WHEN WILL THE NATIONS BE DASHED IN PIECES?
By James White
1 Cor. xv, 23-28. Christ will reign until he subdues his enemies, or puts them under his feet; in Rev. xx, this reign is declared to be 1000 years in duration, from which it is evident that his enemies will not be put under his feet until (or near) the close of the 1000 years; and of course are not all destroyed at his coming. It can hardly be expected that in stating an objection of so much weight and importance as the above, in such a brief manner, the various views of the believers in the Age to Come should be fully brought out. But to make up for any deficiency in that respect, and to show that I have not misstated their views, I will quote from some of their writings. Rev. xx, 4-6 is invariably used in connection with 1 Cor. xv, as I have stated it above; and it is of the utmost importance to that theory that the events of the latter text be located in the 1000 years of the former. But their connection is merely taken for granted—it has not been, and cannot be shown. This method of throwing texts together for effect, without showing an evident connection, is quite common with the advocates of that theory. As an instance, a lecturer once quoted Rev. xx, 6, and v, 10, in such close connection, that some of his hearers supposed that he had actually read from the Bible, "they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years on the earth." If the question was, a thousand years on the earth, or not at all on the earth, the first proposition would have the argument, of course; but when, instead of the latter statement we have it, on the earth for ever and ever, it makes a material difference. LET IT BE NOTICED: We never have denied the reign of Christ and his saints on the earth. On the contrary, we contend for an everlasting reign on the earth, when it is fitted for the inheritance of the saints. And when it is considered that the promise of the inheritance does not embrace the old earth, but the earth renewed, and that the saints shall possess it and dwell therein forever, the very fact that a period of 1000 years is given as preceding that eternal reign and the "redemption of the purchased possession," is strong presumptive evidence that the 1000 years' reign is not where the eternal reign is, to wit: on the earth. And when it is contended that the 1000 years are spent on the old sin-cursed earth, I reply, then it cannot be according to the promise made to Abraham, which was of an undefiled and eternal inheritance. Now a great cry is raised about "no promise of going to heaven!" But such a promise is in the sacred record; and as all the promises of God are perfectly harmonious, this will be found to harmonize with the promise to Abraham. But if the 1000 years' reign be disconnected from "the promise made of God to the fathers," as their view would have it, it may be in heaven or any where else, for aught they can show, unless they can produce a promise for an inheritance besides that to Abraham. But if they have in view two different inheritances, of course they will be under the necessity of showing two hopes to correspond. But of this hereafter. J. Marsh, in his pamphlet on the Age to Come, pp. 31, 32, after quoting 1 Cor. xv, 23-28, remarks: "The particular points in these passages to which we would now call special attention, are the commencement, close, and character of the reign of Christ.
"1. His reign commences at his coming.
"2. It will continue until his enemies are subdued, or destroyed, the last of which is death.
"3. One grand object of that reign is to subdue or destroy his enemies.
"These points are clear and most conclusively proved by the evidence in the case. The number of years between the commencement and close of this reign, Paul does not tell; but John does. He gives us to understand that it will be a thousand years. Rev. xx.
"Verse 7. And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed—of whom it is said in the 2d and 3d verses, that he was bound a thousand years, that he should not deceive the nations for that length of time, and verse 14 gives us to understand that when the thousand years close, 'death, the last enemy' will be destroyed. For death and hell are then 'cast into the lake of fire,' which is 'the second death.'
"The fair conclusion from the testimony of Paul and John, is, that the reign of Christ, when his enemies will be subdued, will be a thousand years. And as this reign commences at the coming of Christ, and as the 'times of restitution,' or 'dispensation of the fullness of times' also begin then, it is certain that these times or that dispensation will be of a thousand years duration. This will be the 'times of refreshing'—'the times of restitution'—'his times'—'the dispensation of the fullness of times'—'the reign of Christ a thousand years,' or his millennial reign on the earth.
