• Introduction - To the American Reader
• Preface to the Fifth Edition
• Author's Preface
• CHAPTER 1. Future Punishment Is Eternal.
• CHAPTER 2. Eternal Death
• CHAPTER 3. Testimony Of The Old Testament.
• CHAPTER 4. Testimony Of The New Testament.
• CHAPTER 5. The Greek Of The New Testament.
• CHAPTER 6. The Primary Sense Of Terms Vindicated.
• CHAPTER 7. The Illustrations Of Scripture.
• CHAPTER 8. The Resurrection Of The Wicked.
• CHAPTER 9. The Divine Justice.
• CHAPTER 10. The Extinction Of Evil.
• CHAPTER 11. Examination Of Particular Texts.
• CHAPTER 12. Distinctions In Future Punishment.
• CHAPTER 13. Theories Of Punishment And Christian Missions.
• CHAPTER 14. Some Objections Answered.
• CHAPTER 15. The Apostolic Fathers. Clement Of Rome.
• CHAPTER 16. Justin Martyr.
• CHAPTER 17. Irenaeus, Martyr And Bishop Of Lyons.
• CHAPTER 18. Rise Of The Theory Of Eternal Life In Hell.
• CHAPTER 19. Tertullian.
• CHAPTER 20. Rise Of The Theory Of Universal Restoration Origen.
• CHAPTER 21. Conclusion.

The Duration And Nature Of Future Punishment

Grk/Heb Fonts

PDF

Over 75 Online Commentaries

By HENRY CONSTABLE, A.M.
Prebendary of Cork

Fifth Edition - 1875

CHAPTER VIII

The Resurrection of The Wicked

WE now proceed to a very important question in connection with our subject, the resurrection of the wicked. As yet this point has not been very much discussed. It is however one of prime consequence, and must be thoroughly sifted. We will endeavour to lay it before our readers as we find it revealed in God's word. We are aware of its difficulty; but that must not deter us from its examination. We invite close and candid scrutiny into what we say, and are ready to make any alterations that criticism, whether hostile or friendly, shall show us to be called for. We fully believe that this question of resurrection, fairly and honestly discussed, will form one link in that vast accumulative line of evidence which binds us irresistibly to the belief in the final destruction of the wicked as the doctrine of God's word.

2. With Paul, we believe that there shall be "a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and of the unjust."¹ We believe that all men shall rise in their bodies to give an account of their deeds. While we know that the passages in Scripture which speak of a resurrection of the wicked are few in comparison of those which speak of the resurrection of the just; while we know that in passage after passage of Scripture which speaks of resurrection, that of the wicked is not spoken of, alluded to, or included; we also know that there are passages which teach their resurrection in the body with the same clearness and distinctness that that of the just is elsewhere spoken of. We have no sympathy with those who deny the resurrection of the wicked. We know that there are writers who hold our view of the destruction of the ungodly, who also, from a variety of alleged reasons, hold that they will never rise to judgment. We know that such writers are numerous in America, though we are scarcely aware of their existence in England. But now, once for all, we disavow any connection or sympathy with them on this point. We think their view false, and mischievous in the extreme. We hold it calculated to throw discredit upon our grand cause; and therefore to be one of the devices of Satan to hinder the progress of our truth. For ourselves, we have no doubt that the resurrection of the wicked is taught as plainly as that of the just, and that if we give up the one we may just as well give up the other.

3. But while this is our faith, we also just as firmly hold a fundamental and essential difference between the resurrection of the wicked and that of the just. We hold it to be not only that the one is raised to shame and to pain, and the other to glory and to joy; but that the one is raised to die a second time, and the other never to die any more. In other words, we believe that the bodies of the just are changed at their resurrection, then putting on incorruption and immortality, and thus becoming "spiritual bodies;" while those of the wicked are raised unchanged, not putting on at resurrection either incorruption or immortality, but still natural bodies as they were sown, resuming with their old life their old mortality, as such subject to pain, and as such sure to yield to that of which all pain is the symptom and precursor, physical death and dissolution.

