But pain and death are not in this way efficacious for salvation, unless they be accompanied by a faith which lays hold of the covenant and promise of life made and ratified from the beginning by God, and which looks for the fulfilment in the world to come. Those who, having this faith, do good works are God's elect, who live again at the first resurrection, to die no more. The rest of mankind, although they go through suffering and death, and although their {112} sufferings are not without effect in forming their spirits for immortality (such is the virtue of the sacrifice of the Son of God "for the sins of the whole world"), rise to be judged for their unbelief and unrighteousness, and to be condemned to undergo a second death. The Lamb slain is appointed to execute the judgment and take vengeance on the unrighteous. What better title could there be for his undertaking this "strange work" (Isa. xxviii. 21), than his having so cruelly and unjustly suffered at the hands of sinful men? Yet the portions of Scripture we have had under consideration necessitate the conclusion that the consecration of the way to life through death by the death of the Son of God, which applies to the death of believers, applies also to the second death of unbelievers; so that this death also is followed by life. But here a difficulty presents itself which needs explanation. Although Scripture speaks of a first resurrection and a second death, it makes no mention of a second resurrection. This, I think, may be accounted for as follows.
By considering the context, both preceding and following, of the clause, "This is the first resurrection," in Rev. xx. 5, it will be apparent that "resurrection" does not here mean simply returning to life after death, but may be taken to embrace the whole period of the thousand years, together with all that concerns "the happy and the holy" who {113} have part therein. This interpretation is in accordance with the sense in which our Lord speaks of resurrection where he says, "In the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels, of God in heaven" (Matt. xxii. 30). That "the resurrection" (hê anastasis) designates a state or condition of life into which the elect of God are introduced by returning to life after death, is still more explicitly signified by the following corresponding passage of St. Luke (xx. 34-36): "The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage; but they who are 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 the angels, and are children of God, being children of the resurrection." Now, it may certainly be inferred from what is said in Rev. xx. 5, that the rest of the dead, who have no part in this first resurrection, return to life at the end of the thousand years. But they return to life to be judged, condemned, and suffer death again. This, therefore, is in no sense a resurrection answering to the description above given of the first resurrection, and accordingly is not called in Scripture the second resurrection. What really corresponds to the holiness and happiness of the first resurrection state is the finally perfected and all-comprehending state called "the new heaven and the new earth," life in which, according to our {114} argument, comes out of the second and last death, and is unconditioned by time. This is the heavenly state which is described in Rev. vii. 11-17, xxi. 2-4, and 10-27. Thus, although this may be regarded as that subsequent resurrection to which "the first resurrection" by its very designation points, it is not called "the second resurrection," because it is not, like the first, limited or conditioned by time.
The portion of the Apocalypse which is strictly symbolical and prophetical begins at v. 1 of chap. iv. and ends with v. 5 of chap. xxii. The first three chapters, including the epistles to the seven Churches, and the verses from chap. xxii. 5 to the end of the book, may be taken to be respectively introduction and conclusion, the contents of which, although strictly related to those of the intermediate symbolical part, are not of a character so exclusively figurative. This circumstance has to be taken into account in proposing interpretations of passages contained in them. Now, there are certain passages in the concluding part which appear to be contradictory to the doctrine of salvation maintained in this Essay, and accordingly, before bringing the argument to a close, I shall endeavour to ascertain the true interpretations of these passages.
The angel who showed John "these things" (xxii. 8) says of himself, "I am the fellow-servant of thee, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of those who {115} keep the words of this book;" and yet this speaker is not distinguished from him who afterwards says (vv. 12, 13), "Lo, I come quickly, and my reward is with me, to render to each according as his work is. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end," who, without doubt, is the Lord himself. This may be accounted for by the following considerations. This angel, of whom it is twice asserted that he refused to receive worship proffered to him by the seer (xix. 10, and xxii. 9), is the same that is spoken of in Rev. i. 1, with reference to "the revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to him, to shew to his servants things which must shortly come to pass," in these terms: "He [Jesus Christ] by sending signified it [the revelation] through his angel to his servant John." In certain passages in the introductory part of the Apocalypse, as Rev. i. 8, 17-20, and throughout the epistles to the seven Churches, the Lord speaks in his own person; and this again he does expressly in some passages in the concluding part, as xxii. 7, 12, 13, 16, 20; and although the speaker in vv. 10 and 11 appears to be the same as the speaker in v. 9, who certainly is the angel, such words as those two verses contain could hardly have been uttered by any one but the Lord, and, at least, they may be attributed to him on the principle that what the Lord does through his ministering angel may be said to be done by himself. It is as {116} ministering to Jesus Christ that the angel calls himself a "fellow-servant" of prophets and apostles, and, generally, of those who keep the words of this revelation. For these reasons in the following remarks I take vv. 10 and 11 as spoken by Jesus Christ.