"Here we might rest the case, without offering any further evidence, feeling assured that we have fully proved our position." J. M. Stephenson, in his work on the atonement, closely follows Mr. Marsh in his comment on this text. I will quote from him and then notice both together. On pp. 83, 84, he says: "With this view we may learn how long a period will be occupied by Jesus Christ in removing all the obstacles out of the way of man's salvation, and bringing back this revolted province in allegiance to the throne of his Father. Read 1 Cor. xv, 23-28. 'But every man in his own order: Christ the first-fruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule, and all authority, and power; for he must reign till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.'
"Here his reign commences with 'his coming,' and the resurrection of 'them that are his,' and terminates, as independent king, with the destruction of 'the last enemy'—death. By Rev. xx, 5, 6, we learn that the 'rest of the dead lived not again till the thousand years were finished;' that then 'the second death' is to have 'power' over them and they will be 'devoured.' Verse 9. Then the Son, having reigned until he has put all enemies under his feet, 'delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father,' and becomes subject himself, that the Father 'may be all in all;' that is, that the Father may be supreme, and the Son subordinate king under him. These are 'the times of restitution of all things which God hath spoken by the mouth of all the holy prophets since the world began.'" I do not know that either of the above writers would endorse the last conclusion I have stated in the objection; viz., that the enemies of Christ will not be destroyed at his coming. Perhaps they may agree that all such as have developed characters as his enemies will be destroyed at his coming; while others, undeveloped, will be put on a new probation. But there are others, to my knowledge, who do not think that his enemies will be destroyed at that time. I heard one argue thus: "Christ receives the dominion before he comes to earth; and the object of his receiving it is stated, that all people, nations, and languages should serve and obey him." Dan. vii, 13, 14. Then the identical nations that are given to him, which are, of course, those existing on the earth at the time of the gift or of his coming, must serve him, to carry out the object of the gift, which they could not do if he destroyed them at his coming. The "Age to Come" presents itself before us in many forms and shapes, and we must meet it as it comes from the hands of its various exponents.
Against the views inculcated by the extracts I have quoted, I have several objections to offer, based upon the literal reading of the very scripture in question; and upon others explanatory of it, and harmonizing with it. As Eld. Marsh draws an argument from it of sufficient weight, in his opinion,2to prove the whole ground, and settle the whole question, it will become me to notice it with care, even though it be at some length. In noticing the unscriptural positions taken by the above writers I shall show that,
1. "The end" is an expression used in the New Testament to denote the time of Christ's coming. In every other instance, with only one exception, when it is used without a direct qualification, the context shows that it refers to the end of this age, or the coming of Christ. In the exceptional instance, [John xiii, 1,] the context clearly shows the sense of its use. In the other, or qualified texts, it is generally associated with the world or age, and mostly refers to the end of the present age. It is in no place in the New Testament used to express the termination of any period beyond the present age, and a careful examination of this text must convince all that it forms an exception to such a declaration. The following passages will serve to show its use:
Matt. x, 22. "But he that endureth to the end shall be saved."
Chap. xxiv, 13. "But he that shall endure unto the end the same shall be saved."
These texts may at first seem to refer to some other time or event, but the following from the same chapter clearly give their meaning:
Verse 6. "And ye shall hear of wars and rumors of war; see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet."
Verse 14. "And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world, for a witness unto all nations, and then shall the end come."
By turning back to verse 3, we find that the question which called forth these remarks was concerning the coming of Christ and the end of the world. Here the end of the world or age is connected with the coming of Christ, as in the following texts:
Matt. xiii, 39. "The harvest is the end of the world." Compare chap. xxiv, 30, 31.
Chap. xxviii, 20. "And lo, I am with you alway, even to the end of the world."
This gives the utmost limit to the preaching of the gospel, according to "the great commission," and extends no farther than the end of this age.
2 Cor. i, 13, 14. "For we write none other things unto you than what ye read or acknowledge, and I trust ye shall acknowledge even to the end; as also ye have acknowledged us in part, that we are your rejoicing even as ye also are ours, in the day of the Lord Jesus."
"The day of the Lord Jesus," when the faithful who had listened to the good news preached by Paul would be his rejoicing, is defined in 1 Thess. ii, 19. "For what is our hope, or joy, or crown of rejoicing? Are not even ye in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ at his coming?"