4. It will be seen that we rest our conclusion of the resurrection of the wicked to mortality mainly on the supposition that no change passes on them at their resurrection. If no change passes on them then, if they are raised to punishment in the same mortal corruptible bodies which here they had, it cannot but be allowed that those bodies will and must die in hell a second time. The presence of pain is not only a token of mortality, but a producer of death. Such we know from experience. Pain, by God's ordinance, produces death here. The frame may battle long and sorely against death—the longer and the sorer in exact proportion to its physical vigour; but sooner or later pain brings the iron frame of the strongest to the release of death. So it would be, so it must be, in the scene of future woe, if the bodies of the wicked were raised unchanged. If no change passes upon them they must needs yield to the bitter pains which accompany the second death.

5. It is not merely we, or reasoners on our side, who say this. The thing is so plain to reason that our opponents insist upon it as much as we do ourselves. They are not silly enough to suppose that a "mortal body" could live for ever under any circumstances far less under those awful circumstances of pain and anguish and remorse which belong to the lost in hell. All that is mortal must yield to death even though there be no pain, as we see from the example of the lower creation: but pain, whether of body or mind, and especially when both are united, is a wonderful hastener of the solemn issue. It is so in the merciful dealing of God.

6. Accordingly our opponents insist upon a change passing upon the bodies of the lost at their resurrection. They acknowledge it freely and unreservedly as essential to their system. As the wicked are, according to them, to endure pain for ever in the body, they are just as much compelled to insist upon their having an immortal body as on their having an immortal soul. Their Christian faith has superadded to their system a difficulty which Plato did not meet. The great ardent mind of Socrates failed him when he regarded the subtle train of reasoning on which his grand theme of the soul's immortality rested but surely he would have thought of it with blank dismay, and utterly have refused to face it, had he been compelled to assert for the human body that immortality which he asserted for the soul.

7. This, however, is the very thing which our Augustinian opponents have to do. They have to prove the immortality of the body as much as of the soul. Scripture teaches the resurrection of the wicked: it teaches us that their future punishment, of whatever nature it be, is endured in the body: if then its punishment be, as no doubt it is, eternal, and if it consists in an eternal life of pain, then their bodies, thus eternally suffering, must be endowed with an immortality of being. For this purpose they must be changed at the resurrection; for in this life they are but poor frail mortal bodies, unable to resist the ceaseless sappings of time, far less able to resist the gnawing inroads of perpetual pain.

8. Accordingly, on a change of an essential kind the Augustinian theorists insist. We find them irresistibly compelled to it from the moment they began to broach their doctrine, and we find them compelled to uphold it down to our own time. "This corruptible must put on incorruption," says one of the earliest upholders of everlasting misery, Athenagoras, quoting Paul's grand words in 1 Cor. 15., "in order that those who were dead, having been made alive by the resurrection, each one may, in accordance with justice, receive what he has done by the body, whether it be good or bad."² Augustine too, though he feels sadly perplexed by what fit term to describe it, insists that a change of some kind is absolutely essential to fit the body for the endurance of endless pain. He solves his difficulty by the desperate subterfuge that there are two kinds of "incorruption," one an incorruption which is incapable of pain, that of the just, and another an incorruption which may endure the corruption of pain, that of the unjust! He too uses the language of Paul of the "corruptible putting on incorruption," though he felt compelled to explain the very extraordinary sense in which he used "incorruption" as applied to the ungodly. But the change to "incorruption" which he insisted on, while he held it to be a blessed change for the righteous, he held it to be "a change for the worse" for the wicked. What we thus see in the earlier advocates of a monstrous caricature of Divine justice we find also in its modern upholders. "The bodies of the wicked shall be so changed," says Jonathan Edwards, "as to fit them for eternal torment without corruption." Thomas Scott says: "The bodies of the wicked will be rendered incorruptible." Pollok says, "The good and evil, in a moment, all

Were changed, corruptible to incorrupt,
And mortal to immortal
Her loud, uncircumcised, tempestuous crew,
How ill-prepared to meet their God! were changed."

9. We thus see that not only does the reason of the thing necessitate, but the advocates of the Augustinian theory admit and insist upon the necessity of a change passing upon the bodies of the lost at resurrection, in order to enable then to endure eternal torment. And not only do they insist upon a change; but they also, one and all, describe the particular change required for their horrid purpose. It is the change which St. Paul in 1 Cor. 15:describes as passing upon the bodies of the redeemed at their resurrection! If our readers will turn to this grand chapter they will find the apostle giving in different parts of it descriptions of the same resurrection varying somewhat in language. The first is contained in verses 42-44: "So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: it is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: it is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body." The second description is given us in verse 53: "This corruptible must put on incorruption; and this mortal must put on immortality."

