:

appears to be connected with the destruction of the ungodly compare chap. iii. 23. Thus, then, I cannot find a single passage in the New Testament which would afford any ground for the asserted peculiarity of expression, namely, that the preposition ε is used, when the resurrection of believers is noticed.

Let me now call the reader's attention to some passages in which the word resurrection occurs, in connection with the dead, vεкрwv, without the preposition.-First. Acts xxiii. 6: "But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question." The resurrection of the dead in this passage either is that of believers only, or it also includes that of the ungodly. If it only relates to believers, then this is one passage in which the resurrection of believers is noticed, without the preposition & being used, which would at once set aside the whole argument. If, however, it be said to include also the resurrection of the ungodly, then the resurrection FROM the dead, in Luke xx. 35, must also include the ungodly, for Paul is arguing against the same error (a denial of a resurrection), of the same persons (the Sadducees), as Christ himself was in Luke xx.; and he connects hope with the resurrection, of which he spoke, as Christ connected the being accounted worthy, &c. with the resurrection of which he spoke. The resurrection therefore must, I conceive, be the same in each passage. This, therefore, confirms, what I have already remarked, that no stress can be laid upon the use of the preposition ε, in Luke xx. 35.

Second. The xvth chapter of 1 Cor. treats, as these writers allow, only of the resurrection of those who are Christ's (ver. 24). In this we have the word resurrection in connection with vεkpwv, of the dead, in four verses; namely, 12,13,21,42. If, therefore, there was any foundation for the argument, we should certainly find, that in each and all of these verses, the preposition ε would occur. Instead of this, it does not occur in one of them. Thus, then, the real state of the case, if I am correct, appears to be this: 1. There are only two passages in the New Testament in which the preposition EK occurs, as prefix

ed to vɛкρwv, the dead, in speaking of the resurrection of men at all; and neither, even of these two, as I conceive, affords the least foundation for the asserted peculiarity of expression. 2. There are, on the other hand, four passages in one chapter, treating, as I believe Millennarians will allow, exclusively of the resurrection of believers, in which the preposition does not occur. The whole argument, therefore, appears to me to have no other foundation than an erroneous assertion. [Note Y.]

There is one other passage to which I think it necessary to refer upon this point, Phil. iii. 11: If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead. The word used in this passage is not simply avaoтaois, resurrection, but egaraoraois, literally outrising-If by any means I might attain unto the outrising of the dead. Here also the preposition ε does not occur, and the expression is, not the outrising from the dead, but the outrising of the dead, namely, from or out of the grave. [Note Z.]

[Y.] The insertion or omission of the preposition Ex would seem to be immaterial. For the resurrection of Christ was, clearly, a resurrection from or out of the dead; yet in two, out of the only three passages in the New Testament, in which the resurrection of Christ is spoken of in connection with the word expwv, the preposition ex is omitted. The three passages are, Acts xxvi. 23, that he should be (Greek) the first of, or out of, the resurrection (not ex, out of, but) or the dead. The other is Rom. i. 4, declared to be the Son of God with power by the resurrection (not ex, out of, but simply) or the dead. The third passage is 1 Pet. i. 3, where, as already observed, the preposition ex does occur. This, therefore, appears to me to prove, that no solid argument could have been deduced from such a point as the occurrence or omission of the preposition, even if there had been many passages of the kind.

[Z.] In order to shew that the force of the preposition sέ, out, which is compounded with the word avaσraσis, resurrection, does not belong to the genitive expwv, of the dead, which follows it; and that it does not signify the rising OUT OF, or from, the dead, but the OUT rising of the dead, that is, out of the grave, which is not expressed but understood; I have referred to all the passages in the New Testament which I could find, from Schmidius, in which the prepositions of motion, ex, ε§, or ano, occur in composition with some substantive, signifying motion; and followed (as in Phil. iii. 11) by another substantive in the genitive case; and I find, that, in them all, the sense of the preposition does not belong to the genitive case which follows, but to some substantive understood. The genitive which follows, instead of being that from which the motion takes place, is that which itself moves. They are the following:

1. odos, departure or out going. Thus Heb. xi. 22-the departure

I would here call the reader's attention to the frequent use in the New Testament of the word resurrection in the singular number, including, as it appears to me, the resurrection both of the godly and the ungodly. Thus Matt. xxii. 23: The Sadducees say that there is (Gr.) not a resurrection. Now as the licentious and infidel principles and practices of the Sadducees would lead them, I conceive, chiefly to reject the notion of a resurrection of the ungodly unto wrath; so the one word, (or out-going) of the children of Israel, does not signify the going of any persons (Ex TWY VINY) from out of the children of Israel; but the going of the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt, which is understood. So Luke ix. 31, έodo aute, his decease-literally, the out-going of him-signifies (not the going of any thing, eέ aute, from or out of Christ, but) his going, or his spirit going, out of the body or world, which is understood.

2. añoßoλn, casting away or off, Rom. xi. 15; añoßohn autwv signifies (not the casting of any thing away, ano autwy, from them, the Israelites, but) the casting of them as a nation away from God (vers. 1, 2), which is understood.

