CHAPTER XIV.

THE DOCTRINE OF TWO RESURRECTIONS.

IT is very generally held that there are two resurrections of the literally dead, differing in time and quality; the first, of the righteous, to a state of happiness; the second, of the wicked, to a state of misery.

I deem this doctrine erroneous for many reasons, among which are the following:

1. The fifteenth chapter of first Corinthians is a professed dissertation upon the subject of the resurrection; and probably the chapter contains as much of matter directly relating to that subject as does all the rest of the New Testament. Yet in the whole chapter, not the least intimation is given of there being but one sort of resurrection. It is "the resurrection of the dead" in general, of which the Apostle treats throughout the chapter.

2. The Epistles of Paul make up about twosevenths of the New Testament; yet in no part of all these, any more than in the chapter just named, is the least mention made of there being more resurrections than one. It may indeed be claimed, and with some degree of plausibility, that, in a couple of passages from his pen, the two-resurrection doctrine is taught by implication; yet a perhaps troublesome question may probably intrude

itself: If the great apostle had believed in two resurrections, would he not as much as once have stated the doctrine in express terms?

But the common doctrine of two resurrections is not even implied, in the writings of Paul, as we shall soon see from an examination of the two texts above alluded to.

In the Epistle to the Hebrews we are told of "a better resurrection," which of course implies an other of a less desirable quality. But the doctrine under examination is not recognised in this text; since its less desirable resurrection is plainly a bringing back to life in this world. Says the writer, "Women received their dead raised to life again; and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection." A better resurrection than what one? Obviously, than the one he had just mentioned.

In the first part of the text above cited, the writer doubtless alludes to the raising of certain children to life, and the restoring of them to their mothers, by the two prophets, Elijah and Elisha.2 In the last part, the allusion is not so manifest; but perhaps it is to certain persons mentioned in the Apocrypha as having been tortured to death for their adherence to the Jewish religion?3

The other text from Paul in which it may be thought that the two-resurrection doctrine is taught by implication, is that one where we read that "the dead in Christ shall rise first." Yet any one, by consulting the passage, may perceive, unmistakably, that no second rising of any dead is there implied; since the contrast is not between the dead in Christ and some other class of dead,

1 Hebrew xi. 35.

21 Kings xvii. 17-24; 2 Kings iv. 32-37.

3 2 Maccabees vii. 9-36; xiv. 46.

but between the dead there mentioned and some others who, at a certain period, were to be "alive;" "The dead in Christ shall rise first: then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up," &c.1 It is apparent, then, that

The common doctrine of two resurrections receives no support from the testimony of the Apostle to the Gentiles, so far as the same may be gathered from his numerous Epistles.

3. In accordance with the foregoing, is the fact that this same apostle, when arraigned before the Roman governor Felix, testifies of having "hope toward God .... that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust." In this text, so far from saying any thing of two resurrections, the one of the just, and the other of the unjust, he puts the word anastasis in the singular number, and then tells us that it includes "both" the classes mentioned, which is to say, the just and the unjust taken together. "There shall be a resurrection " are his words "both of the

just and unjust."

4. Our Lord, in his conversation with the Sadducees upon the resurrection, makes no mention of more resurrections than one. This he denominates "the resurrection of the dead"—not of the righteous dead, nor of any particular class of dead whatever, but" of the dead" - a fact not easily accounted for on the supposition that He recog nized two literal resurrections for the literally dead.

It may be replied to this, that, according to Luke, the resurrection our Lord taught in his conversation with the Sadducee Doctors, was for those only "who shall be accounted worthy;" which lan

11 Thes. iv. 16, 17.

2 Acts xxiv. 15.

guage implies that others shall not be thus accounted; and from this it may be argued that for these last there is to be an other resurrection. I answer,

The language above quoted indeed implies that at some time some shall not be accounted worthy; but it by no means implies that this shall be the case always. If, however, it were a fact that this implied unworthiness were even declaredly perpetual, the claiming of any resurrection at all for such unworthy persons, is the last thing that should be thought of; since the worthiness mentioned has particular reference to rising or not rising. "To be, or not to be," &c.

Christ's words are as follows, according to the Common Version:

"The children of this world". in the present mode of being

which is to say, mankind "marry," &c.; "but those who 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 to [or 'like'] the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection." Luke xx. 34-36.

be ac

Now, if some of our race shall never counted worthy to obtain that world and the resurrection" taught by Christ, they must, for aught that appears, be never inhabitants of any other world than this; and they must either perish at death, or, if raised at all, must be the subjects of a Pharisaic resurrection, that is, to a state of mor tality on this earth. For not being "the children" of the Christian resurrection, they can not be "children of God;" they can not be "equal to [or like] angels," that is, spiritual beings; nor does the passage affirm concerning the unworthy, that they do not marry. Indeed, the declaration, "Neither can they die any more," is made concerning none

but the worthy; hence it is a necessary inference that if any shall remain eternally unworthy to obtain what our Lord here mentions, they will either cease to exist at death, as was believed by the Sadducees; or else they will die, and be born, and live, and marry, and die, and so on, like as the Pharisees believed, ad indefinitum.

Either, therefore, the doctrine of the Pharisees, or of the Sadducees, is the true one: or else, as certainly as Jesus of Nazareth held the true doctrine, all our race will be accounted worthy to obtain the things mentioned by Him, in due time.

The foregoing remarks upon the expression, "those who shall be accounted worthy," &c., are made upon the admission, for the time being, that the rendering in the Common Version is correct. That it is so, however, as to the tense of the verb in the phrase here given, is considerably more than doubtful. (See Chap. xxvii.)

There is one other text to be considered in this connection the text which mentions "the resurrection of the just."

Those accustomed to consider the two-resurrection doctrine as certainly taught in the Scriptures, will, from the force of that preconception alone, be altogether likely to suppose that in the text alluded to a separate resurrection for the unjust is certainly implied; yet the language of the text does not necessarily imply any such thing. Quite as natural an implication, is, that the species of resurrection there intended is of the nature of a reward, and therefore for the just alone.

A resurrection or rising, in the Scriptures, is not always from a state of literal death. Simeon said to the mother of Jesus, "Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel." 1

1 Luke ii. 34.