10. Any candid mind, unblinded by a cherished theory which must be maintained at all hazards, would see that these two descriptions, varying in language, are identical in sense. There is, however, one expression in the description which no Augustinian theorist, so far as we know, has ever dared to apply to the resurrection of the wicked, viz., that which describes the body as being "raised in glory." They remember Daniel's description of the wicked being raised "to shame and to contempt," and therefore dare not appropriate this description to the resurrection of the wicked. They do, however, what is just as bad and impudent. The description in verse 53 is most certainly only a more condensed form of the description in verses 42-44: in some of its most important expressions it is identical. While then they dare not because of one phrase in the former—"raised in glory"—attribute it to the resurrection of the wicked, they do dare to apply to that resurrection a description which the apostle Paul has given us as identical: they affirm of the wicked, as of the just, that their "corruptible must put on incorruption; and their mortal must put on immortality." This is the change required to fit them to endure eternal agony.

11. We have no doubt that they use this language unwillingly. We have no doubt that they wince and shrink as they apply the language of 1 Cor. 15:to the resurrection of the wicked. They would not do so if they could help it. But it is a sad necessity of their position. They have adopted a theory which demands it. They cannot uphold their theory in any other way. With inexorable claim it calls upon them to do so. To uphold a theory which perpetuates evil and pain in the world of a merciful, powerful, and just God, they must needs describe the resurrection of the wicked in the very same language in which Paul describes the resurrection of the just! We will take the liberty to examine by what right and upon what grounds they do so.

12. And, first, they all tell us that a change will pass upon the wicked at their resurrection! We ask for proof. They cannot say that there cannot be a resurrection without a change; for, unfortunately for them, there have been resurrections where no change has taken place. All the resurrections before that of Christ were such. He was the "first fruits from the dead," because in the case of others raised before him no change from mortality took place. They cannot say that there cannot be a resurrection followed by death; for, again, the cases of Jairus' daughter, and the widow's son, and Lazarus, would confront and confound them; for all these, after they were raised, died again. We ask them for proof that the bodies of the wicked will undergo any change at their resurrection. We ask for proof in vain.

13. There is but one passage in Scripture which directly states that a change will take place in the body at the resurrection. ³ It is where Paul says "the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed." Do our opponents say that Paul here includes the wicked? They must do so if they would bring forward from Scripture any direct assertion that they will be changed. Which of them will come forward and maintain that Paul speaks in this chapter of any resurrection but that of the just? We challenge proof. A few words we will here say why we hold that in this chapter Paul speaks only of the resurrection of the just, and does not include or hint in the remotest degree at that of the wicked.

14. That Paul might speak of the resurrection without including in his mention of it any idea whatever of the wicked is quite plain from the fact that such mention is very usual in Scripture. Our Lord Himself has given the example.⁴ In fact, as we have already stated, when resurrection is spoken of in Scripture, it is only the resurrection of the just that is spoken of, except in such places as expressly mention that of the wicked. If we had not such exceptional passages, we would never suppose from the Bible that there would be any resurrection of the wicked, and it is on this fact that the deniers of the resurrection of the unjust must mainly depend for their erroneous opinion. But most certainly the passages of Scripture which, speaking of resurrection, include that of the wicked, are the exception, not the rule. We believe it will be found that wherever the resurrection is simply spoken of, and invariably where, when thus spoken of, the Greek article is prefixed, it will be found that the resurrection of the just is the only idea present to the mind of the inspired writers.

15. A sufficient reason for this is found in what we have no doubt to be the truth of Scripture, viz., that the only resurrection which is a fruit of redemption is the resurrection of the just. This is a most important question in the present controversy and we will therefore attend to it for a short time.

16. To raise the dead to life is not in itself any more the fruit of Christ's redemption than any other miracle. This we know from the fact that the resurrection of our Lord Himself was the "first fruits" from the dead, produced by His redeeming work.⁵ Such resurrections therefore as that of Lazarus, or Jairus' daughter, were no more the fruits of redemption than was the dividing of the Red Sea by Moses, the raising of the Shunamite's child by Elijah, or the care of the paralytic by Christ Himself. They were works of power attending a messenger from God, if you will, figuring redemption, but certainly not a fruit of redemption. If they were, it would not be true that Christ's resurrection was the first fruits of them that slept. If then there was resurrection before Christ rose which was not a fruit of His redemption, it is quite plain that there may be resurrection after He has risen which will not be any more than the former the fruit of His redemption.

