« PreviousContinue »
consolation of knowing that Jesus can sympathize with us in all our temptations, from having been a partaker of the infirmities of our nature. They destroy his Mediatorship, inasmuch as they do not make him unite in one person the Godhead, and the creature which was opposed to its Creator; but the Creator, and a creature which was not opposed to its Creator, and consequently which needed no reconciliation or at-one-ment ;-a heresy similar to those first heresies against the person of our Immanuel which brought down God's wrath upon the Eastern church, now apostate.
They deny that the office of the Holy Ghost was to preserve the human nature of Jesus sinless; for they assert that his human nature was essentially sinless, without any sustentation of the Holy Ghost at all: whence they deny the office of the Holy Ghost to preserve our bodies and souls in conformity to God's will; forasmuch as the Holy Ghost can do nothing in the members of a body which he does not do primarily in their head: and hence, too, the life of Christ ceases to be any example for our imitation.
They deny the doctrine of Justification by Faith alone, as it was taught by our Reformers; calling the expression of Luther in bis Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, and cited by Mr. Irving in his Sermons on the Last Days, as Antinomian and they have invented some new notions, about what they call "fruits," which are to be joined with Christ's righteousness before the soul of the sinner is to be at peace with God: as we have shewn in their review of Dr. Malan's tract "Theogenes."
They deny that Christ is the King of kings, the Lord of lords, and only Ruler of princes; and that all earthly sovereigns are his viceroys, ruling in his name, under his authority, over his people, and for his church; and that the powers that be are ordained of God and they teach that religion has nothing to do with politics; that the people are the source of power; and that God's power either has nothing to do with the prosperity of states, or else that HE prospers a nation of infidels, and of apostates from Christ, such as Socinians and Papists, as much as He does a nation of Christians.
They deny that the whole creation is interested in the incarnation and death of Christ; and assert that that work was undertaken only for elect men: as we have also shewn in their review of Mr. Erskine's treatise on the Freeness of the Gospel.
At length their infidel apostasy seems to have reached its height, and they are all in open and undisguised rebellion against the universal monarchy of Christ Jesus; teaching the people that the doctrine of his reign upon earth is "a mere human crudity of modern invention !!!
Yet, in the midst of all these heresies, so great is their self
delusion that they surpass the publications which are openly irreligious in vanity, self-conceit, and arrogance.
The Congregational Magazine says "it is the spiritual part of the periodical press:" this claim shall not be denied; but if it be true, then the unspiritual part is more learned, more orthodox, more diffident; less personal, less abusive, and less coarse, than the spiritual.
The Eclectic Review says "it is the only journal which unites religion and literature !!!" There is probably none, with so large a circulation, so devoid of both at one and the same time.
The Evangelical implores its readers never to hear the preaching or read the books of any persons who speak of their coming Lord; beseeches them not to" desert their old pastors; and applauds works which contain Pelagianism and Sabellianism, provided they oppose the doctrine of the kingdom of Christ.
These are your gods, O Israel! These are the avowed organs of Evangelicalism amongst the Dissenters of England! These are the works which say to all the authorized ecclesiastical authorities in the land, "Stand by, for we are holier than thou!"
TO THE EDITOR OF THE MORNING WATCH*.
MR. EDITOR,-In offering the following remarks on the communication of W. D. in your first number, it is proper to premise that I am, on the authority of Scripture, a firm believer in the doctrine of a first resurrection of the saints. At the same time, I feel anxious that no questionable proofs should be resorted to for its establishment: and an impression that this is the case with respect to some of the observations of your correspondent, induces me to offer this paper. The result cannot, I imagine, be without advantage, whether it lead, on his part, to the withdrawal of some of his arguments as not sufficiently valid; or, on the part of your readers, which I sincerely wish, to their more satisfactory adoption. My remarks I offer with great diffidence; especially as I have but a small library at command for reference.