The words addressed by the speaker to John are (vv. 10, 11): "Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book; for the time is at hand. He who is unrighteous, let him commit injustice still; and he who is filthy, let him be filthy still; and he who is righteous, let him do righteousness still; and he who is holy, let him be holy still. Lo, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to render to each as his work is." This passage has been interpreted as meaning that in the world to come the conditions of the righteous and the wicked are irrevocably fixed.
I would rather say, having regard to the precise opposition of the clauses of which it is composed, that the passage declares that in the end unrighteousness and filthiness are irrevocably separate from their opposites righteousness and holiness; and to account for the terms in which this statement is made, it may suffice to refer to the principle that according to the concrete, or objective, teaching of the Apocalypse, holiness and filthiness would not be spoken of abstractedly, that is, apart from holy and filthy persons, and in like manner righteousness and unrighteousness would not be mentioned apart from their necessary {117} antecedents, personal righteous and unrighteous deeds. The expressions "commit injustice" and "do righteousness," which do not occur in the English version, are exact renderings of the Greek.
Another passage which, as bearing on our argument, requires to be taken into account, is v. 15 of the same chapter, which asserts that "without are dogs, and sorcerers, and fornicators, and murderers, and idolaters, and every one that loveth and maketh a lie." This is expressing in concrete language, such as is constantly employed in Scripture, that there is no unrighteousness in the city of God. Such language, being concerned only with objective realities, cannot express a negation, and, consequently, cannot assert that unrighteousness is not within the city. Hence it is not possible, except by means of such terms as those actually employed, to express concretely that the city of God is free from all unrighteousness. By comparing Rev. xxi. 8 with the interpretation here given of Rev. xxii. 15, it will be seen that the exclusion from the city of God of all things sinful and abominable is declared to be effected by "the second death."
I have now completed the argument respecting man's immortality which I proposed to found upon the words of Scripture. I have argued on the hypothesis that for this purpose the Scriptures are trustworthy and sufficient, and I have admitted that we {118} can know nothing for certain concerning our immortality apart from the declared will of "Him who alone hath immortality" (1 Tim. vi. 16). Accordingly, Scripture must be consulted in order to learn what God has willed respecting the destiny of man. The principal result of this inquiry is, that by the will of God righteousness and salvation are so inseparably connected that only as being personally righteous can man be saved and partake of immortality. The question, therefore, as to the immortality of all men resolves itself into inquiring whether, and by what means, all men are made righteous. Arguments relating to this inquiry may be said to constitute the whole of this Essay. I am prepared to expect that it will be objected to these arguments that they are new, and on this account that the conclusions drawn from them are not true. I admit the validity of this inference if the arguments and conclusions are really new, but I maintain that in so far as they are founded upon, and correctly supported by, Scripture, they cannot be new, because we must not suppose that the Scriptural doctrine of man's salvation was not fully understood before these days—for instance, in the days of primitive Christianity. As the objection on the ground of newness cannot be sustained, the only course left to the objector is to examine the arguments, for the purpose of ascertaining whether they are sound and strictly Scriptural.
{119}
I think, however, it is possible that Scriptural doctrine, as taught originally by prophets, apostles, and apostolic men, may have become so obscured and mixed up with human traditions and accretions, that bringing it again to light would appear like promulgating new doctrine. This remark leads me to state on what authorities I have chiefly relied in the composition of this Essay. I may say at once that my views have been determined for the most part by long study of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans, and the Apocalypse of the Apostle John. I was not, however, able to accept St. Paul's Epistle as it is translated in the Authorized Version, nor could I agree with any commentary upon it that had come before me. For these reasons I published a revised Translation, with Introduction and Notes (Deighton, Bell, & Co., 1871), which may, perhaps, claim consideration, if on no other ground, because it is the production of a mind not unacquainted with classical studies, but trained especially by mathematics and the pursuit of physical science for inquiring respecting the method and laws of divine operation. I have stated in the preface to that work (p. x.) the particular bearing which, as it seemed to me, such studies have on the interpretation of St. Paul's Epistle. Under the influence of the same mental training, I was induced long since to direct my attention towards the interpretation of the Apocalypse, and I purpose {120} shortly, if God be willing, to publish the fruits of my researches. Any reader of this Essay will perceive that it contains much which depends on views which I entertain respecting the general scheme and the symbolism of the Apocalypse.