Imágenes de páginas

the whole jury would be composed of none but warm and attached friends; and that the judge himself, would have the kindest and strongest sympathies in your favor, you would have strong hope in being able to stand. You know how love blinds the soul to faults, and turns even opposing evidence to its own account. In such a case mercy is almost sure to “triumph over judgment. But have you any hope of anything like this, that will serve you at the DAY OF JUDGMENT? None. True, He who will be the Judge on that day is Love, and is full of the tenderest redemptive mercy now. But whilst no change will have taken place in His nature, He will, then, notwithstanding, appear and act as the inexorably Just One. Hear what His language will be then :-“Because I called, and ye refused,” &c. "Bring these mine enemies," &c. “ Depart from me ye cursed,” &c. Hear what He Himself says concerning His feelings, and those of His friends, on that Great day, towards the ungodly.

“ He that is ashamed of me,” &c. Another thing which may serve your purpose and enable you to stand in the case supposed is :





VI. AN ABILITY SIGNAL SERVICE TO THE STATE. Suppose that you had, by some heroic campaign hurled back from your country's shores the advancing tide of a terrible invasion ; or, by some scientific discovery given a new impulse to the industry of the population, and introduced a new and bright era into commerce :-in such a case you might have hope of being able to stand in trial. Though found guilty, your past services would be felt to be such a set-off, as would obtain for you an acquittal, or at any rate reduce your punishment to a mere nominal thing. But have you anything like this to serve you at the Day OF JUDGMENT ? Have you any hope of being able to show that you have been of service to the aniverse ? No! no! You will feel then, that the universe would have been better off, had you never existed.—Had you never thought, never spoken, never acted, never been, there

[merged small][ocr errors]

would have existed less crime and less misery in the creation.

There is but one other conceivable thing which could serve your purpose and enable you to stand in the case supposed, and that is :




Were it conveyed to you, on convincing evidence, that some one had been negociating, on your behalf with the sovereign whose prerogative it is to arrest the course of law, and that in consequence of his services, though you would on the day of trial, be known to have committed the crime for which you are charged, you would assuredly be let free ;-in such a case I conceive, you might look forward with calmness to the day of trial, and feel that you could stand. Now, have you any thing like this, in relation to the DAY OF JUDGMENT? If not, there is no hope for any of you being able to stand. Thank God! there is something like this. On the pages of the Bible I find written in sunbeams, that in consequence of what Christ has done, and is willing to do, for us as sinners, we may escape the sad consequences of our sins, and stand triumphantly in the Day of Judgment. Paul, in consequence of his connexion with Christ, hailed with a jubilant heart the Judgment;"Who is he that condemneth?" &c. Peter looked for the “hastening of the day of God?” &c. John's deepest aspiration was, “ Lord Jesus, come quickly." All who vitally believe in the personal Christ have felt the same.

“ Bold shall I stand in that great day;
For who ought to my charge can lay ?
Fully through Thee absolved I am
From sin and fear, from guilt and shame.”

Theological Notes and Queries.



[The utmost freedom of independent thought is permitted in this department. The reader must therefore use his own discriminating faculties, and the Editor must be allowed to claim freedom from responsibility.]


(3) it is a direct contradiction of what is said by the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews, xi. 39 ;

“And these all having obtained a REPLICANT. In answer to QUER- good report through faith received IST L. C.; p. 590, vol. VIII. not the promises." This was I. Concerning Elijah and Moses.

affirmed of all the parties preWhatever hypothesis may be en

viously named by the writer;tertained should at least be con

“ Samuel and the prophets inclusistent with certified facts. In so

ded. There was no exception far as any hypothesis may con

made in favor of Elijah; his being tradict any of these, it must be

translated going for nothing; -for regarded as false. Now it is cer

so also was Enoch whois mentioned. tified that Christ was “the first

Moses also is expressly named. that rose from the dead;" Acts

Neither of these two celebrities, xxvi. 23. “The first-born among

therefore, had then “obtained the many brethren;" Rom. viii. 29. promises ;” and ver. 40 shows that • The first fruits of them that

they are not to receive them until slept." 1 Cor. xx. 23. “The first

the saints of the Christian disborn from the dead ;" Col. i. 18.

pensation also receive them ; “The first-begotten of the dead ;"

which is not before the resurRey. i. 5.

rection. The hypothesis of the resurrec

Yet is it not clear that both tion of Moses's body directly con

Moses and Elijah were then in a tradicts the fact stated in the

state of conscious existence, and above passages, and must, there

had even then attained to a higher fore, be rejected.

state of being than their former

And is not this If, by “the glorified body and earthly state ? spirit of Elijah” L. C. means that

one argument in favor of the docElijah had even then received the

trine of a state of conscious exis“glory of the sons of God," this

tence between death and the re. is (1) a contradiction of what he surrection; and, for the saints, a afterwards affirms—That wherever

state of blessed existence a higher that glory or future blessedness

development of being than beof the saints is spoken of it is

longs to this life, yet lower than with reference to a time subsequent

the “glory to be revealed ?" to the resurrection ; (2) it is a II. Concerning the thief who contradiction of the passages he on the cross asked Jesus to recites in support of that statement; member him, &c., I have to remark, (1) that Christ's answer to the thief is not fully given by L. C. For whereas he represents Jesus as saying to the thief • Thou shalt be with me in paradise; what Jesus in fact said was, To-day shalt thou be with me in paradise.” Intentional or unintentional the omission is significant. (2) That Jesus Christ should be allowed to be the best judge whether or not it would be proper to use the terms “thou' and “me” with a reference only to the Spirits of Himself and the thief; and further that if, as L. C. says,

" that which God breathed into the frame of dust was not Adam; but that body after God had breathed into it became the Adam ;” then it was not enough that L. C. should have said “the spirit alone is not the thouthe man ;" he should have said “the spirit is not the man at all—the body is the man: ” for granting what he says, the spirit is not even a part of the man.

