shadow has rested upon this world since the day that Adam sinned, and will so remain till "Death and Hades" are cast into the lake of fire." (Rev. xx. 14.) Death is the terror of humanity, not its aspiration; its degradation and shame, not its elevation and glory. To man whether civilised or uncivilised, as himself the subject of its infliction, death has ever appeared at once a mystery, a calamity, and an abomination. A mystery on which, apart from revelation, no clear and steady ray of light has ever fallen; a calamity out of which, save from the empty sepulchre of the risen Saviour, no unfading flower of hope has ever bloomed; an abomination in which, even without direct supernatural guidance, man instinctively recognises something more than the mere physical suffering; something which impresses him with a conviction of the truth of the poet's familiar words, "It is not all of life to live, Nor all of death to die." To say, then, as one of the most recent advocates of this theory, quite consistently, does, "Death is only a further development of life, a process of being, a second birth, a natural transition from one state of being to another :" that "to those who believe in Christ the prospect of the spiritual body irradiates as with a rainbow the couch of death. Death will be to them a birth into true life; a baptism into the chill flood to rise on the sunlit bank; a regeneration; a conversion; a resurrection; an assumption; an ascension."-this is surely to confound death with life; to claim as a blessing what God has pronounced a curse; to make the primal threatening, "Thou shalt surely die "whose appalling tones the history of a dying world has reverberated in neverpausing thunder-a mere brutum fulmen; while it changes that last glorious promise, which is as it were the seal of God on the closing lips of revelation, "There shall be no more death," into the saddest words that ever fell on mortal ears. Secondly. It is impossible by any mode of interpretation which we can deem legitimate to harmonise the idea of an individual resurrection of men at death, with those distinct and emphatic statements of the New Testament which represent the resurrection of the dead as taking place in large and clearly defined classes or orders; that of the dead in Christ being, moreover, inseparably associated with the Second Advent of the Redeemer. Thus we find our Lord himself declaring, in language already quoted in another connection, "And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day. And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son and believeth on him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day." (John vi. 39, 40.) What is the meaning of these twice-repeated words, "at the last day ?" Is it possible by any reverent or rational mode of exegesis to identify "the last day" (rn oxárη μépa) thus spoken of with the day of each individual Christian's death? If the theory of resurrection at death be true, will it not follow that every day since that of Abel's murder has been a last day to some, the closing day of this dispensation being no more so to those who shall then arise than any other day to those who happened to die upon it? But what "last day" T is really intended by Christ is placed beyond question by certain emphatic statements of the apostle Paul. The first that we shall quote, he presents with the utmost solemnity and emphasis as an immediate Divine revelation. "For this we say unto you in the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord, shall not anticipate those which are asleep. For 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. 15-17.) "The last dry," then, is not the day of the believer's death, but the day of the Lord's advent in glory. And with this agrees another important statement of the same apostle : "But now is Christ risen from the dead, the firstfruits of them that slept. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But each in his own order: the firstfruits Christ; afterward (reira) they that are Christ's at his coming." (1 Cor. xv. 20-23.) From this passage we learn furthermore, that God's harvest-like the harvests of earth-is to be gathered not in single ears but in mighty sheaves, even as of old the priest waved the "sheaf of the firstfruits before the Lord: a type, doubtless, of the first resurrection. Thirdly. The express revelations of the inspired Scriptures not only warrant but most strongly encourage us to look forward, as the final result of Christ's redemption, at least in its immediate relation to this our world, to the evolution of "new heavens and a new earth," in "the times of restoration of all things, concerning which times God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began." But since this "new earth" will doubtless be,- for only on this assumption would such a designation be anything but illusive,-as really a materialism as the present earth; the only distinction being that "the creation,"―mark! the same creation in substance though not in form," -shall then be delivered from the bondage of corruption" (p0opās), i.e., that irresistible tendency to change and decay of the energies of the material universe which science so strikingly proves to be its present necessity; and included in "the liberty of