much humbler successes? that in commenting on their petty victories over the Sabins and Latins, they should drop some hints that pointed at their African and Asiatic triumphs * ?" Descriptions of victory, triumph, and conquest, are of so general a kind, that, unless they are limited by the mention of particular names or circumstances, it will always be difficult to ascertain, not so much the precise events which they do, as the similar occurrences which they do not, predict. On this account Bishop Hurd's ingenious illustration is, perhaps, the most favourable to his views that could be chosen. And yet how far does it extend? Merely to shew the possibility for it is nothing more-that in a prophecy directed to one scene of things, some hints may be dropt, to use his lordship's words, which point to another and a different scene. Bishop Horsley stumbled over the unperceived impediments of a progressive interpretation: Bishop Hurd lies prostrate upon the slippery ground of intermingled prophecy. The frequent, abrupt, and rapid changes of time, place, and person, are amongst the most striking and most peculiar features of prophecy. Now the illustration before us is a very good one, if the intention be to explain the manner of these transitions: but I fear it will serve no other purpose. It loses sight of the double interpretation, and applies itself entirely to another question. It is not enough to shew that while the Prophet is speaking upon one subject he throws out some hints upon another. It requires not (I speak it with reverence) the skill of a prophet to effect such a combination as this. It is no more than every man, who writes or speaks, can do, as soon as he is warmed and elevated to the figurative style; for then he digresses from the contemplation of the scene professedly Sermon III. on the Study of the Prophecies. before him, and shews you by hints, figures, and illustrations, that he has travelled to other, and perhaps widely remote, occurrences. His lordship should have made it appear not that the texture of prophecy is woven with different threads of various shades, which though often combined are always distinct he should have shewn, to keep up the figure, that in different lights the same thread appeared in various colours: he should have shewn that what was predicted of the Sabins, was equally applicable to the Africans; that the prophecy which declared itself to belong to the Latins did, with equal truth, belong to the period of the Asiatic triumphs. This would have been to the purpose: it would have been a double sense. The other is nothing more than an interwoven sense, which is apparent through most parts of the prophetic pages; and which has, in many writers besides his lordship, been produced as evidence-which it certainly is not-in favour of the double sense of prophecy. On the whole, I beg with deference to submit the conclusion, that (excepting those prophecies which are declared in Scripture to have a twofold interpretation,) we have no evidence to support the doctrine of a double sense. We have prophecies extending through large portions of time, and applying to numerous events. And we have prophecies in which two different subjects are alternately presented; contiguous sentences referring to different scenes. But neither of these cases are those of a double interpretation, in the sense in which the words are applied to the few predictions understood under the old dispensation in one way, and explained under the new in ano. ther; and undoubtedly accomplished in both. At all events, I think it would be wise, till the point is clearly decid· ed, to sink the argument-if it can be so called-in favour of the two fold sense, which proceeds upon the air of dignity, splendour, and profoundness, which it is supposed to throw over the word of God. For it would be just as easy, and in my opinion quite as forcible, to advance on the other hand, that the simplicity of a single interpretation is more conducive to the true dignity of the Divine Author of prophecy than any complication of meanings. But neither the one nor the other of these considerations ought to weigh with the inquirer. I fear they alike indicate some wish to avoid the offence of the Cross. They are alike improper, when applied to a Book which is altogether Divine, and which stands in need of no other commendation. And after all -to use the simple, but expressive, language of Butler--the Bible is what it is. We can add nothing to its splendour: nor should the attempt be made. It becomes us rather to be satisfied with truth in its simplest form,-that form in which it most frequently appears; and to receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save our souls." I. B. M. ON THE DOCTRINE OF TWO RESURRECTIONS. Tothe Editorofthe Christian Observer. your I WISH to call the attention of readers to an article in the First Number of "The Morning Watch," upon the first resurrection. It is not my intention to enter upon the subject of two resurrections, of the just and the unjust, the one antecedent to the other. My object is only to notice the incorrect manner in which the sacred text is cited in that paper; a proceeding not allowable, whether employed in defence of a truth or of an untruth. The author endeavours to prove the two resurrections from two distinct modes of expression, which he says are adopted in the New Testa ment when speaking of the resurrection. I shall put the argument in his own words. "It appears, he says, "to have escaped the notice of many readers of Scripture, that there are two distinct modes of expression adopted in the New Testament; each of which has its appropriate use, and which does not admit of being interchanged with the other. The expressions we refer to are η αναστασις εκ των νεκρων the resurrection from [from out of] the dead and avaσraois TWY νεκρών, the resurrection of the dead. The former expression, we are prepared to maintain, is applicable exclusively to the resurrection of the saints, and could not be used to express the idea of a general resurrection." (p. 63.) Will it be believed, that