3. αποθεσις, putting away or off, 1 Pet. iii. 21; αποθεσις ρυπε σαρκος, signifies (not the putting away of any thing, ano puns, from the filth of the flesh, but) the putting of the filth of the flesh away from us, which is understood;-2 Pet. i. 14, anodeσis te onnowparos me, signifies (not the putting of any thing away, anо т σxпvwμaтos, from my tabernacle, but) the putting my tabernacle from me; from me, being understood.

4, arσiα-absence the being from any thing, Phil. ii. 12; as, signifies (not the being of any thing or person, aπ' εμs, away from me, but) the being of me or my being away from you; the you, being understood. We may observe, with regard to all these, that the genitive case which is expressed, is the thing which moves, &c. not the thing from which the motion takes place; and that some substantive not expressed, but understood, is that from which the motion takes place, and to which the preposition in composition belongs. In the same way, therefore, in the usage of the New Testament, savaoτασις νεκρων signifies (not, αναστασις εκ των νεκρων, the rising of any persons out of or from among the dead, but) the out-rising of the dead from or out of the grave; the grave not being expressed, but understood. In confirmation of this, we may observe, Acts xxi. 21, thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles apostasy from Moses (Gr.) Here it is intended to express, as it were, motion from the genitive (Moses) which follows the word aroσTaGia; and the preposition aro, in composition is repeated before the genitive; thou teachest (anoσTασIα)) apostasy-standing off-or going away (not, as in the cases already quoted, Mwows, which would have been of Moses, but) ano Mwσews, from Moses; which proves, I conceive, that if Phil. iii. 11 had been meant to express the rising from the dead, the preposition & in composition with avaσTaσs would have been repeated, and the phrase would have been την εξαναστασιν εκ των νεκρων.

I

resurrection, in the above passage, must, I conceive, include that of the ungodly as well as of the godly; although in the question which they put, in ver. 28, they seem to have reference to a resurrection not to misery, but to some conceived happiness. So again, Paul preached to them Jesus and the resurrection (Acts xvii. 18), which, in a discourse to an assembly wholly given up to idolatry (ver. 16), must have included the resurrection of the ungodly (vers. 26, 31, and xxiv. 25). So in Acts xxiii. 6, Paul declares, Of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question; which, as the high priest and others were Sadducees, must include, I conceive, the resurrection of the ungodly (ver. 8). Indeed we find Paul declaring (xxiv. 15), in reference to the resurrection of which he had spoken, and which the Pharisees (xxiii. 8) allowed, I have hope towards God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and of the unjust; and again, ver. 21, touching the resurrection of the dead I am called in question by you this day. So in Heb. vi. 2, we read of the doctrine......of the resurrection of the dead.

Now, if the first resurrection (Rev. xx. 4, 5) signifies that of the saints; and living of the rest of the dead, that of the ungodly a thousand years after the first; these would be (as indeed the very term first implies) two resurrections out of the grave in every sense. If this were really intended, I cannot but conceive that Paul would have preached to the idolatrous Athenians (not Jesus and the resurrection, but) Jesus and the resurrections. He would have said, that he had hope towards God (not of a resurrection both of the just and of the unjust, but) both of a resurrection of the just, and of a resurrection of the unjust, or of resurrections of the just and of the unjust. We should have read in Heb. vi. 2, of the doctrine (not of the resurrection, but) of the resurrections of the dead. The declarations of the Holy Ghost in these passages would, I conceive, have harmonized with that in Rev. xx. if two resurrections from the dead, taking place at periods so remote from one another, had really been intended in this passage. In proof of this, I need only observe that any conscientious persons who believe the first resurrection

to be that of the saints in glory, avoid, I believe, when expressing their own sentiments, the use of such expressions as the resurrection, as including under this one term that of the ungodly as well as the godly. They speak of a first resurrection, and a second resurrection. And I feel much more convinced, that the Holy Ghost, in the word of truth, would not have used the above expressions, all evidently implying that the resurrection of the godly and ungodly, however distinct in other respects, will be one in point of time, if he had really intended in Rev. xx. 4, 5 to signify by the first resurrection the resurrection of the saints in glory a thousand years before that of the ungodly. Nor am I aware of a single passage in which the word resurrection occurs in the plural number. This consideration would at once lead me to conceive, that the first resurrection (in Rev. xx. 4, 5) cannot, according to the mind of the Spirit, be interpreted to signify that of the saints at the second coming of Christ.

IV. As the next argument adduced in support of the Millennarian interpretation appears to me to be in effect reducible to this, that there cannot be any really grand and decisive distinction between the resurrection of the saints and that of the ungodly; if they take place at one and the same time, it will be necessary to call the reader's attention to the distinction, which the Scriptures intimate between the two resurrections in other respects.

We see that, in this life, the same event happens both to the believer and unbeliever: the bodies of both die in like manner; are committed to the same earth; and moulder away alike into dust. As far, therefore, as the eye of man can trace, every thing relating to their bodies is the same. Hence, when we hear of both coming out of the grave at the same time, it brings, as it were, a pre-established idea of sameness into our mind; and we conceive little or no distinction between the righteous and ungodly at the resurrection. It appears to me, however, that, with the exception that both hear the same voice of the Son of Man, and that both come forth out of the graves at the same time (John v. 28, 29), every thing else will be completely distinct in