of patience, zeal, and stedfastness; than by declaring that such promises of God, concerning the pre-millennial resurrection and glorification of his faithful servants, still stood sure, and would in due time be fulfilled, whatever erring men might be induced to believe or assert? And the Apostle's allusion to this prediction given to Daniel, may, perhaps, not obscurely, be traced in the expression already noticed, which seems almost borrowed from the prophet: "But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour" (2 Tim. ii. 20). "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)*.

* Without entering upon the consideration of corresponding passages, it may be proper here to notice the efforts made by some Millennarian writers to find an expedient by which the above prediction may be explained so as to admit the pre-millennial resurrection of those who shall be raised to "everlasting life," and yet to exclude the synchronical resurrection of those raised to "shame and everlasting contempt."

In the First Number of your work, a correspondent, W. D., referring to the above passage, says, "The prophet, viewing these events at a greater distance [than our Lord when speaking of the resurrection], makes no distinction between the resurrections, but only between their ulterior conditions; even as it is common for all the prophets to speak of the two advents of Christ as if they were one" (p. 64). He does not, however, cite a single passage in support of his view; nor do I think he could find one properly parallel to that in question. He may, indeed, find passages which speak of both the humiliation and exaltation states of Christ; but these would not at all serve his purpose, unless both were referred to one particular time. The passage from Daniel is a chronological prediction, not only classing the two resurrections as belonging to one time, but having this time of its fulfilment clearly specified. In order, therefore, to substantiate his argument, W.D. would require to shew, that the events to be performed at the second advent of Christ are predicted as to have taken place at his first coming. This, however, is what the prophets never do; nor could it be done without creating the greatest confusion. In such passages as speak of the time of Christ's first appearance, there is no mixing the events of that period with those which relate to his second advent. There is, on the contrary, a marked attention to the order of events; as may be seen, for example, in Dan. ix. 25, 26. Nor is there, so far as I know, any passage in which the time of the second advent is declared, having mingled with it, and applied to the same time, the events which pertain to the first coming of our Lord. There are, indeed, passages in which the Saviour's character and diversified conditions are spoken of together; in which he is exhibited as one who should both suffer and reign; and the one is represented as a consequence of the other (Isai. lii. 12-15; liii. 10—12). Thus, also, in describing the character of the Messiah, the same prophet refers to both advents, where he not only speaks of him as a Son born, but also predicts his re-occupation of the throne of David (Isai. ix. 6, 7). But in no one of these instances does the prophet fix the time for the fulfilment of predictions so different and distinct. But proof of this being done in Scripture prophecy would be necessary for the support of W. D.'s theory. Nay, in addition to this, even if the point for which he contends were ceded to him, yet on his theory some extrinsic proof

Having thus endeavoured to establish the literal nature of that resurrection which Hymeneus and Philetus asserted to be

would still be requisite to determine which class shall be raised at the time to which the passage under consideration really refers. For if the resurrection of both classes is not to take place at the same time, how can we ascertain from the prediction which of these two classes is to be raised at the commencement of the Millennium, and which at its close? We might, indeed, ask, what evidence there is in the prediction that either class will be raised at the restoration of Israel, if both are not then to be raised? But assuming, with W. D., that the pre-millennial resurrection embraces only one of the classes specified, we may still inquire, how he is to ascertain to which class this precedence pertains. In his estimation, there is nothing in the language of the prophet from which this can be discovered. "The prophet, viewing these events at a greater distance," says he, "makes No distinction between the resurrections, but only between their ulterior conditions." But if the prophecy makes no distinction, how is it to be determined whether it is the resurrection of those to life, or of those to shume, which is to take place at the restoration of Israel? If it was not declared to the prophet that there shall awake, at one and the same time, "some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt," then ought W.D. to shew that the prophecy relates at all to a pre-millennial resurrection of either class, and the ground on which he makes the selection of those "to everlasting life" as applicable to the period specified in the prophecy, while he denies the resurrection of those raised "to contempt" as referring to that period. If "the prophet makes no distinction," we are not at liberty to do so in an arbitrary manner; and it is quite unwarrantable to assume, that a prediction uttered concerning two classes, relative to their condition at a specified time, shall at that time be accomplished only in so far as it relates to one of these; and, having done so, to make another assumption, of which particular class of the two shall be raised at the predicted time.