Heb. iii, 6. "But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end."
Verse 14. For we are made partakers of Christ if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast unto the end."
Chap. vi, 11. "And we desire that every one of you do show the same diligence to the full assurance of hope unto the end."
Rev. ii, 26. "And he that overcometh and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations."
Now as far as the use of the phrase is concerned, we find it generally refers to the time of Christ's coming. And the question arises, Is 1 Cor. xv, 24, an exception to its general use? I think not; for the connection as clearly fixes it to that time as that of any of the preceding texts. Notice the immediate connection. "Christ the first-fruits: afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. THEN COMETH THE END." Here in the connection we find the coming of Christ, but not one word about 1000 years, or any other period succeeding. But if the end does not here refer to the time of his coming, then I ask, Is there any thing in the context to which it can refer? This may seem to be a singular question, but I ask it seriously. I have no disposition to grant what is claimed—that it refers to the termination of the 1000 years reign, as that is the very point to be proved, and to quote it as it has been quoted by the Age to Come writers, is only endeavoring to make an assumption prove itself! And this brings me to notice, 2. The end is not synchronous with the delivering up of the kingdom. If this be so it is plainly settled that the view I call in question is erroneous. The text reads: "Then cometh the end when he SHALL HAVE DELIVERED up the kingdom to God." By this it is plain that the kingdom is delivered up before the end; and of course the end cannot refer to "the close of the reign," as Mr. Marsh has it. Mr. Stephenson makes it the close of an "independent reign," which is no better; for it may be the close in one sense as well as another, so far as the question of time is concerned. But we see it is not the close in any sense—they are separate events. And he makes the delivering up necessary "that the Father may be supreme." But when we consider the relation the two thrones sustain to each other—that Christ receives his own throne by the gift of the Father—the idea seems truly absurd that Christ must deliver up to the Father the throne of David, or his own throne, in order that the Father may be supreme! as it implies that by the gift of the throne of David to Christ, the Father's throne—the throne of the universe—lost its supremacy.
This idea of an "independent reign," is evidently thrown in to obviate a difficulty which many have rushed into by limiting the reign of Christ on his own throne. Thus it does not look consistent for Mr. Marsh to talk of "the close" of a reign which the Scriptures declare shall be forever, of which "there shall be no end." But I am free to admit that if the text does bring us down to the termination of the 1000 years, and the reign here spoken of is the 1000 years reign, then the language of Mr. Marsh is warranted. The views of both writers harmonize in this respect—they believe he reigns till a certain work is accomplished; that it will be accomplished in 1000 years subsequent to the advent; and as he reigns till a certain point and then delivers up the kingdom, if the above view of the reign be correct, it is surely right to call it the end of the reign. For as he receives the kingdom of the Father, so his delivering up to the Father what he received from him would terminate the reign. But as the end, referred to in the text, and the time of delivering up the kingdom are not the same, their view is wrong, as the scripture stands clear which gives him an unlimited reign on the throne of David. Said the prophet, "Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end; upon the throne of David and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even forever." Isa. ix, 7. Said the angel, "The Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his Father David, and he shall rule over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there shall be no end." Luke i, 33. Paul, quoting the scripture, says, "Unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever." Heb. i, 8. Not long since I heard one try to evade this point by saying that Christ's reign will be only of 1000 years duration, and that the term forever was used in respect to it in a limited sense. Webster's large dictionary, which is very full in giving every sense in which words may be used, gives two definitions to the word forever; (1.) At all times; (2.) To eternity; through endless ages. Common sense would teach us that it must often have both significations, that is, be used to express continuity and eternity both at once. It certainly cannot be used in either sense in regard to that which does not exist continually; if it be used to express the uninterrupted, connected existence of that which is limited in duration, it is used in the first sense; but when it refers to that which never ceases, it is used in the second sense above given, and indeed, in both at once; for that which is not perpetual cannot properly be called eternal.