17. But we have from our Lord's own lips the positive declaration of the connection between Himself as Redeemer and the work of resurrection.⁶ Martha expresses her belief in the resurrection of all alike, good and bad, at the last day. Such was the opinion of most of her people, derived from the prophecy of Daniel and other parts of the Old Testament; and such belief she probably gave expression to here. Christ had just told her that her brother would rise again. In her reply she evidently takes it as a mere matter of course that it would take place at the last day. When all would alike rise, of course her brother would rise with the rest. She does not seem to have thought that Christ, as Redeemer, had any thing in especial to do with resurrection. But Christ proceeds to teach her the close relation in which He, as Redeemer, stood to resurrection: He was its cause, its source, its very self: without Him, there would not be resurrection: in Him, by Him, through Him, from Him, and Him alone, the resurrection was to spring—I am the resurrection."

18. He tells Martha to look upon Him, the Redeemer, the Christ, as the fount of resurrection. Such a thing as she spoke of was not to be hoped for away from Him. Put Him away: suppose Him not come: imagine His work unaccomplished: and the dark shadow of death would never be lifted from the face of the sleeping dead. But of what resurrection did He thus proclaim Himself the source? The resurrection of life.

19. "I am the, resurrection and the life." Here is that of which, as Redeemer, He is source. The resurrection procured by Him is to life, and not to death. Resurrection, as a fruit of redemption, is one with, identical with, inseparable from, life. Christ does not here connect Himself as Redeemer (for it is in His capacity of Redeemer He is speaking,) with any resurrection except a resurrection of life, and that life an eternal one. (26 5.) In fact, if we connect the resurrection of the wicked with redemption as its source, we will find it extremely difficult, if not absolutely impossible, to deny Origen's theory of universal restoration, or at least that modified view which Mr. Birks has presented in his "History of Divine Goodness."⁷ But the Saviour, who has connected the resurrection to life with Himself as His work of redemption, has elsewhere expressly guarded us against such an idea by telling us that it is only some, and not all, who shall partake of the "resurrection of life."⁸

20. What our Lord in the place just referred to teaches, viz., that it is not the resurrection of all men, but only the resurrection of His people, which is a fruit of redemption, is also apparent from other Scriptures. There can be no doubt that "the resurrection of the dead," or rather "from among the dead," spoken of by Paul to the Philippian church,9 "was that resurrection of which Christ as Redeemer was the source. If Christ as our Redeemer procured the resurrection of all men alike, whether they were good or evil, there could be no doubt but that Paul, like all others, would obtain it. There could be no question as to his obtaining it. Whether it were desired or dreaded, it would as a matter of course be bestowed. But this is not at all the light in which Paul regarded it, or teaches us to regard it. He tells us it is a thing which may, or may not, be obtained: which man must strive for if he would obtain. The resurrection, then, procured by Christ as Redeemer, is not the resurrection of all men, it is only that of His people.

21. We are taught the same truth elsewhere. "The quickening of the mortal body," spoken of by Paul to the Romans,¹⁰ was the resurrection procured by Christ's work of redemption. According to all our opponents, whether of the Augustinian or the Universalist schools, every mortal body, whether it be the body of a good man or a wicked man, will be quickened by God. But it is a remarkable fact that, throughout the New Testament, the word "quicken"¹¹ is never applied to the wicked in any way: it is exclusively confined to the just. And in the passage immediately before us Paul expressly thus confines it to them. He says: "If the Spirit of Him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, He that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by His Spirit that dwelleth in you." Here we see that the quickening of the mortal body, which is the fruit of redemption, is not bestowed upon all: it is only bestowed upon those who are renewed in the spirit of their minds. In other words, the resurrection of the wicked is not in any way, form, or degree, a fruit of the redemption of Christ.