the glory of the sons of God." Now to this new and glorious materialism, according to the teaching of the New Testament, the resurrection body of the saints will belong. The glorification of nature and of man are mysteriously but inseparably co-related; man answers to nature and nature to man as the mould to the cast or the key to the lock. The new earth without the manifested sons of God would be creation without its crown; the redeemed exiled from the new earth would be as kings without a throne. Hence, however vast may be the range of their emancipated and ennobled energies, this new earth will be their home: for it is not till the New Jerusalem descends from God out of heaven, that the great voice * "So far were these early Christians from regarding their departed brethren as anticipating them in entering glory, (which must needs be the case if resurrection at death were true,) that they needed to be assured that those who remain to the coming of the Lord 'will not anticipate them that are asleep.”—Fausset. proclaims, "Behold the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them." "And he that sat on the throne said, Behold I make all things new." (Rev. xxi. 3, 5.) But if this be so, it clearly follows that the resurrection body must be material, though not fleshly. A material earth must have material inhabitants. If there is to be a material atmosphere above them; material ground beneath their feet; material objects all around; then the redeemed themselves must partake of the prevailing materialism. And therefore we are forced to the conclusion that, in perfect agreement with the teaching of Scripture itself, the spiritual body, as conceived of by those who hold the theory contested, cannot be itself the ultimate development of the resurrection, though it may be that out of which, or in connection with which, that development takes place. we. Lastly.-The express teaching of the New Testament is that Christ's resurrection body is the pattern of ours: that as he rose even so shall At the same time, however, these very Scriptures supply an accumulation of evidence to the reality of Christ's resurrection body, as not only visible but tangible, and something very different from an ethereal body; and also to another fact, namely, that his rising took place not at death but upon the third day afterwards. This point has been so well stated by Mr. Edward White, that we gladly quote his language in preference to presenting the argument in our own : "The definition of the resurrection of Christians is fixed by the definition of Christ's resurrection. The word cannot signify one thing in our Lord's history, something quite different in the case of his followers. The manner in which both Christ and all his apostles closely bind together the fact of his own resurrection, and the hope of theirs, renders it an act of critical violence to attempt to dislocate the two. The sense in which they are to rise again is to be determined by the nature of his resurrection. "Now if the word anastasis stands for the survival of the spirit, Christ's anastasis occurred on the day that he died; when he went and preached to the spirits in prison." "But Christ's anastasis occurred on the third day. And hence we conclude that the resurrection of Christians is not the survival of their souls, but their rising up to life, in bodies which shall be "given" them. St. Paul bases his hope of the anastasis of Christians wholly on the anastasis of Christ on the third day' (1 Cor. xv.), and hence we may be as certain as we can be of anything that depends on criticism, that Professor Bush, Mr. Jukes, and their associates, are here engaged in a conflict with the apostles."* It will not weaken this argument, we venture to think, but on the contrary not a little strengthen it, if we substitute the word yépw for áváσraσıç, inasmuch as the former word and not the latter is, as Dean Stanley notices, almost invariably used by the writers of the New Testament to denote Christ's resurrection. Even in the passage in 1 Cor. xv., which our honoured friend has partially quoted, the word used is not anastasis but egíro, nor indeed does Paul ever employ the word "Life in Christ" second edition, pp. 352, 353. "St. Paul's Epistles to the Corinthians," second edition, p. 311. anastasis in reference to Christ's resurrection on the third day.* That Christ's egiro, however, took place on the third day the Scriptures most distinctly and repeatedly assert. And this, as we understand it, is the real point at issue; for egíro-as the more specific word than ana tasis— denotes, we apprehend, the materialisation of the body of the anastasis previously in existence. We are prepared to admit that the anastasis attains its initial stage at death, but we also contend, as against the holders of this theory simply, for the egíro as essential to the scriptural conception of resurrection. Egiro is included in anastasis, but may be clearly distinguished from it. Now the egiro in the case of Christ did not take place till the third day; it will not take place in the case of the saints till the last day. But of this more hereafter. We have thus, if we are not unduly confident, swept clear the stage. The work of demolition is complete. In our next paper it will behove us to