Page images
PDF
EPUB

lake of fire; and their torment is the second death. The first death, i. e. a dissolution of their bodies, or the destruction of their physical feeling and sensitive powers, has done his work, and never can resume it. He cannot come to the relief of those who are cast into the lake of fire. They find, indeed, that it is not all of death to die, i. e. that the first death may be followed by a second, which is unspeakably worse. Then will come to pass what was declared by the Saviour: "Better had it been for them, had they never been born."

If any should still insist, that Hades (Rev. 20: 14) must be interpreted as meaning place; then the only sense of which the passage seems to be susceptible is, that the abode of the wicked, before the general judgment, will, after that event, become a part of the lake of fire, or be added to it, so that the punishment may be more aggravated than before.

This is a meaning which has some claims to our consideration; and were it not for Rev. 6:8, it is one which might easily be admitted. But in what way this would aid the sentiment, that repentance in a future world is a scriptural doctrine, cannot, I apprehend, be easily shown. The pas sage understood in either way, is fatal to hopes of such a

nature.

One other passage must be briefly touched. It is in 1 Cor. xv. 24 seq. The apostle here represents the end as coming, when Christ will deliver up his mediatorial kingdom, after he has put all enemies under his feet. This accomplished, his mediatorial work is done; his embassy is completed; mission therefore comes to an end. "The Son himself will be subject to Him who put all things under his feet, that God may be all in all," i. e. the mediatorial reign as such ceases, and God, as the Judge and Rewarder of men, and the Sovereign of all, reigns without any delegated dominion and without any limitation whatever.

What now may we justly deduce from this passage? Setting aside all the curious and difficult questions that might be asked respecting the human nature of Christ subsequently to this period, and other embarrassing inquiries which any tyro in Theology could raise, thus much lies on the face of this tremendous passage; for such we shall see it is. After the period in question, the mediatorial kingdom as such, and the mediatorial work, entirely cease. Christ has fulfilled his

whole mission as Mediator; and those enemies whom he has not reconciled by the blood of his cross, he has subdued. "All is put under his feet." All this conceded—what then is to become of sinners, doomed yet to undergo the second death? The mediatorial work is done. The office is resigned or given up. God only as lawgiver and king now reigns, and is all in all. And are those sentenced to the second death, to be redeemed without a Redeemer? Are they to be saved without a Mediator? Can such a work be done, when the only Being in the universe who could perform it has laid his office aside because it is completed? Will he send preachers to visit "the lake of fire, which is the second death," and proclaim glad tidings? Will he pour out his Spirit there? Will he cause the means of grace there to be more efficacious than they were during the season of probation? I do not find a hint in all the book of God about any such arrangement; there is surely no probability in itself considered, that a place of punishment will be more highly favoured than a place of probation.

How then are those under sentence of the second death to be brought to repentance? You may say: By punishment. But will punishment effect this, unaided by the other means of persuasion and reformation? Did Israel in the desert, when called to suffering, become penitent and humble? And when God is represented, in the Revelation, as pouring out his indignation upon the followers of the beast and the false prophet, do they repent? Rather, do they not blaspheme with a violence and a daring which are greatly aggravated? Who can shew, that simple misery, among the wicked, unattended with any means of grace, or any gift of the Spirit, or any of the usual means of gospel-salvation, will produce penitence? Have the fallen angels reformed? It is contrary to all experience; and therefore contrary to all probability.

On the whole, it would be difficult, as it seems to my mind, to find any passage in the Scriptures, which opposes with so irresistible a force the idea of redemption in a future world, as the one before us. It is only by affirming, that all which the apostle says, refers merely to what is done down to the end of time, and that nothing farther is revealed, or is intended to be revealed, that we can escape from the conclusion which is forced upon us. But what an escape

[ocr errors]

is this? To cast ourselves upon mere conjecture for the interests of an eternity! To assume as true, what we have no authority or support for in all the word of God! Can it be true, that if there is repentance in a future world, such an all-important sentiment would not have been plainly and repeatedly suggested by the mercy of a God, who takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked?

But enough for the present occasion. I have not even pretended to consider the subject at large, and could not do so in an essay like the present. I have endeavoured, in the first place, to give some hints as to what the views of the Jews were in relation to the subject of future punishment, during or near the apostolical age. These have been investigated, first of all, independently of the testimony in our canonical Scriptures. In the sequel, I have presented some considerations both from the nature of the case, and from the Scriptures themselves, to show why we should hesitate as to adopting the doctrine of the Restitutionists. Will these can these-be fairly and candidly met and answered? Can the subject be discussed in a manner worthy of calm and impartial inquiry? I have read what Doederlein, and Hahn, and others, have advanced in favour of the doctrine of repentance after death; for these are calm and candid writers. But my own mind has not been satisfied with what they have advanced; nor can I think that others ought to be satisfied.

