, for example, saying, “Assemble yourselves, and come, all ye heathen, and gather yourselves together round about: thither cause thy mighty ones to come down, O Lord. Let the heathen be awakened, and come up to the valley of Jehoshaphat: for there will I sit to judge all the heathen round about,” (Joel iii: 11, 12). “These my brethren” are probably the elect and faithful remnant of Israel found among all nations, who shall cling to the hope of their fathers amid sore persecutions and trials, patiently waiting for the promised deliverance of their expected Messiah, when all the world shall wander after the beast, the false Christ, who will then have power. Some there will be among the Gentiles or nations, of whom Jethro in the wilderness was a striking type, when- he “rejoiced for all the goodness which the Lord has done to Israel who will receive the testimony of these witnesses for Jesus, after the rapture of the risen and changed saints to meet Him in the air; and thus through their belief boldly exhibiting their sympathy with the persecuted, they will stand, as a few did at the first advent, waiting for the consolation of Israel, to receive His approval and to be admitted into His kingdom, “when the Son of man shall come in his glory.” The scene, then, is not heavenly, but earthly, and occurs when the Lord shall descend at the beginning of the millennium. On the other hand the final judgment occurs after the millennium, when the rest of the dead who had no part in its glories shall come forth from the graves, and when, as St. John tells us, the dead, small and great, shall stand before God, and the books shall be opened, and the dead shall be judged out of those things which are written in the books according to their works. As in Matthew, not a word is said about the dead, but only the living, so in Revelation, not a word is said about the living, but only the dead. Nor is there an intimation that at the final judgment, which ushers in the eternal state, any are found written in the book of life, or if any, they are those who have fallen asleep during the thousand years, as we have some reason to believe, from Isaiah Ixv: 20, that death will be known, although at long and rare intervals, even in the millennium. But for all that is said to the contrary that book may be a total blank, for we have the testimony of the Saviour that the believer shall not come into judgment, and there is therefore, now, no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus.

It is true “we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ,” (Rom. xiv: 10); and again it is written, “we must all appear [or be manifested] before the judgment seat of Christ,” (2 Cor. v: 10); but that judgment can not possibly affect the salvation of the believer, because judgment in his case has already been pronounced and executed upon his substitute. It has reference only to his works as a saved person, for “every man’s work shall be made manifest,” (1 Cor. iii: 13); and if the work which he has built upon the only foundation can abide the searching test, he shall receive a reward. “If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire,” (1 Cor. iii: 15). The order seems to be that at the coming of Christ the righteous dead shall be raised up and be manifested before him, not to have the question of their deliverance from wrath determined, but to have the reward of grace decided which each will receive according to the deeds done in the body; and then after this family settlement the Lord descends for the judgment of the living nations in which the redeemed will be associated with Him, as well as during His rule of the earth; and at the end of the millennial kingdom, the wicked dead are to be raised up to meet their final doom. If therefore Christ does not come before the millennium, he will not come at all, for at the judgment of the great white throne. He is not represented as coming to the earth, but “the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them,” (Rev. xx: 11). “Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless,” (2 Pet. iii: 14); and may God give us grace to abide in him, that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be asharned before him at his coming” (1 John ii: 28); and may we “look to ourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward” (2 John 8), when we attain through Him that loved us unto the “out resurrection, the one from among the dead.”