1. The first thing I would notice is the inadvertence of W. D. in quoting inaccurately the expressions he wishes to distinguish. These he gives as, ή αναστασις εκ των νεκρων, and ἡ αναστασις των
We have received several letters of remarks on the paper by W. D. in our first Number. We insert one. But all our correspondents direct their attention to the article, whereas the force of W. D.'s argument depends on the preposition; and its insertion, whether separately as a preposition or in composition, may not, we think, be disregarded by an accurate interpreter of Scripture.-ED.
DEKOWY. Now, if the books I have referred to may be trusted, the expression εK TWV VEKPWV only occurs twice in the whole Testament; namely, Coloss. i, 18, and Rev. i. 5*; and then it follows πρωτοτοκος, and not αναστασις: and αναστασις των νεκρων does not occur at all. We have always αναστασις εκ νεκρών, οι αναστασις νεκρων. Now I do not think this at all immaterial, although it may at first appear so. For even if it be allowed that εκ των νεκρων means from out of the dead," it does not at all follow that εK VEкpwv has the same meaning. At least this last is a point which well merits the attention of your correspondent, in order clearly to establish it. On the contrary, I would venture to suggest, that EK VEKOV is properly translated "from being dead," or, "from a state of death;" and that the Greek idiom, in the use of the preposition EK, properly admits of this interpretation, if it does not require it. I need hardly remind your correspondent of classical examples of this: we have one Soph. Trach. ver. 283, εξ ολβίων αζηλον ευρουσαι βιον : and we have two still more to the point in the New Testament; Romans vi. 13, WS EK VEKρwv Zwvraç, "as alive from the dead;" and Rom. xi. 15, ζωη εκ νεκρων, "life from the dead." Now in either of these cases I do not think the article would be admissible with the same sense and its omission, therefore, in the expressions now under consideration, allows me at least to translate them in the same way as these; which at once does away with any argument from them, even supposing both translations allowable. Your correspondent evidently wishes to give & its well-known meaning of choice; and in the case before us that choice is out of certain persons, called VEKOOL: but am I mistaken in saying that in this case the Greek idiom positively requires the article; and that "from out of the dead" would not be made properly by ɛK VEкρwv, but by εκ των νεκρων ;
Hence I do not think that in the only two places where EK TWV VEKOWY occurs-namely, Coloss. i. 18, and Rev. i. 5-the full force is given in our translation; for EK TWV VεKρWV here depends on "first," and not on "begotten "-on the πρωτος in TOWTоTOKOS-that is, & has properly the meaning of choice; and therefore veкpwv, as specifying from whom the choice is made, has the article. Whereas, in re-translating the English version of these passages, "first begotten from the dead," it would be most natural to say πρωτότοκος εκ νεκρων : as we have αναστασις
It may be objected, that with the sense which I adopt for εκ νεκρών, εκ νεκρου ought to be used when speaking of one person : but I believe the Greek will be found to admit equally of the agreement of VERPOS with the person spoken of, understood; and of its
* Griesbach in this passage rejects the ɛ.
being used in the neuter for a state or condition; and it is in this phraseological way, I apprehend, that it is used by the sacred writers, as a term commonly understood. Before I leave this part I must observe, that, notwithstanding these remarks, I do not consider the passage in Luke xx. 27, &c., as giving no express countenance to a first resurrection. The phrase "children of the resurrection," compared with Rev. xx. is very strong. But, besides this, the whole passage bears on it, in this way :It may, I think, be shewn that the av EKELVOS, "that age," refers to the dispensation of the Millennium, or thousand years: Christ therefore seems to have added the words τns EK VEкpwv, first, to shew that the resurrection which shall synchronize with the opening of this dispensation will be a positively literal resurrection from the dead; and secondly, to prevent the Sadducees from availing themselves of any ambiguity in the word avaσraois. But in this case the inference cannot be avoided, that the first resurrection is a literal one. It is rather remarkable, that in Acts iv. 2 the expression TηY EK VEкOWY again occurs where the Sadducees are concerned.