attempt to build anew.f Florence Villa, North Finchley. W. MAUDE. THE DEATH OF THE OF BODY NOT THE EXTINCTION PART II. (Concluded from page 231.) OUR friend appears restless at "the variety of passages pleaded" by me "in support" of the partial survival of man upon the dissolution of his body at the first death. I think it must be very apparent that if life in the spirit after bodily death be "well established," there is great "use" in finding the support of such passages as recognise that life, when contending with those who insist upon the entire extinction of all human life when the body dies. If even the spirit alone of man survive, Mr. Mill's argument is overthrown. And if the dead are in a state of appreciable blessedness, it is very plain that they are in yet conscious personal existence, Mr. Mill's protest notwithstanding. But just such a passage as he desiderates seems actually to present itself in Rev. vi. 9-11. Here the souls of "the dead" are spoken of as " living beings." The seer says, "I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain . . . and they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth? And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellow-servants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they, should be fulfilled." Thus have we an inspired representation of the souls of slaughtered men, crying with a loud voice, away from the earth and distinguishing themselves from the dwellers on the earth, pre We can hardly regard Phil. iii. 10 as an exception, as the sense there is plainly "resurrection-life." The verb is once used by Paul in 1 Thess. iv. 14. ERRATUM.-In the former paper, p. 107, line 6, after "carbon" insert the word "oxygen." sented with robes, and bidden to rest still until the complement of the slain for Christ's sake should be fulfilled. This Scripture, I hope, Mr. Mill will acknowledge to meet his requirement. These "dead" would "know not anything" of what might be passing on the earth; and yet they are living "with God," as our Lord says all, even the dead, do. Mr. Mill seems loth to admit that he has mistaken me in respect of the dead from henceforth of Rev. xiv. 13. He might have been convinced however, that he had misunderstood me, when he was led to write," the actually dead cannot die in the Lord from henceforth' (being dead already)." I could hardly have been so obtuse as to contend for the first death being repeated upon the same subjects. And it is complained that I make the passage read, blessed are the dead from henceforth, instead of, blessed are they who die from henceforth." But the prophet's words are, (we will give them in Mr. Rotherham's rendering.) " Write! Happy the dead who in [the] Lord are dying, from henceforth." So that my words run pretty well parallel with the prophet's, omitting for the occasion the qualifying limitation, restricting the class of dead ones who are pronounced happy to those who should "die in the Lord from henceforth." Certainly I had no thought of applying the words directly to the past dead. I was simply emphasising the fact that the persons spoken of as dead, are the persons of whom happiness is predicated. Nor is it altogether necessary for my purpose to insist that it is the souls of those dead that are thus happy; though I should not have expected it to be disputed that, if any of the afore-persecuted saints are happy when dead, it is in their souls that they are so happy. I take the "rest" of ver. 13 to be in antithesis to the endurance of ver. 12, and in contrast with the unrest of the worshippers of the beast in ver. 11. 66 And is it not permissible after all to ar ue from the particular to the universal? May not "a general principle" "fairly be educed" from "a special case?" I think it is perfectly lawful and right to reason thus. St. Paul himself gives us as remarkable an instance of this mode of reasoning as one would wish to meet with. In 1 Cor. xv., he founds the doctrine of the resurrection from the dead upon the very special case" of the single resurrection of the incarnate Son of God. Let it be but once established that a true man has been actually, though there be but one known instance, raised from among the dead, and the fact of the possibility of human resurrection immediately becomes credible as a doctrine. The general principle is thus incontrovertibly educed from a special case. And so in the matter before us. If a condition of happiness is predicated of the dead in any special circumstances, it forth with becomes credible that other holy dead may be in a condition of proportionate happiness. "Whereas the blessedness" here, as Mr. Mill concedes, "pertains only to those in special circumstances," the admission is made that there is blessedness for the dead in some circumstances. For it can hardly be contended that the dead (of course those particular dead, in this instance, that had endured the rage of the wild beast) are not intended, seeing that the inspired divine writes, "Happy! the dead." And how are these dead specially happy if, as Mr. M. tells us, their "rest" is no better than the "rest" of the worshippers of the beast and his image? "The faithful persecuted ones suffer," he says, and have no rest," in life, of course. And he will, I apprehend, doubt ... |