POSTULATED TWO RESURRECTIONS OF THE DEAD. 227

"(and misunderstanding?) the scripture, that there is a first "resurrection, consisting exclusively of the just, and that "there is also a second resurrection, consisting exclusively of "the unjust."

This truly ingenious process of twisting a supposition into an incontrovertible historical statement, is attempted to be justified by the language employed in the twentieth chapter of the Apocalypse of John, a book that has been made the putative father of an immense tribe of bastard theological and prophetical bantlings.

Admitting that two pictures of the resurrection are here drawn upon the same piece of canvas, it is unfortunate for the reverend lecturer's hypothesis, that whereas the first is rising again to eternal LIFE, the second is styled rising from one death to a second DEATH, and not rising again to second LIFE. The first resurrection is the actual and positive, the second is only negative. The first is an absolute fact, the second is not, unless indeed second death means second life, or unless two deaths constitute one life. The second picture of the resurrection is introduced to strengthen the positive character of the first by its antithetical and negative quality, it supports an affirmative argument by formulating the method of contradictions as used in logic.

Dr. Cumming proceeds to argue, that from a very careful analytical study and critical rummage of the Greek text of the New Testament in the records of Luke, and John, he must conclude, that the resurrection of the dead is emphatically the special or distinctive rising again of the just only, and since Paul would certainly know this fact very well, there is no reason why he should have doubted it, unless there were Two resurrections, the first of which being the special one, limited to those who are accounted worthy to attain to it, Paul might not attain to, whereas the last, he could not escape from.

The apostle, he says, was sure of one, but not the right one, and it was his fear of not obtaining the first that led him to speak of an uncertainty of attaining to any resurrection at all.

Now this is a remarkable and instructive example of the vicious custom of daubing the Bible over with the untempered mortar of theological traditions, that leads so many folks astray. To make Paul speak of not attaining to one of two resurrections, when he distinctly speaks emphatically of THE only one that he knew of is a gross outrage upon logical sense. There can be no reasonable doubt whatever, that the language used by the writers in the gospels, conveys the idea that the resurrection of the dead is a special one limited to those called the just; but the debatable point for demonstration is this: how does the establishment of one rising again, lead by logical inference to the fact of there being another? The reference to the apocalyptic picture is not a fortunate one for the hypothesis of two. The first resurrection is that special one spoken of in the gospels, but the second is rising to the "second death." If second death means theological life, then the question is, what is this life? It may be said, immaterial fire, then it is for sacerdotalists to push as many as they can into it, for it is only the theological accuser's office to pronounce sentence of eternal damnation, of vengeance in hell fire. Deity neither accuses nor condemns any one, he can be no judge of that evil which he is said to be of purer eyes than to recognize.

At page 385, there is an attempt to philosophize in the following fashion:

66

"It is really, I have sometimes thought, an interesting inquiry, a thought I leave others to consider, whether the "resurrection of the body does not in some degree begin in "the case of a believer, even in the present world. The "moment that a man's soUL is regenerated, Scripture "teaches us that a present process begins in the central seat "of man, which will radiate outwards, and uninterrupted by "decay in the grave, it (which?) will continue till the trumpet sounds, and the body rises immortal."

What is meant by regeneration of the immaterial soul? The soul of man is the combustion of a magnetico-electric substance, called by Solomon the candle of the Lord; the imponderable spirit of Deity's omnipotence surely does not

THEOLOGICAL PERVERSION OF BIBLICAL DOCTRINE

229

need regeneration, because being necessarily self-existent it never was generated, and if it never was generated, it cannot be RE-generated.

Dr. Cumming professes to find warrant for these random concepts in Jesus' declaration, that if a man received his authority as the commissioned messenger of the eternal to quicken him to conscious relationship of being a child of the same paternal existence, he, the believer, so regenerated into this relationship of son to Father, should in that great duality never die, but is then and there re-born from ephemeral or embryotic into immortal life. The thought that Dr. Cumming leaves to others must be taken up by better trained exponents of eternal verities, and the hireling shepherds of the flock must be shewn that they have grievously mistaken their calling, and by their substitution for nourishing food, of the Dead Sea apples of the serpent's catechism of theological good and evil, bring the Bible which they profess to reverence into discredit, and make the sublimest philosophy in existence as "weary as a thrice told tale to the "tired ears of a dull and drowsy man."