III. But what was the penitent sinner's prayer? and what was Christ's reply ? (1) The prayer was “ Lord remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.” (2) The answer was “Verily I say unto thee, To-day shalt thou be with me in paradise.” (1) The petition is understood as a prayer to be admitted into the kingdom of Christ when He comes into His kingdom. (2) The answer is understood as an assurance to the suppliant that his prayer was granted. (1) Christ " will come into his kingdom ” at the resurrection. (2) The promise was equivalent, therefore, to an assurance that the thief would receive the resurrection unto life eternal, and an entrance into the kingdom of our Lord-then. But

IV. How was this assurance given? It was given in the pledge, • To-day shalt thou be with me

in Paradise.” This, therefore, was to the thief the pledge that at Christ's coming he would be “remembered,” i e. received into th: kingdom. The pledge was that they two should be together, THAT DAY, in PARADISE.

Now this they either were; or, the promise was false. Their bodies were not in Paradise that day; Christ's body was in Joseph's tomb, but Paradise is in the third heaven; (2 Cor. xii. 2–4.) and their bodies were not together at all; Jesus was dead some time before the thief, and his body was taken away. Their bodies being separated, and not being in Paradise, how then were they together in Paradise, if it was not that their spirits were together in Paradise on that day? Since their bodies certainly were not together in Paradise, either their spirits were, or, Christ's promises was false. And whatever Paradise may be conceived to be, it must, at least, be something, the being in which, after death, would constitute to the thief a real pledge that when Christ comes into His kingdom he shall be “ remembered,” or admitted. Now the mere fact of dying on the same day with Christ would not secure this ; the other thief and hundreds besides did the saine ;-but was this to them an assurance of admission into His kingdom ?

If there was a state common to all the dead, their being in that state together would constitute no such pledge, unless Christ's entering into that state insured for all the dead an entrance into the kingdom when He comes : but He himself assures us that when He comes the wicked shall be banished from the kingdom.

If there be a state of existence between death and the resurrection peculiar to those of the dead, who shall finally be received

into the kingdom, a state of con- been separate from their bodies, scious, and blessed, though still and together in Paradise ;-and as unperfected, being, and if this to what that implies, see under IV. state be called Paradise, then, the Equally explicit is Rev. v. 8, fact of the thief being in that state and sequel ; and also Rev. vi. 9, immediately after death, would -11. (1) The persons are evicertainly be to him the very dently of the dead. This is easily highest pledge that Christ will seen from the entire scope of chap. remember him when He comes v.; while in chap. vi. 10, it is disinto His kingdom.

Is not this tinctly stated that they are “the the most natural way of under- souls of them that were slain for standing the facts of the case ? the word of God," &c. (2) They

Besides, since Paradise denotes are in a state of intense cona place of enjoyment, why should sciousness; as is clear from the it have been used by Christ to entire transactions:--from their designate a state of total un- singing, v, 9, &c.; their crying, vi. consciousness ? See 2 Cor. xii. 10. (3) These transactions belong 1-4.

to a period in their existence

(after their death and) before the y. As to the statement, "where resurrection. In v. 10 they say, there is total unconsciousness," "and we shall reign on the earth”&c., I remark (1) such state of plainly indicating that their reign unconsciousness is not a revealed was not yet begun; and in vi. 10. fact; it is only a theoretical their cry is—“How long. O Lord, assumption. (2) As a theoretical dost thou not judge and avenge assumption it is open to debate our blood on them that dwell on on philosophical ground. (3) It the earth ? " “And it was said is open to direct denial on the to them (ver. 11) that they ground of Scripture; as being it- should rest yet for a [little] seaself the denial of what is in son until their fellow servants Scripture, both plainly implied

also and their brethren that should and revealed, viz., a state of con- be killed as they were, should be scious existence between death fulfilled ;"—showing most clearly and the resurrection.

that the earth was still in its pro

bationary period; that the resurVI. L. C. says, “In the absence rection was not yet come, when of explicit testimony as to the these things were being enacted ; separate . . . existence . . it and thus clearly and explicitly appears to me to be presumptuous bearing testimony to the conscious to assume it."

existence of the souls of dead men Note (1). Does it not appear between their death and resurto him equally presumptuous to rection. assume a state of “total uncon- The passages mentioned by sciousness” unsupported by any L. C. prove that the “kingdom" testimony at all ? (2) The “ab- is not to be received before the sence of explicit testimony” is resurrection; but they prove noitself altogether an assumption. thing in regard to Paradise, or Scarcely could anything be more the state between death and the explicit than the words of Christ, resurrection,-except Rev. v. 7; "To-day shalt thou be with me which clearly does not belong to in Paradise.” Their bodies, I re- the class of passages amongst peat, were not in Paradise; clearly, which he places it. It belongs to therefore, their spirits must have the class bearing that explicit

« AnteriorContinuar »