[ocr errors]

That the subject is one of fearful interest, none will deny who believe in future retribution. That there are difficulties pressed by it on the mind, when any one thinks of his own condition, that of his beloved friends, or of his brethren of the human race, it would be mere pretence to deny. But it is a consolation to believe, that behind any clouds, however dark, that interpose between us and the light of the sun, his beams still shine clearly. All will be clear in the light of heaven. If parents, husbands, wives, brothers, sisters, must see those dear as their own life perish at last, while they themselves are saved, heaven in mercy will either extinguish their social susceptibilities, or else give them such a sweet and overpowering sense of the justice and goodness of God, as shall not permit the joys of the blessed to be marred, nor the songs of the redeemed to be interrupted with sighs of sympathetic sorrow. How this will or can be

done, we may never know in the present world; nay, we may have many a distressing hour, while inquiring how it can possibly be done, unless our very nature itself is wholly changed. But the light of eternity will scatter these doubts, and the clear and uninterrupted vision of divine glory will fill the soul with all the fulness of God; so that the blessed above will find their perfect happiness in thinking and feeling as He does, into whose image they have been transformed.

ARTICLE II.

ON THE DESIGNATIONS OF TIME IN DANIEL AND JOHN:— THE 1260 DAYs of Daniel and John, and the 1000 YEARS OF JOHN.

By Rev. William Allen, D. D., Norhampton, Mass.

PROFESSOR STUART, in a learned article, published in the Biblical Repository and Quarterly Observer, for Jan., 1835, has endeavoured to prove, that the term days, in the prophecy of Daniel and of John concerning the 1260 days, has not the import of years, as is commonly supposed, but means literal days or an indefinite period; and that the 1000 years of John are also indefinite. In view of the fallibilities of man it must be admitted to be possible, that he has fallen into a mistake in these particulars, however correct in general he may be in the interpretation of Scripture. Persuaded that he has thus erred, and that his erroneous opinion on the designations of time in the prophecies is calculated to throw a cloud over the bright anticipations of the Church in respect to the near approach of the millennium, I propose to state the grounds, on which my mind has arrived at a different conclusion; and may find it necessary to examine the arguments, by which he has endeavoured to support his position.

In the Apocalypse, (12: 6,) we read, that the woman, clothed with the sun, etc., fled into the wilderness for " a thousand two hundred and threescore days;" and in verse 14th, the same period is expressed by " a time, and times, and

half a time," meaning three years and a half of days, or three times and a half 360, equal to 1260. So in Rev. 11:2, it is predicted, that the Gentiles should tread the Holy City under foot "42 months;" and in Rev. 13: 5, that the beast should continue "42 months," equal to 1260 days.

In Daniel (7: 25,) it is predicted of the impious king, that he should continue "a time, and times, and the dividing of time;" and it is also predicted, that to the end of the wonders (12: 7,) is "a time, times, and an half;"—equal to 1260 days.

Now, as John and Daniel were inspired of God to predict the future, it seems altogether probable, that in both their writings this period is to be construed in the same way, and must mean in both either literal days, or literal years, or some indefinite period. Mr. Stuart thinks, that in Daniel literal days are intended, and in John an indefinite time. It is my object to prove, that in both, but certainly in John, neither literal days nor an indefinite time, but the exact period of 1260 years is intended.

1. To begin with DANIEL. In ch. 7: 25, it is predicted, that the saints are to be delivered into the hands of a persecuting power "until a time, and times, and the dividing of a time," which, I maintain, must mean a longer period, than 1260 literal days, and a different power from that of Antiochus, for this reason, that the universal establishment of the kingdom of the Most High is immediately to succeed that period. For the next verses are these, v. 26, 27, "But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end. And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him." Antiochus, between 160 and 170 years before Christ, persecuted the Jews and polluted the temple for three years; but after his death no events occurred like those described in the passage just quoted. So far was religion from spreading through the world, that even the Jewish character was found, at the coming of Christ, very corrupt and debased, and true religion was almost extinct. How then can we imagine, that Antiochus is the persecuting power, here predicted, and that the period is 1260 literal days?

« PreviousContinue »