of these two expressions on which this argument is built the first never occurs in any copy of the New Testament which I have seen? I have examined the places referred to in the subsequent part of the paper, in seven different editions of the Greek Testament, and in none of them do I find αναστασις εκ των νεκρων even once used. I at first thought that there might have been in p. 63, an error of the press, and that the article rov, might have been introduced by the mistake of the printer: but I find the same expression again in p. 67 and p. 68. The expression used in the New Testament is, αναστασις εκ νεκρων, not εκ των νεκρων. Perhaps it may be said, that the omission or introduction of the article makes no difference in the argument; and that the distinction between avaσraσig ek veкρwv, and avaσraois veкow, equally proves two resurrections. This would not justify a wrong quotation of the text. But I deny that the omission or introduction of the article makes no difference in the argument. I admit the force of the author's argument, on the supposition that the article is inserted; but I deny it if the article be left out. I may admit what the author says, p. 67, "We maintain that the phrase η αναστασις εκ των νεκρων,can mean nothing else than the resurrection of a part of the dead, leaving another part unraised;" but I deny that we can come to the same conclusion, according to the genius of the Greek language, and the consistent use of the Greek article, from the phrase AVAOTAOIS EK VEKρwv. I feel convinced that had it been the intention of the inspired penman to convey, in the places referred to, the idea of a resurrection of part of the dead, leaving another part unraised, they would have written εK TWV VEKρWV. Nay, I think the author of the paper must himself have been of the same opinion; and, having been persuaded of two resurrections upon other grounds, perhaps from the sentiments of others, without fully weighing the argument himself, took it for granted that the Greek article must be in the original; and, without examination, quoted it as if it were there. there is evidently implied the idea of leaving a part unraised, the article is used. Again: I would refer to Matt. xiv. 2; where Herod is introduced as saying to his servants, This is John the Baptist; he is risen from the dead; ηγέρθη απο των VEKOV. If John had at that time risen from the dead, as it was not the time of the general resurrection, he must have left a part unraised; and therefore the article is inserted. See also Col. ii. 12; Matt. xxvii. 64, xxviii. 7. We have, then, not merely two distinct modes of expression, as the author in "The Morning Watch " asserts, but three: αναστα εκ των νεκρών αναστασις νεκρών. The first, with the preposition and the article, seems to be used when it is intended to convey the idea of a part rising from among the dead, and leaving another part unraised: the second, with the preposition and without the article, when it is intended to convey the idea of rising from the dead, without intimating whether the whole or only a part is to be raised: the third, where the genitive case is governed by the preceding substantive, without the preposition, seems to be used when it is intended to convey the idea of the raising of the dead. The difference between the two expressions avaσraσig ek vekρw, and αναστασις νεκρων, seems to be this; the first denotes what man is to experience, the rising from the dead; the second denotes what God is to perform, the raising of the dead. To support my opinion, that if the authors of the New Testament had wished to convey the idea of the resurrection of only a part of the dead, they would have inserted the article; I would refer to passages in which there is an evident intention to convey this meaning, and in those passages the article is insert ed. I would first mention Col. i. 18; where St. Paul calls Christ πρωτοτοκος εκ των νεκρων, the first born from (among) the dead. Here, then, is an evident intention to convey the idea of Christ rising first, and leaving the rest of the dead unraised; and therefore the article is inserted. I would refer, in the next place, to Eph. v. 14: where the Apostle writes αναστα εκ των νεκρων. He had, in the early part of his Epistle, called unconverted men dead (VEкpeç) in trespasses and sins; and here he tells them, that God calls upon such as hear his voice, to rise from among those dead persons, to leave them behind and come 'from the dead."" I admit that the amongst the living. Here, where words would bear this rendering, CHRIST. OBSERV. No. 329, I have to remark upon two texts quoted in the paper referred to. One is, Phil. iii. 11 : eɩs rŋv ežavaσTαOLY TWV VEKρWV (p. 67). The author speaks of this text as if it were the same as if it had been written avaσrαois EK TWV VEKρWV, and quietly and coolly says, "Our translators are inaccurate." He pronounces that "it ought to have been rendered 2 P expression" occurs wherever the resurrection of Jesus is named? This "same expression" εavaoraσIS never occurs, but in one place, in Scripture; namely, in that before referred to, Phil. iii. 11. Or does he expect his readers at once to imitate his example, and without scruple turn his unwarrantably acquired εξαναστασις into αναστασις but I deny that they require it. The genitive VEKOWY might indeed be governed by the , but may also be, as our translators have supposed, the genitive case following the substantive avaσraois; and so may literally be translated" the raising-out of the dead." As there is no place in the whole New Testament in which αναστασις εκ των νεκρών is to be found, we are led to ? It requires this further unauconclude that the phrase used here thorised change before we have a is not intended to be equivalent to phrase which is used when the reit, but rather to be equivalent to surrection of Christ is named. that which is constantly used avao τασις των νεκρων. I must remark, also, upon another incorrect quotation (p. 66), Rom. i. 4. The author writes the Greek εavaoraσews, as if it were one word. Now I have before me seven different editions of