2. The next point which I wish to notice, is the meaning and force of earaoraos. Not having a good Greek concordance at hand, I may be mistaken in supposing it to occur, apparently, only three times-viz. Acts xxvi. 23; Rom. i. 4; Phil. iii. 11. Now, in the first passage, Acts xxvi. 23, which W. D. has not noticed, there can, I think, be no doubt that it should be written as two words-viz. & avaorασEWS (VEKρwv)—and be translated, “....he should first by a resurrection of dead shew light," &c.; to which the passage is nearly parallel, 2 Tim. i. 10; "who hath abolished death, and brought life and immortality to light." Our common version is at least very questionable.
In the second passage, Rom. i. 4 (which your correspondent does notice), though W. D. quotes it as one word, it is read in my copy as two; and there can be, I think, little doubt that this is correct. For if it be not two words, how is it governed, since it cannot be in apposition with ȧyovvns; and the Greek will certainly not admit of its standing absolutely in the genitive. It ought properly to be translated "by" or "from a resurrection of dead; " which is an expression quite general, for that wonderful fact through which fresh light was to be poured on the world, and by which Christ was declared to be the Son of God with power.
Thus far, then, it would appear, that eavaoraois does not occur in either of these two passages. In Phil. iii. 11, however, it certainly does occur; the words are, εις την εξαναστασιν των νεκρων. It does not, however, appear to me that W. D. has established his rendering of this; but rather that it is entirely assumed : whereas it ought to be clearly shewn that εξαναστασιν των νεκρών
is the same as avaσtaσiv ek twv VεKOWY: or, in other words, that των νεκρων is governed by the “εκές and not by the αναστασιν. The latter I believe to be the case, and should literally translate the words, "unto the resurrection of the dead out of The result of these observations, if valid, is important; because it shews that the passage can be claimed exclusively on neither side of the question. Some will make it "out of all the dead; others, "out of their graves, tombs, &c. ;" and others, perhaps, will simply deem it a stronger term than αναστασις.
Quere, Will any of the saints remain unraised till the end of the thousand years?-If not, where is the peculiar force of St. Paul's remarkable language in this passage, even supposing W. D.'s translation of it to be correct?
3. The next point to which I wish to advert, is the explanation given by W. D. of Dan. xii. 2. He observes, that “the Prophet makes no distinction between the resurrections; but only between their ulterior conditions." Now, if we look at the original, Daniel does make a marked distinction. The words
which I do not think can be ,וְרַבִּים מִיִּשְׁנֵי אַדְמַת־עָפָר יָקִיצוּ,are
construed any other way than thus; "And many OUT of those sleeping in the dust of the earth shall awake" implying, as clearly as possible, that all shall NOT then awake; and clearly, therefore, distinguishing two resurrections. I know some commentators easily explain it, by saying it means, they that awake shall be many:" but is not the Hebrew quite incapable of such a rendering? or rather, does it not forbid it? I confess it is a difficult passage on either of the hypotheses; for, if all do not awake, it cannot be a general resurrection: if some awake both of the righteous and the wicked, how does it agree with the description of the first resurrection, Rev.xx.? I venture one solution, without laying any stress on it. The words "some some, are in the Hebrew --literally, these and these; or, as we should say, these and those. May the verse, then, be translated "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?" I offer this with great hesitation.
Quere, Does the account of the first resurrection given by St. John allow us to suppose that any of the wicked will at that time be raised for judgment?
4. In the remark of W. D. on Acts xxiv. 15, 21, he has been betrayed into a slight inaccuracy: δικαίων τε και αδικων means, as our translators have it," both of just and unjust," and not “ of the just and also of the unjust." Such is the Greek idiom.
I trust, Mr. Editor, you will accept these remarks as offered, not in a spirit of controversy, but with a simple view to a