Besides, if W. D. considers the prophecy as a prediction not only of the pre millennial resurrection, but also of the general resurrection after the Millennium; and if he merely divide into two bands, those raised to life, and those raised to shame; then, on his supposition, the resurrections here declared ought to include ALL the dead. But this is not the case. The two divisions mentioned (the two "somes") compose only "many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth"-a smaller, from among a larger number. And, further, the theory of the two classes forming each a distinct resurrection, the one at the beginning and the other at the end of the Millennium (the pre-millennial being that of those raised to life), would leave for the post-millennial only those raised to shame; but such an arrangement does not correspond with what is expressly declared of this resurrection Rev. xx. 12, 15, where we find, that, of the books opened in the day of judgment, one is "the book of life;" and it is only "whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire."

Another correspondent suggests a different method of obviating the difficulty which this passage in Daniel occasions to all who reject the doctrine of a premillennial resurrection of some to shame. PHILANASTASIUS Considers the proper rendering of the leading clause to be, "And many out of those sleeping in the dust of the earth shall awake;" implying, as clearly as possible, that all will NOT then awake, and clearly, therefore, distinguishing two resurrections." (Morning Watch, No. II. p. 268). He also suggests, although without insisting upon it, a new translation of the remaining clause of the second verse. The words "some,' 66 some," he would render "these and these, or, as we should say, these and those." He would then translate the verse; "Many out of those sleeping in the dust of the earth shall awake; these [who awake] (shall be) to everlasting life; those [who remain sleeping] (shall be) to shame and everlasting contempt."

19

Now, in this explanation, as in that to which we have already adverted, the

past;" having, from the Apostle's language, endeavoured to vindicate its peculiarity, as a special rather than as the general

fact is altogether overlooked, that the "some " raised to everlasting life, and the " some "raised to shame and everlasting contempt, are merely the divided "many" who "shall awake." These writers equally admit that a resurrection of both classes is predicted. They do not, however, seem to observe, that our knowledge of this rests on the very fact of both classes being included in the "many.' If this were not the case, there is really no resurrection of both predicted; for it is the many who shall awake. These are not all the dead, but they are the whole whose resurrection is here predicted. It is, therefore, not a general but a special resurrection-not at different times, although of different and dissimilar characters. It is one resurrection, at a specified time-at the restoration of Israel, or when Michael stands up in behalf of Daniel's people. The interpretation of Philanastasius is therefore a direct contradiction of the prophecy. By his explanation, he would make one some to "remain sleeping," while the prediction includes both in the " many" who "shall awake." Of these, we are first informed generally of the fact, that they "shall awake" at the time spoken of; and we have next a specification made of the different destinies which shall await those who are the subjects of this resurrection. It is when they all awake, and not while a part "remains sleeping," that “some” shall be exposed to shame and everlasting contempt, and “some” shall enjoy everlasting life. These are the very ends, indeed, for which they are raised at this particular time; they awake To life and To shame. On no principle, therefore, can we place the resurrection of the one class before the Millennium, and that of the other after it.

But, even if it were ceded to Philanastasius that a simultaneous resurrection of two classes was not here predicted, his object would yet be far from being gained. He would be still bound, not merely to shew that a resurrection of one class is here predicted to take place at the restoration of Israel; he should then be called also to prove to which class the prediction referred. His present application is nothing more than assumption; and even on his own hypothesis, for any thing he has shewn or could shew, the order he has adopted might with equal propriety be reversed, and the prophecy be made to stand thus: "Those [who remain sleeping] (shall be) to life: these [who awake] (shall be) to shame and everlasting contempt." If the prophecy, instead of being regarded as predicting merely the different conditions of two classes who shall awake at one and the same time, is to be viewed as declaring the resurrection of one class at the commencement of the Millennium, and that of the other at its close, without intimating which class shall rise at either period, Philanastasius is certainly not at liberty simply to choose to which of them he shall assign the precedence of time-to assume that at the restoration of Israel the righteous shall rise, and the wicked "remain sleeping." He correctly maintains, and in this W. D. also believes, that the expression "out of those sleeping in the dust of the earth" implies, as clearly as possible, that all will not then awake; and clearly, therefore, distinguishing two resurrections." But, clearly as both thus perceive the proper ground of distinction, they afterwards seem equally to mistake it. In their reasonings, they appear to forget that it is not the repetition of the word "some," or the fact of two classes being mentioned as awaking, which marks thus " clearly two resurrections; but that this is evidenced by the fact that the resurrection of these two classes is only that of many OUT OF the whole dead; the remainder, when raised, consequently constituting a second resurrection. seem entirely to overlook the fact, that the some raised to life, and the some raised to shame, conjointly form this "many;" so that, when these awake, the one class must rise as well as the other. The admission, therefore, of a pre-millennial resurrection of those to life, necessarily implies a pre-millennial resurrection of those raised to shame also; as the resurrection of the whole of any given number (as of the "many ") includes that of all its parts.