the Greek Testament, of the highest authority, and there is not one of them that has it written as one word, but all of them have it ε avaσraσews, two words. He first writes the phrase diferently from what it occurs in every edition of the New Testament which I have ever seen, and then he says, " "And here we may observe, once for all, that whenever the resurrection of Jesus from the dead is named, the same expression is used." As the liberty here taken, and the argument deduced, may seem incredible, I think it better to transcribe the whole paragraph. "In Rom. i. 4, we have the term applied to Christ; declared to be the Son of God with power, by the resurrection from the dead,' εξαναστάσεως νεκρων, (instead of εξ avαστασεws vεкρw): and here we may observe, once for all, that wherever the resurrection of Jesus from the dead is named, the same expression is used; implying not merely a resurrection from the state of death, but from out of those that are dead: literally, from dead ones." What does the author mean to assert? Is it after he has manufactured the one word ekavaoTaoic out of two words, that that " same I beg to remark, that what I have written is neither intended to weaken nor to strengthen the opinion of two resurrections; I have only attempted to point out the unsoundness of some of the arguments in favour of the hypothesis, and to shew that it cannot be proved by a mere criticism upon the words in which the doctrine of the resurrection is conveyed. Its truth must stand upon something more than the difference between avaotaois ɛk νεκρων, and αναστασις νεκρων ; and, if true, the reception of it as a truth can only be impeded by such unfounded arguments as those put forward in the paper I have been examining. I do not, however, desire to impute wilful dishonesty to the unknown author of the paper in question. I acquit him of intentional untruth; that Christian character which I have neither the right nor the disposition to deny him forbids the supposition. I should rather suppose, that, being deeply convinced of two resurrections, on the authority of others, he inaccu rately retailed their arguments, Had he arrived at his conclusion by a process of argument carried on in his own mind, and had he given us this argument in his paper, I feel assured that he never would have fallen into the errors I have thought it my duty to point out. I think the appearance of so inaccurate a production in the First Number of a periodical publication, intended to enlighten the country on the most important subjects of prophecy, and the future expecta tions of the church of Christ, ought to produce much more caution both in writers and readers on the subject. Men begin to be teachers on both sides of that very difficult subject, when they have, in truth, only commenced being learners: and when they can scarcely be said to have acquired the alphabet of prophetical language. They write pamphlets, and even books, for and against, as if the whole arcana of futurity had been set before them. It would be well, if men could be kept from jumping suddenly to conclusions, and then seeking for arguments to support them, and would be led, in a candid and unprejudiced spirit, to examine deliberately the language of Scripture,-make themselves acquainted with the nice shades of its expressions, and become qualified to compare its wisely adjusted phraseology. I will only add, if Christian men were more inclined thus to "wait upon the Lord," looking to the word of God, and not the word of man, how much light might we expect to see rise upon the church; and how much unity and Christian fellowship prevail amongst men! AN UNPREJUDICED INQUIRER FAMILY SERMONS.-No. CCLV*. P Rom. xii. 12.-Rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation, continuing instant in prayer. THE text, if you will hear it and obey it, will furnish you with some important lessons: and with this view it is my purpose to discourse upon it; to draw out of it, by God's assistance, such directions as may instruct you to live the rest of your days with more comfort and • This discourse is taken, with a slight abridgment, from Archdeacon Bather's second volume of Sermons, just published. See Review. less disappointment; and such admonitions as may help you to make improvement of every thing, to avoid snares on all sides, to overcome your sinful appetites and habits, and to grow in grace and godliness. For these purposes, go on your way, "rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation, continuing instant in prayer.” I. And first" Rejoicing in hope." You would all rejoice and be happy if you knew how; and assuredly it was in order to your happiness that God created you: but you have gone the wrong road. Some have houses and possessions, and wives, and children, and friends and worldly goods in abundance; and you say, perhaps, these shall be our rejoicing. And the wise man glories "in his wisdom, and the mighty man glories in his might, and the rich man in his riches." But these things "make themselves wings and fly away." Or something which befals you, as a bodily sickness, or a cross in some particular, takes away your power of enjoying them. Or, after a little more experience of them, your liking for them and pleasure in them dies of itself-dies a natural death; for you find that they are but vain, incapable of filling your minds, so that you want something else still. And even when you have obtained what you desired, you are no nearer; for this also is vanity like the rest; and "what profit hath he who hath laboured for the wind ?" You must labour, therefore, for something better, and set your af fections on something more substantial. You must rejoice in something worthier to excite your joy; and, if so, must rise above this world altogether. "In heart and mind you must thither ascend, whither your Saviour Christ is gone before ;" and rejoice, not in what you now have, (from devotion to that you must disentangle yourselves), but in "the hope of eternal life to be had hereafter." For the possessions which you have in this life, little more can be |