But when it is used in a limited sense, there must be something in the connection to show in what sense it is used, otherwise it would be ambiguous, or indefinite, and should not be offered to prove anything. Then I would ask, are we not fully warranted in saying that it is used in its fullest or most unlimited sense when referring to that of which it is said "there shall be no end." Now every measured period, however long, must have an end, even though it be millions multiplied by millions; otherwise an expression of measurement or duration would denote nothing. Language is designed to express ideas; but if the expressions "the end," and "no end," are used to signify the same thing, the effect produced is only confusion. To me it is very evident that the reign and kingdom spoken of in 1 Cor. xv, 24, 25, which continues till a certain time and is then delivered up, cannot be identical with that of Luke i, 33, which is forever and has no end, or of Dan. vii, 14, which does not pass away. These points are strongly against the view I call in question; and it appears plain to me that the end spoken of in 1 Cor. xv, is the time of Christ's coming, and that the kingdom referred to is delivered up previous to that event. I would next call attention to the fact that
3. The work of subduing his enemies is never, in the scriptures, ascribed to Christ. Mr. Marsh's third point is: "One grand object of his reign is to subdue or destroy his enemies;" and Mr. Stephenson says: "Then the Son having reigned until he has put all enemies under his feet, delivers up the kingdom." Yet, notwithstanding this opinion is advanced with so much confidence, (and upon it, indeed, the whole Age to Come theory rests,) it is altogether unscriptural. But many will be ready to inquire, Does not this text say he must reign till he hath put all his enemies under his feet? Yes; and Zech. vi, 13 also says he shall sit a priest and rule upon his throne; but I trust I have shown, in my remarks on the Melchisedec priesthood, that his priestly rule is not upon his own throne, but upon that of his Father in heaven. So in the text in question; it does not say that he shall reign upon the throne of David till his enemies are put under his feet, as they are put down when he takes that throne. So much has been said and written on the subject of Christ's subduing all his enemies and putting them under his feet in the Age to Come, that I wish all to mark well this point. In this scripture, as in Zech. vi, 12, 13, there are two persons brought to view, and the pronouns he and him refer to both; and we must apply them so as to preserve the sense of the text and harmonize it with the other scriptures. The view advocated by Messrs. Marsh, Stephenson, and others of like faith, not only contradicts other passages but positively destroys the sense of this. To show the utter absurdity of the supposition that Christ subdues his enemies, and puts them under his feet in the Age to Come, (or any other age,) I will paraphrase the text by leaving out the pronouns and inserting the name according to that view. It will then read—
"Christ the first fruits: afterward they that are Christ's at Christ's coming. Then cometh the end, when Christ shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when Christ shall have put down all rule, and all authority and power. For Christ must reign till Christ hath put all enemies under Christ's feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. For Christ hath put all things under Christ's feet. But when Christ saith, All things are put under Christ, it is manifest that Christ is excepted which did put all things under Christ. And when all things shall be subdued unto Christ, then shall the Son (Christ) also himself be subject unto Christ that put all things under Christ, that God may be all in all."
This is worse—far worse than nonsense; yet how will the "Age to Come" believer avoid accepting this as the substance of his faith? It is evident that Christ becomes subject to him that puts all things under him; and if he subdues his enemies and puts them under his own feet, as they declare, then it is equally evident that he becomes subject to himself!! Against this fallacy I present the truth that
4. The Father subdues the enemies of Christ, and puts them under his feet. Before bringing other scriptures to bear on this fact, I will give another paraphrase of the text supposing this declaration to be true:—
"Christ the first fruits: afterward they that are Christ's at Christ's coming. Then cometh the end, when Christ shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when the Father shall have put down all rule, and all authority and power. For Christ must reign till the Father hath put all ene3mies under Christ's feet. The last enemy shall be destroyed, death. For the Father hath put all things under Christ's feet. But when the Father saith, All things are put under Christ, it is manifest that the Father is excepted which did put all things under Christ. And when all things shall be subdued unto Christ, then shall the Son (Christ) also himself be subject to the Father that put all things under Christ, that God may be all in all." With the beauty and truthfulness of this view all must be struck at a glance. The error of the other view is in referring the pronouns to Christ throughout, when it is evident that they refer to both Father and Son immediately after both are introduced in verse 24. As it is clear that the Father puts all things under the Son, we come next to notice when and where this work is accomplished. Is it during the 1000 years, while Christ is on the throne of David? It is not; but
5. Christ rules on the throne and in the kingdom of the Father until his enemies are put under his feet. J. Marsh has laid great stress on his construction of this text, considering it sufficient to prove his whole theory. But his construction is wrong, and his theory baseless. Others beside him have used this text as a stronghold; but with the establishment of this truth in regard to the reign, all claims of the Age to Come on this text are forever put at rest; and a mass of parallel scriptures, urged by the writers on that theory, are taken out of their hands and arrayed in favor of the truth that the enemies of Christ will be "dashed in pieces" at his coming.