Both

resurrection; having, by reference to Old-Testament predictions, endeavoured to ascertain the period to which it relates; and having attended to the Apostle's assurance of its future certainty; we have now to inquire, in what the heretics found any thing like a fulfilment of these Divine predictions. In seeking for an answer to this question, it will be of use to remember the mistaken views of the Jews on the subject of the coming of Christ. Shutting their eyes upon one class of predictions, they refused to believe that Messiah, when come, would assume our nature, should suffer, and die, and rise again, and return to heaven for a length of time, antecedent to the arrival of that happy era when the sublime predictions concerning his millennial reign are to be accomplished. Of these last they desired and expected an early fulfilment, while they were willing altogether to overlook, or to explain away, the predictions of Messiah's humiliation. Ignorant of the perfect distinctness of the two periods referred to, all the prophecies concerning the Christ were applied to the same time. The Saviour having come, therefore, and having manifested himself as indeed the Son of God, no future coming was anticipated; his disciples themselves having been long of this opinion. All the promised happiness, and all the peace and honour predicted unto Israel, were looked for as then to be realized. When the Redeemer, therefore, left the world, it must have been supposed, by such as did not expect his return, that all the predictions concerning him had, somehow or other, received their accomplishment. Finding it foretold by the prophets, that at his coming he should be attended by his saints, Hymeneus and Philetus would, no doubt, if they regarded such predictions as fulfilled, suppose this "resurrection as past already." Their assertion that this was the case, was not, as we have seen, so destitute of plausibility but that they overthrew the faith of some; and the language of the Apostle, too, leads us to believe it to have been a literal resurrection, and a resurrection of the saints of God. To such a resurrection there is reason to suppose they accordingly referred, as the fulfilment of ancient prophecy. They would know, unquestionably, that already "the graves were opened, and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves, after his [Christ's] resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many" (Matt. xxvii. 52, 53). They may themselves have been of the favoured "many" who witnessed this literal resurrection of these saints. It is true that this resurrection was only of many of the saints who slept," while the predictions cited announce the coming of all. They might, however, suppose, and lead others to believe, that these were the whole of God's elected ones; or, by some false interpretation, they might limit the number predicted by the prophets. Either of these errors

66

would be a heresy of less magnitude, and more plausible in itself, than the denial altogether of a literal resurrection.

It is humbling to observe, how men in all ages have perverted the word of God; and still more humbling, that they should so easily have succeeded in obtaining for their perversions the sanction of others who had received the faith. Even in the present day, with opportunities much superior to those enjoyed by Hymeneus and Philetus, interpretations of Scripture Prophecy much more revolting than what we have here supposed are not unfrequently presented to the Christian church, by respected ministers, as satisfactory explanations of God's revealed will. While we regret abounding misapplications, we may be taught to wonder less that on such grounds as have been stated there should in Apostolic times have been found those who concerning the truth did err, saying, "the resurrection is past already, and overthrow the faith of some."

It now only remains, that we notice the practical effect of the adoption of this heresy. In a time when there is such a general tendency to the misplacing of the resurrection of those who are the Lord's, the warning of the Apostle ought to be seriously considered. Those who indulge in such "profane and vain babblings," he informs us, "will increase unto more ungodliness.' This is indeed the obvious and natural consequence of indulging in erroneous applications of the Divine word, and in false interpretations of it. Men thus become less and less sensible of the guilt and danger of substituting their own fancies for the truths of God, and will thus increase unto more ungodliness. Their own souls will be injured; but they can never affect the certainty of Jehovah's purposes: "the foundation of God standeth sure."

But the Apostle gives a particular caution against false notions on the subject of the resurrection." If we credit those who say it is past already, "their word will eat, as doth a canker." The belief of this heresy is calculated to destroy one of the strongest motives to ministerial zeal. If " the resurrection of the just" were really past, then where would be the ground to believe that we shall ever "reign with Christ?" This is the very purpose for which that resurrection is promised; and any interpretation by which the certainty of it would be invalidated, must eat, as doth a canker," by lessening the motives and weakening the inducements to bear with patience the evils of this present age. Now this effect is produced, not more by

saying the resurrection is past already," than by denying its future certainty. By either falsehood, there is no room left for the fulfilment of the blessed promise to Christ's elect, that "if we suffer, we shall also reign with Him." And while any interpretation which would destroy this hope is not less injurious