At page 431, is to be found the following exposition of Zechariah's prophecy respecting the character, office, and personality of the final Messiah, or messenger of judgment.

This is from the sixth chapter and thirteenth verse of Zechariah's witness.

"He shall sit and rule upon his throne, and he shall be a "priest upon his throne, and the counsel of peace shall be "between them both."

The following is Dr. Cumming's comment on this prophecy: :

66

66

"I argue from this, that it is impossible there could be peace between heaven and earth; in other words, it is impossible there could be salvation except through Christ "as a priest on his throne or king by the altar, or priest "and king in one; for two things are required for salvation, "that God see no obstacle to the going forth of his pardon, "and secondly, that man be willing, on God's terms, to

66

accept God's way of pardon, happiness, and peace, a

66

"double work, a work without man in reference to God, "or within man which is a royal and kingly act, and thus "the counsel of peace, or in the more proper (theological?) phrase salvation,' can only be accomplished by them (persons, or acts?) both. Christ the priest offers up sacrifice, and expiates guilt, pronounces a blessing; Christ as a king rescues from his enemies, and subdues us to "himself."

66

66

66

This is a very fair average sample of the bulk of modern platitudinary twaddle respecting Hebrew prophecy that speaks of the last days.

The statement cannot possibly have any special reference to Jesus of Nazareth, because it speaks of the Messiah here as being the branch, that is to say, as explained further on, not one light as if set up in a candlestick, but a branch or candelabrum of two lights. The branch is not one Christ, or one anointed messenger, but it is distinctly said to consist of two anointed ones, or two in one Christ. The first witnesses or angels of God upon earth were two, that is, man and wife, Adam and Eve; and the concluding book, or the Apocalypse, speaks of the restoration of divine witness being delegated to two witnesses the same as at first. In fact, the divine symbol is not perfect without this relationship of husband and wife.

In the 3rd chapter, one of these two witnesses constituting the branch is described as a man, who before his call and anointing is clothed in filthy garments, and from the fact of his requiring a new head piece and change of raiment, it seems plainly to allude to such a change of condition as that referred to by Jesus of Nazareth in his parable of the return of the prodigal son. The angel of the Lord says to this anointed king, I have caused thy iniquity to pass from thee. If conventional interpreters of prophecy can find anything said about Jesus of Nazareth's iniquity, they should point it out in the chapter and verse style they are so proficient in.

There is some fearful blunder in reference to conventional interpretation of the coming Messiah, that deserves looking into to have it rectified, for the promises to the final Messiah

THE COMING MESSIAH.

231

are to this witness of God, and to his seed or children for ever; and since Jesus of Nazareth left no seed it cannot refer to him specially. The promise to the Messiah is to this effect:

"My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I "have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of "thy seed's seed, from henceforth and for ever."

66

Modern theologians say, that this refers to a nation generally, and not to any individual specially. The doctors, proctors, and scribes of the Hebrew Scriptures, made similar blunders with reference to Jesus of Nazareth, but he, when a mere child, bothered the wits of the entire conclave.

Again, with reference to the appearance of the final Messiah as the messenger of judgment upon the serpent's offspring, and their sacerdotal fruit of the tree of theological good and evil, it seems that the Reverend lecturer sets down the year 1867 as the period predestined to usher in the advent of Christ.

If this could be any way foretold by man, then some few folks at all events would be watchfully on the look out to give the alarm, and the Scripture could not be fulfilled which has said, "As a thief in the night shall it come to 'ALL' "that are upon the face of the earth."

"If the master of the house had known what hour the "thief would have come, he would have watched," said Jesus, and in another parable he likens the advent of the messenger of judgment to the bridegroom coming suddenly upon the slumbering people in the dead of the night.