Now that Christ is to reign as king in two localities, that is, occupy two thrones, is proved by Rev. iii, 21: "To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame and am set down with my Father in his throne." Thus, while Christ is on the throne of the Father he is only in expectation of his own throne. That this is the past and present position of our exalted Head is further proved by Heb. viii, 1: "We have such an High Priest who is set down on the right hand of the throne of the majesty in the heavens." And that that is where he will reign till all enemies are put under his feet, is clearly proved by the Scriptures. Ps. cx, 1. "The LORD said unto my Lord; Sit thou at my right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool." This is quoted by Jesus as recorded by the gospels. Matt. xxii, 44; Mark xii, 36; Luke xx, 42, 43; and also by Peter, [Acts ii, 34, 35,] in his argument on the resurrection and exultation of Jesus. "For David is not ascended into the heavens; but he saith himself. The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, and I make thy foes thy footstool." This is a sure application of David's prophecy, and proves the location of the reign, until his foes are made his footstool, to be "in the heavens," where Jesus ascended. I hope none of the enemies of truth will mock at this scripture, and derisively call it a "sky kingdom," but remember that God is there, sitting upon the throne of his holiness; for "The Lord hath prepared his throne in the heavens; and his kingdom ruleth over all." Ps. ciii, 19.
Paul also makes mention of the same in Heb. i, 13, in remarking on the superiority of Christ to the angels. Again, after affirming the position of our High Priest in chap. viii, and his mediatorial work in the heavenly, holy places under the new covenant, [chap. ix,] he says, "But this man after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down on the right hand of God; from henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool." Chap. x, 12, 13. This point is established beyond the possibility of a doubt; and the true sense of the scripture is at once perceived. Christ the first fruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. Then cometh the end, (at his coming,) when he shall have delivered up the Melchisedec kingdom to God even the Father; when the Father shall have put down all rule, and all authority and power. For Christ must reign on the Father's throne—at his right hand, till his enemies are put under his feet, or made his footstool. Then the Son leaves the throne of the universe, and also becomes subject. It will now appear evident that
6. Christ delivers up that kingdom, or leaves the Father's throne, and takes the throne of David before his coming. The first part of this proposition is proved by the text. At the end, which is at his coming, he shall have delivered up the kingdom, which must be what has been termed the Melchisedec kingdom—the resignation of the office of Priestship. That he takes the throne of David, or his own throne, before his return to earth is proved by many scriptures. Luke xix, 12. "A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom and to return." Verse 15. "And it came to pass that when he returned, having received the kingdom," &c. The receiving of the kingdom here spoken of is the same as that of Dan. vii, 13, 14, and both agree with the putting of all things under Christ. Mr. Marsh's remarks on Dan. vii, 13, 14, are worthy of notice. He quotes and comments as follows:
"I saw in the night visions; and behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven and came to the Ancient of Days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages should serve him.
"The order here laid down is,—
"a. Coming of the Son of man.
"b. Giving of the Son of man dominion, glory, and a kingdom.
"c. All people, nations, and languages, and all dominions, [rulers,] serve and obey the Son of man, the Lord and king of the whole earth."—Age to Come, p. 13.