22. The same inference is clearly drawn from Luke's description of apostolic teaching. ¹² We will take the liberty to translate the description referred to more literally than it is done in our authorised version. The original Greek exactly carries out that essential distinction between the resurrection of the wicked and the just which is insisted on all through Scripture, and also teaches us how much of resurrection is to be ascribed to redemption. We read then that the Sadducees were "grieved that they (the apostles) taught the people, and preached through Jesus the resurrection; that, namely, from among the dead." Here Luke tells us that the apostles made a marked distinction in their description of resurrection: that they spoke of two different resurrections, those of the just and of the unjust: that they described the resurrection of the just as a resurrection from among the dead; while they would describe the resurrection of the wicked by these expressions which we find used in Scripture, as a resurrection to "shame," "damnation," etc. Our point here, however, is that "the resurrection from the dead," of which Luke speaks, is the resurrection of the just. The way in which it is spoken of in the passage itself plainly distinguishes it from another resurrection, which can be only that, of the unjust; while its correspondence in character with the other descriptions given in Scripture of the resurrection of the just identifies it with them. The "resurrection from among the dead" is plainly the same as the "resurrection of life," the resurrection of those who "can die no more," the resurrection of those whose "mortal bodies are quickened," etc.¹³ All these descriptions are plainly descriptions of one and the same resurrection, viz., that of the just.

23. And now for our further step. What resurrection, according to the teaching of the apostles, is "through Jesus," i.e. through His work of redemption? The resurrection of the just: this is the apostles' teaching. The resurrection of the just is the fruit of redemption: the resurrection of the unjust has nothing to say to it. And is not this alone worthy of the work of Christ? It supposes Him to bestow blessing, and only blessing, through His resurrection. He came to give no fatal gift which should force everlasting existence upon myriads who asked not for it, and would shun it with all their heart. He did not come to give what he called a blessing but which millions would find a curse. True it would be, in the case of those at least who had heard His Gospel, solely and entirely their own fault. But how does this mend the matter? Still we should have myriads actually receiving a fruit of redemption, and find it an unmitigated curse. Surely such a view as this is most derogatory to Christ. Surely the only worthy view of His work, from first to last, in each particular and in all its parts, is that it is a blessing: that he who receives any part of it receives only blessing! To call the resurrection of the wicked a work of judgment and damnation, which it is, and at the same time to call it a fruit of redemption, seems to us more absurd than to say that black is white or sweet is bitter.

24 No: the lost do not partake of redemption in whole or in part. If they were to partake of any iota of it, it would indeed be difficult, to our mind impossible, to reject the dream of Origen that all would follow in the ages to come. But they do not partake of redemption. They do not partake of any part or parcel of it. They do not lose one part of it, and gain, even to their utter loss, another. It is all gained, or all lost. It is like the garment of Christ, a work without seam. It is a grand whole which cannot be broken into parts. We have it all in the realms of life and of bliss. We have no shivered fractured part in the realms of the lost. It may not be that in the gloomy prison house of hell is a something which the lost can in bitter derision and utter despair call the fruit of redemption procured by Christ for them. But from all this it follows, that the resurrection of the wicked, being a resurrection to shame, being a work of judgment, and being felt to be a curse and a curse only, is no part of; no fruit of redemption.

25. Having seen that the resurrection of the damned is no part of redemption, but is simply an act of power and of judgment, we can readily see why Paul not merely may not speak of resurrection without including that of the wicked, but that he could not in 1 Cor. 15., include it at all. For he is speaking to the Corinthian Christians on the idea that they would really obtain that salvation which Christ came to give. "Brethren," he says, "I declare unto you the Gospel which I preached unto you; which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; by which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I have preached unto you." He is here therefore speaking to them on the supposition that they were and would continue to be genuine and true professors of the Gospel of the Redeemer. On this idea he proceeds to unfold to them the blessing which would result to them as believers, and in especial to give to them a view of resurrection. If, as we have seen, the resurrection of the wicked is no part or result of redemption, it is quite plain that the apostle could not include it in his description. Speaking only of the blessed fruit of redemption he could not introduce a thing which was not a fruit of redemption. He must leave out the resurrection of the wicked as an idea foreign to his present subject. He might as well include the despair of the fallen angels, the weeping and wailing of the wicked, as the resurrection of the latter. If it was no fruit of redemption it could not be included in a chapter which professed to describe only what was the fruit of redemption. "Scripture," says Bengel, "everywhere concerns itself with the faithful, and treats especially of their resurrection: with regard to the resurrection of the wicked it only treats of it in a casual incidental way."¹⁴

26. But it is said, and very frequently said, that Paul here tells us that he speaks of the resurrection of all men, whether they be just or unjust. The passage invariably, and we believe almost exclusively, claimed for this purpose, is verse 22: "As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." The "all" in the second clause is supposed to be identical with the "all" in the first clause, and as the "all" in the first clause undoubtedly includes every one sprung from Adam, whether just or unjust, it is argued that the second "all" comprehends the same parties, and therefore must include the resurrection of the unjust.

