"honour, and corruption, fhall be raised in power and glory, in incorruption: that which "was formerly a natural body, fhall then be a fpiritual body," 1 Cor. xv. 42, 43, 44. Now, if the bodies of the Martyrs are not raised with thefe qualifications, the fcripture doctrine of the refurrection is contradicted. But if they are raised with these qualifications, the martyrs will have no occafion for, nor find a relish in those earthly bleffings which the Millenarians have treasured up for them.-If it be faid, that they are changed only in part by the first resurrection, and shall undergo a fecond change at the general refurrection, that opinion likewise contra dicts the fcripture; for, "It is appointed unto all men once to die," Heb. ix. 27. but the martyrs would undergo a change fimilar to death twice. Further the Apoftle comprehends all that undergo any change by the general refurrection in two claffes; first, such as are raised from their graves; and fecondly, fuch as are then living on earth, who shall undergo a change fimilar to death. Now, if the martyrs are not included in the first clafs, they certainly are not in the fecond; for the Apoftle expressly declares, that they who fhould be changed are fuch as had not fleeped, 1 Cor. xv. 51. which cannot apply to the raised martyrs. In a word, the fcriptures represent the refurrection of the juft, as performed fuddenly. "In "a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the laft trump, (for the trumpet shall found, and "the dead fhall be raised incorruptible, and "we shall be changed);" 1 Cor. xv. 52. But this representation can by no means accord with the doctrine which makes the day of judgment to continue a thoufand years, and part of the just to be raised at the beginning, the reft at the end of that period. There are only two objections that deserve to be examined, against a figurative explication of the firft refurrection. One is taken from these words: "But the rest of the dead lived not a"gain until the thousand years were finished," Rev. xx. 5. on which Daubuze obferves, "The "words here, the rest of the dead, fhew that the "perfons before mentioned, as dead and living "again, were really dead." For if they were not, what occafion was there to fay, the rest of the dead? "Here is plainly an oppofition, or "rather exception, which admits of no equi"vocation, out of a rule or affertion which "must be of the fame kind; or elfe what need " is there of fuch exception." The force of this objection is clearly and candidly stated by Newton. "If the martyrs rife only in a fpiri"tual fenfe; then the reft of the dead rise only "in a fpiritual fenfe; but if the rest of the "dead really rife, the martyrs rise in the fame "manner." (1) Daubuze on the Rev. p. 568; "manner'." I allow the ground of this argument to be perfectly juft, that the living martyrs are opposed to the "reft of the dead," and muft be taken in the fame fenfe, whether literal or figurative. But whereas Daubuze, Newton and others, take the phrase, "reft of the dead" in a literal fenfe, I think these are forcible reafons for taking it in a figurative sense. First, The reft (s) of the dead, refer to chap. xix 21. "the remnant (o) who were "flain with the fword of him who fat upon "the horse, which fword proceeded out of his "mouth." The remnant there can be no other than perfons having the fpirit of Antichrift, who were not deftroyed either by the battle of Armageddon, or the wars consequently upon it, but were worn out by the prevailing power of the gofpel, and fó remained during the thoufand years dead; i. e. the spirit was extinct, and incapable of making any oppofition to the truth; but at the end of the thousand years, as Satan was loofed, fo the spirit of Antichrift formerly extinguished, then revived, stirring up new troubles in oppofition to the truth. Secondly, That "the reft of the dead," cannot apply, as Newton and others contend, to all mankind, except the martyrs raised at the general refurrection, is evident from this, that the general (1) Differt. on Prophecy, p. 333. general refurrection does not take place immediately after the thousand years are finished. finished. "A "little feafon," intervenes, Rev. xx. 3. It may be called little, in comparison with the period immediately preceding, in which the martyrs reigned, and fo may include fome centuries: at any rate, the events which take place during that season, as the going forth of Satan to deceive the nations,-his gathering of them from the four corners of the earth,-the preparation for and invasion of the church by Gog and his followers, together with their destruction, neceffarily require a confiderable period of time for their accomplishment. If, therefore, you take "the reft of the dead" in a literal fenfe, it is not true, that they lived immediately after the thoufand years were finished. But if you take the phrafe in a figurative sense, it is strictly true, that those who were flain by the sword of him that fat on the horse, revived immediately after the thousand years were finished, in persons of a fimilar temper and difpofition; fuch are Gog and his followers. The second objection of the Millenarians, is taken from thefe words: "This is the first resur"rection," Rev. xx. 5, on which Daubuze argues. "It is by all allowed, that the second "refurrection is of bodies; and if fo, why not "alfo the first, fince both are expressed in the 3 G "like "like terms ".""We should be cautious and "tender (fays Newton) of making the first refur"rection an allegory, left others fhould reduce "the fecond into an allegory too."" In answer I would obferve, that the fcriptures frequently mention the fecond or new birth. The first birth is of the body. Is it neceffary that the fecond fhould be fo too? Will any man acquainted with the fcriptures, put the question now which Nicodemus formerly propofed to our Lord? How can a man be born when he is "old? Can he enter the fecond time into his "mother's womb, and be born," John iii. 4. The fecond birth is doubtlefs an allegory. But does it follow, that the first birth is an allegory too? The fcriptures mention the fecond death: now the first death is that of the body. But is it neceffary that we understand the fecond death of the body only? Does it affect the body in the fame manner, by putting it in a state of infenfibility and putrefaction?-The terms first and fecond, are used in fcripture to diftinguish fubjects, which are in some respects fimilar, but in others are very different, left we should mistake the one for the other; and fo the term "firft refurrection" is used here, to fhew that this part of the prophecy does not defcribe fuch a change as fhall (1) Daubuze on the Rev. p. 568. |
