THE JUDGMENT.
We have seen how the grand doctrine of the future resurrection of the
dead, demolishes with its ponderous weight the gossamer fabric of the
immortality of the soul. There is another doctrine as scriptural and as
prominent as the resurrection which opposes its impregnable battlements
to the same anti-scriptural fable--a fable, weak, though encased in the
coat of mail with which heathendom furnishes it, and not very imposing
in appearance, though adorned with the gorgeous trappings of the mother
of harlots. We refer to the doctrine of the future general Judgment.
This doctrine, and the theory of the conscious state of the dead, cannot
exist together. There is an antagonism between them, irreconcilable, and
irrepressible. If every man is judged at death, as he indeed must be, if
an immortal soul survives the dissolution of the body, and enters at
once into the happiness or misery of the eternal state, accordingly as
its character has been good or bad, there is no occasion and no room for
a general Judgment in the future; and if, on the other hand, there is to
be such a future Judgment, it is proof positive that the other doctrine
is not true.
We affirm, then, that the Scriptures clearly teach that there is to be a
general Judgment in the future, at which time such awards shall be
rendered to every one as shall accord with the record of his deeds. A
passage in Hebrews may seem to some minds to afford proof that the
Judgment follows immediately after death, and which may, consequently,
demand a brief notice at this point. Heb. 9:27: “And as it is appointed
unto men once to die, but after this the Judgment.” The sentence does
not end here, but is continued into the next verse: “_So_ Christ was
once offered to bear the sins of many.” From this it is evident that the
death to which Paul refers is some death which illustrates the death of
Christ as an offering for sin: As men die, and after this the Judgment,
_so_ (in like manner) Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many.
It is not then the common death of human beings to which the apostle
refers; for there is nothing in this death to show how Christ died as an
offering for sin.
This language occurs at the conclusion of an argument on the priesthood
of Christ, as illustrated by the priesthood connected with the Jewish
service. Under that dispensation there was a yearly round of service
connected with the worldly sanctuary. On the day of atonement, when the
sanctuary was to be cleansed, a goat was slain for all the people. Their
life was imputed to it, and in it they in figure died. The blood of this
goat, representing the forfeited lives of the people, was then
ministered in the most holy place, which was a work of determination and
decision in their cases, which the word here rendered judgment
signifies. So Christ, the antitype, was once offered, and, if we avail
ourselves of his intercession, his blood is accepted instead of our
forfeited lives, and we shall stand acquitted in the real Judgment work
in the sanctuary above, as Israel were acquitted when the same work was
performed in figure in the worldly sanctuary of the former dispensation.
This text, therefore, not referring to the end of individual mortal
life, and its relation to future retribution, has no relevancy to the
question under discussion.
We return to the proposition that a future general Judgment is
appointed. Paul reasoned before Felix of a Judgment to come. Acts 24:25.
But as it may be said that this was to be experienced when Felix died,
we will introduce another text which not only speaks of this Judgment as
future, but shows that it will pass simultaneously on the human race:
Acts 17:31: “Because he hath appointed a day in the which he will judge
the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he
hath given assurance unto all men in that he hath raised him from the
dead.” Here it is announced in plain terms that the Judgment of this
world is future, that it is to take place at the time appointed, and
that a day, or period, is set apart for this purpose.
Peter refers to the same day and says that the angels that sinned, and
the unjust of our own race, are reserved unto it. 2 Pet. 2:4, 9. Again
he says that this present earth is reserved unto fire, with which it
shall be destroyed in that day. 2 Pet. 3:7-12. Jude says that the angels
that kept not their first estate are reserved in everlasting chains
under darkness unto the Judgment of the great day. Jude 6. This is the
day when Christ is represented as separating the good from the bad, as a
shepherd divideth the sheep from the goats, Matt. 25:31-34, and the time
to which John looked forward when he said that he saw the dead, small
and great, stand before God, and the books were opened, and they were
judged out of those things written in the books.
The Judgment also stands in many lines of prophecy, not as something
which has been going forward from the beginning, not as taking place as
each member of the human family passes from the stage of mortal
existence, but as the great event with which the probation of the human
race is to end. Testimony on this point need not be multiplied. It
cannot be denied that a day is coming in which sentence will be rendered
at once upon all who have lived a life of probation in this world, a
sentence which shall decide their condition for the eternity that lies
beyond.
This fact being established, its bearing upon the question of
consciousness in death, cannot be overlooked. For, if every human being
at death passes at once into a state of reward or punishment, what
occasion is there for a future general Judgment that a second decision
may be rendered in their cases? Is it possible that a mistake was made
in the former decision? possible that some are now writhing in the
flames of hell, who should be basking in the bliss of Heaven? possible
that some are taking their fill of happiness in the bowers of paradise,
whose corrupt hearts and criminal life demand that they should have
their place with fiends in the lowest hell? And if mistakes have once
been made in the sentence rendered, may they not be made again? What
assurance can we have that, though we may be entitled by thorough
repentance to the happiness of Heaven, we may not be sentenced for all
eternity to the damnation of hell? Is it possible that such foul blots
of injustice stand upon the record of the government of Heaven? Yes, if
the conscious-state theory be true! We arraign that theory face to face
with this stupendous fact, and bid it behold its work. It destroys God’s
omniscience! It charges him with imperfection! It accuses his government
of mistakes which are worse than crimes! Is any theory, which is subject
to such overwhelming imputations, worthy of a moment’s credence?
To avoid the foregoing fatal conclusions, is it said that sentence is
not passed at death, but that the dead are held somewhere in a state of
suspense, without being either rewarded or punished till the Judgment?
Then we inquire how this can be harmonized with the invariable arguments
which immaterialists use on this question? For is it not claimed that
the spirit goes immediately to God to receive sentence from the hand of
its Creator? Is it not claimed that the rich man was immediately after
death in hell, in torment? Is it not claimed that the repentant thief
was that very day with Christ in the joys of paradise? If these
instances and arguments are abandoned, let it be so understood. If not,
then no such after thought can be resorted to, to shield the
conscious-state dogma from the charges above mentioned.
We close this argument with a paragraph from the candid pen of H. H.
Dobney, Baptist minister of England. In Future Punishment, pp. 139, 140,
he says:--
“There is something of awkwardness, which the Scriptures seem to avoid,
in making beings who have already entered, and many ages since, on a
state of happiness or misery, come from those abodes to be judged, and
to receive a formal award to the very condition which has long been
familiar to them. To have been in Heaven with Christ for glorious ages,
and then to stand at his bar for Judgment, and be invited to enter
Heaven as their eternal home, as though they had not been there already,
scarcely seems to look exactly like the Scripture account, while it
would almost appear to be wanting in congruity. Nor is this all. There
is another difficulty, namely: That the idea of a saint already ‘with
Christ,’ ‘present with the Lord’ (who is in Heaven, be it remembered, in
his resurrection and glorified body, wherewith he ascended from the brow
of Olivet), coming from Heaven to earth to glide into a body raised
simultaneously from the ground, he being in reality already possessed of
a spiritual body, would seem _an invention which has not one syllable in
Scripture to give it countenance_.”