27. Now we do not deny that there is considerable plausibility in this argument. We do not deny that if this text stood alone, it would bear this interpretation fully as well as any other. We do not deny that the second "all" must be in some true and proper way equally comprehensive with the first. Both terms are plainly universals, and must be interpreted as such. We only hold that while both are equally universal, then are not the same universals. As to the term "all," it has every variety of comprehension, and no stress can be laid on it. "All men" may mean the inhabitants of a province, of an empire, or of the earth. The only force of the argument is that "all" being in two clauses of the same verse contrasted cannot in that verse apply except exactly to the same parties. There is here much apparent, but no real force. We are faulted as though we would paraphrase the verse thus: "As in Adam all mankind die, whether just or unjust; so in Christ shall some of these be made alive, viz., the just who believe in Christ."

28. We freely admit that so represented we appear to trifle with the text. We seem to handle it in a disingenuous way, and not with that simplicity of interpretation that alone is becoming learners from God's word. But we do not think it fair to represent us thus, and will proceed to give our view which, we maintain, will be found consistent with sound honest interpretation, while it will have the incalculable and decisive advantage of being in harmony with the general reasoning of the apostle, and with his own express words elsewhere. Of two interpretations of a particular text, both equally probable as regarded the text itself, or even where one was less obvious than the other, that one must be selected which is in harmony with other Scriptures, and especially with other sayings of the same writer.

29. "All," then, in both clauses, is a universal term, and in both equally comprehensive, and yet the terms are applied in the two clauses to different parties. Universals are meant in both, but different universals. We thus paraphrase the passage: "As in Adam all related to him, as their head, die; so in Christ all who are related to him, the second Adam, as their head, shall be made alive." Here we see at once that we make "all" to be in both clauses a universal term, and an equally universal one. In both clauses it embraces every individual referred to. And is not this a natural interpretation of the passage. Why does the first "all" include all mankind; and exclude all except mankind? Because it refers to those, and to those alone, who owe their physical existence to their connection with the first man. Interpreted in strict analogy with this, the second "all" refers to all those, and those alone, who owe their spiritual existence to their connection with Christ the second man. Both terms are equally universal in their proper and evident application. The first "all" includes all Men, and excludes all who are not men, because it applies to natural generation and descent. The second "all" includes all who are believers, and excludes all who are not believers, because it applies to spiritual generation and descent, and has nothing whatever to say to anything else. If you are "in Adam," you are included in the first "all;" if you are "in Christ," you are included in the second "all." Both are equally universal terms, and both are equally comprehensive of the all to whom they refer. Nothing beyond this is required by the text, though we fully admit that the text would fairly admit of another interpretation if it was considered solely by itself. When we know that such a critic as Bengel adopted this view we may well admit that it can fairly hear it; for, of all theorists, they cling to the other interpretation, who hold, as Bengel did, the Universalist theory. We may well imagine an Augustinian theorist to pause ere he accepts the interpretation that the words, "so in Christ shall all be made alive," refers at all to the resurrection of the wicked. We may well imagine him to tremble as he does so, knowing well, if he has any clearness of vision, the use that will be made of such an admission by a school to which he is almost as much opposed as he is to ours. But the Universalist on this interpretation finds indeed a powerful argument for his theory. He connects the wicked with Christ in one blessed fruit of redemption: he knows the force of the word "quicken" in the other writings of the apostle Paul: it will indeed be difficult to prevent him from following out this to universal restoration as its inevitable result. When Bengel then, a Universalist, admits that this text bears the interpretation which we have put upon it, we may conclude that such an interpretation is no forced or unnatural one.