It may not be wondered at that a superficial reading of 1 Cor. xv, 23-25, should produce such a view as that advanced by Messrs. Marsh and Stephenson; but no one, however superficial, can possibly read the coming or advent of Christ out of Dan. vii, 13, 14, unless it be assumed that the Ancient of Days is on the earth prior to the advent, for he came to the Ancient of Days, and was brought near before him. But Mr. M's view would make it read that he came from the Ancient of Days, and was taken far away from him. And even on the assumption that the Ancient of days is on the earth at his coming, it will not harmonize that view with the scriptures, which teach that he has received the kingdom when he comes, as in Luke xix. The receiving the kingdom must be identical with the marriage of the Lamb, which takes place before he comes; as the "little flock" are to "wait for the Lord when he will return from the wedding," [Luke xii, 36,] then they will be taken to the mansions prepared in the "Father's house," where they will sit down at the marriage supper.
A careful examination of the Scriptures will show that the coming to the Ancient of Days, where he receives the kingdom, [Dan. vii, 13, 14,] is parallel with his coming to his temple, [Mal. iii, 1,] where he sits as "a refiner and purifier of silver," [verse 3,] and with his going in to the marriage, [Matt. xxv,] where he receives as his own the New Jerusalem, the Bride, (our Mother by adoption,) which is the Capital of the kingdom which he there receives. And throwing off the figures, this signifies his going into the Most Holy Place to cleanse the Sanctuary, blot out the transgressions of Israel, finish his priestly rule, and receive his own throne and kingdom, when his enemies are put under his feet; a work which commenced, according to the prophets, in 1844, and will terminate just previous to the pouring out of the seven last plagues. The announcement made under the sounding of the seventh trumpet is, "The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ, and he shall reign forever and ever." Rev. xi, 15. This agrees with Dan. vii, and as these kingdoms are given to him by the Ancient of Days in heaven, he comes to earth as King of kings, and Lord of lords. Rev. xix.
There can certainly be no difference in time between his receiving the kingdom and having his enemies put under his feet—they must be identical. For, although the Capital, Jerusalem, and its location, Zion, are in heaven, the purchased possession awaiting redemption is in the hands of his enemies—the Devil and his servants. But there is a difference between having his enemies put under him, and destroying them. In 1 Cor. xv, the same Greek word is used to express the subduing of all things to the Son, and the subjection of the Son to the Father. The order given in Ps. ii, 8, 9, is, (1.) The Father gives them to his Son, (2.) The Son breaks them with a rod of iron, and dashes them in pieces; which dashing, as has been shown, takes place at his coming. 7. Death (the last enemy of them that are Christ's) will be destroyed or swallowed up in victory at his coming. If it could be shown that verse 24 stood connected with Rev. xx, it would present no greater difficulty than that presented by the Age to Come, even allowing all they claim on 1 Cor. xv, 23-25; for they must then place 1000 years between events immediately connected in the text. But I see no necessity for thus disconnecting this verse from the remainder of the discourse. That we have now the true sense of the text, so far as we have examined it, I consider too plain to need any further proof; the truth of the following points must also be allowed, on examination.
(1.) After plainly declaring the general resurrection, in verse 22, the Apostle takes up the "order" of "them that are Christ's at his coming," and pursues it to the end of the chapter; and it is only as the enemy of the saints that death is destroyed.
(2.) The resurrection of the righteous is the same as death being swallowed up in victory. Verse 54. Whiting renders verse 24, death will be conquered; and the expressions, conquered, and swallowed up, appropriately refer to the last enemy of the saints, but not of the wicked.
(3.) The wicked will never be released from death—the second death. If they are, they must have a second resurrection. Dr. Clarke says, "Death shall be destroyed: katergetai: shall be counterworked, subverted, and finally overturned. But death cannot be destroyed by there being simply no further death; death cannot be destroyed and annihilated by a general resurrection." This is true; and will so appear to all who have considered death as simply the opposite or absence of life, and not as an entity possessed of physical proportions. And this view is also endorsed by those who urge the opposite to sustain their theories. For instance, in the Atonement, p. 64, Mr. Stephenson says, "The Bible leaves all the wicked under the dominion of the second death, from which it offers no hope of a resurrection." J. H. W.