30. This once conceded, there remains no difficulty. Our interpretation is in harmony with the entire argument of this chapter, which, as we have seen addresses itself only to genuine believers in Christ. Besides this we must allow Paul to be his own interpreter. He here tells us that "in Christ all shall be made alive." Our opponents say that he here teaches that the wicked will be "made alive:" we say that he does not say that the wicked will be "made alive," and that he here speaks only of the just. Let us hear Paul on his own language. The words "made alive" is the Greek Zwopoiew, zoopoieo. Does Paul allow or forbid the idea that he thinks this term applicable to the resurrection of the wicked? He forbids it. He elsewhere expressly confines it to the resurrection of the just. With him it only refers to what his Master called the "resurrection of life," and what Daniel called the resurrection "to everlasting life." Here are his words: "If the Spirit of Him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, He that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies."¹⁵ It is the same Greek word which is translated "quicken" in Rom. 8:2, and "made alive" in 1 Cor. 15:22. Paul, in the former, tells us that he does not allow the word to be properly applicable to any resurrection except that of those in whom the Spirit of God dwells. We may not then accept that interpretation of 1 Cor. 15:22, which attributes to Paul a use of language which he has expressly disclaimed.

31. And we may readily see a good and sufficient reason why Paul, with his knowledge of the life which man had at creation and would regain through redemption, would refuse to describe the resurrection of the unjust as their being "quickened" or "made" alive." Life for man is eternal life. Man's condition, as he came from his Maker's hands, and as he is restored by his Redeemer's work, is a condition of immortality. A brief fading life is not man's true life. Such a life was given to the brutes: such a life became man's as fallen, and by his fall. In the midst of life, either as created or as redeemed. Man's condition as fallen is called a state of death. In the midst of the life we inherit from our fallen parent, we are in death. Our whole existence is a progress and an advance to death. Paul spoke of himself as "dying daily." In the heydey of our youth and vigour, as in the late evening of existence, we have "the sentence of death in ourselves."¹⁶ From the day that we are born, we die; even as Adam, cut off in the day he sinned from the tree of life, died on that day. And here then is the reason why Paul will not apply the terms "quicken," "make alive," to the resurrection of the lost. It is not a resurrection of man's true life, which is everlasting life, and he will not call it life at all. And in denying it this title be agrees with all Scripture which confines the "resurrection of life " solely to the resurrection of the just.

32. But besides all this, there are parts of this chapter (1 Cor., 15.) which utterly forbid the idea that it includes in its idea the resurrection of the unjust. If we will accept its description of the persons whose resurrection it speaks of, they are only "Christ the first fruits, afterwards them that are Christ's, at his coming." (5. 23). We cannot include the unjust here unless we suppose that Christ being the "first fruits," they, equally with the just, are the wheat, which in the time of ingathering, the time of the second coming of Christ, are to be gathered into the barn. But even the Universalist does not claim this. He allows long periods of suffering to elapse subsequent to the second coming ere the unjust are restored. Christ Himself utterly rejects the idea.¹⁷ The Augustinian, just as much as we, refuses to allow that the unjust are described here as "them that are Christ's." In fact, if the resurrection of the unjust is spoken of, we are forced to comprehend under the term "them that are Christ's," not merely all professing Christians, but all mankind, heathen, Jew, infidel, Atheist, as well as Christians; for all such shall rise with their bodies to give account of their deeds. Farther on in the chapter are descriptions given which forbid the idea that the resurrection of the unjust is so much as hinted at. The resurrection of the dead, of which Paul speaks, is only a resurrection of glory. All the dead of whom he speaks receive such a resurrection. The body of whose quickening he speaks "is sown in corruption, is raised in incorruption: is sown in dishonour, is raised in glory: is sown in weakness, is raised in power: is sown a natural body, is raised a spiritual body." (vs. 42-44). This is "the resurrection of the dead" of which Paul speaks. Our opponents, both Augustinians and Universalists, would and do apply much of his description to the resurrection of the unjust. They claim for them a resurrection to "incorruption" and to "power;" but they can not, dare not, claim a resurrection to "glory;" because Daniel has, unfortunately for them, described the resurrection of the unjust as a resurrection to "shame and contempt."

33. We have established then that 1 Cor. 15:does not describe the resurrection of the. unjust. With this established we again ask the Augustinian for proof of that change which he asserts to be essential to enable their risen bodies to endure an eternity of pain. We answer for him that he has no proof that the Scripture says they will be "changed." This term is only used once in Scripture, viz., in 1 Cor. 15:And we have just seen that this chapter speaks only of the resurrection of the just.

34. But while the expression "changed" is only once used, we freely admit that the nature of the change is frequently spoken of in Scripture. It is minutely described in this chapter, and is mentioned in many other places. We have already seen the nature of the change which the Augustinian requires in order that the risen wicked should be able to sustain an eternity of anguish. They are, in the words of one whom we may fairly call the poet of our popular Protestant hell—

"Changed, corruptible to incorrupt,

And mortal to immortal. "—POLLOK.

Now we ask for proof that the resurrection of the wicked is ever thus described in Scripture. It cannot be proved from 1 Cor. 15.; for that chapter does not speak of the resurrection of the unjust at all. If it is to be proved, proof must be sought elsewhere. We give you the range of Scripture. Look at every passage in it which speaks of resurrection, with a microscopic vision. Remember, the credit of your terrible hell rests upon the success of your search. Yet we have no fear, not a flutter of apprehension. We deny that the resurrection of the unjust is ever described as a change from corruption to incorruption and from mortality to immortality, save in the poetry of Pollok and the prose of a false theology, whether it be that of the fathers, or of the schoolmen, Protestant, or Romish.

35. Where then is the proof of such a change? Was it Job's faith when he said: "The wicked is reserved to the day of destruction: they shall be brought forth to the day of wrath?" Does "destruction" signify "incorruption" and "immortality?" Is your change discernible in Daniel's description of the wicked as rising to shame and everlasting contempt? What dictionary gives "immortality" as a sense for "shame?" or "incorruption" for "contempt?" Will you find it in the faith of the "seven brethren" who endured death, sustained by the hope of the resurrection of the just, but who warned the persecuting Antiochus—"As to thee, thou shalt have no resurrection unto life?" Will you find it in the words of the Lord of Life, who describes the resurrection of the wicked as "the resurrection of damnation, " while he describes that of his people as the resurrection of those who "can die no more?"¹⁸ We know of no text of Scripture which speaks in any other way of the resurrection of the unjust. If our opponents do, let them bring it forth. The above texts do not describe a change from corruption to incorruption, or of mortality to immortality. To us they speak the opposite language. To us they describe a resurrection of persons raised in the natural body of corruption. dishonour, and weakness. If there are other texts let them be produced. If there are no other texts let our opponents set to work at these, and show that the words "destruction," "shame," and "contempt," mean "incorruption" and "immortality." Their theory has over and over involved them in verbal quibbles not one whit more candid.

36. Deprived of all support from Scripture, whither will they resort? Will they say "the change to incorruption is essential to our theory and therefore it is true?" We would rather allow the premise but draw the opposite conclusion. We would say, "This change is essential to your theory; but, since there are no grounds for holding this change, your theory which requires it falls to the ground." Or perhaps they will urge that this change, which is essential to their theory, though it is not revealed in the Bible is yet there assumed! They are at home in argument of this kind. They have used it pretty generally on the kindred subject of the "immortality of the soul." They are very docile disciples of good old Archbishop Tillotson, who lays down the pleasing Augustinian axiom (or fiction) that "The immortality of the soul is rather supposed, or taken for granted, than expressly revealed in the Bible." Pleasant easy way, no doubt, to end disputes! It is, however, troublesome to be assuming so many disputed points, and we would venture to point out a simpler, if not more effectual way, to our Augustinian friends. Let them assume their own infallibility; all their other requirements will follow as matters of course. They need not be startled at the suggestion. They need not give us credit for an imagination equal to that of the celebrated Baron Munchausen. The idea is quite beyond our moderate powers of fancy to originate. It was they who produced it in our minds. For surely they may assume their own infallibility with just as much reason as they assume the immortality of the soul!

37. As we cannot, however, without proof, admit of the infallibility of our opponents, and are therefore also unable to admit without proof their assumption either of the immortality of the soul or the incorruptibility of the body of the unjust at resurrection, we are compelled to reject the latter as unceremoniously as we have done the former. The unjust are not raised in incorruption: they are not raised in immortality. And therefore their resurrection is another of the accumulating proofs that our theory of destruction is the theory of Scripture, and that the theories of our opponents, whether of the Augustinian or Universalist schools, are unscriptural and false. For, the bodies of the unjust are raised only in their old mortality. They are thus raised for punishment. Raised in their old mortality, the pains of hell will again, must again, reduce them to a second death, from which there is no promise of resurrection.

38. The objections usually urged against our view of the resurrection from the time of Tertullian to the present day, will be considered in a subsequent chapter.