Pre-Millenarianism.

A Lecture.

It is with great reluctance that I have come to the conclusion that it is my duty to undertake directly and explicitly the subject of the Pre-Millennial Resurrection. I have felt very loth publicly to oppose views which I am aware that some of my hearers have for a considerable time past warmly cherished; and it is only with great diffidence that I can attempt to furnish any positive explanation of the very obscure and difficult portion of Scripture, which has been read as the subject of this evening's exposition. I feel no manner of doubt, indeed, as to the utter insufficiency of the passage in question to sustain the doctrine which some have endeavoured to build upon it. But while it is very easy, as I think, taking the light of plain didactic Scripture to guide us, to say what it does not mean, he page 4 would probably be rather a rash or an ignorant than a wise, modest, and well-instructed expositor, who should undertake confidently to lay down, and absolutely to define, what it does mean.

The extent, however, to which a doctrine said to be plainly taught in this Scripture, but which is opposed at every turn to many of those "tilings which have been most surely believed among us," has obtained credit among our Societies in this place; the impossibility in which your Ministers have found themselves of preaching plainly and fully some of the most glorious and blessed truths of the New Covenant—the mediatorial reign of Christ, the doctrine of the Resurrection, the awful realities of the Judgment-day, the reward of the righteous in the presence of their King—or even of expounding almost any prophecy of the Old Testament, without coming into continual collision with this doctrine, and thus offending the prejudices or contravening the cherished opinions of some of their hearers; the unhappy and injurious state of uncertainty, on all these points, in which not a few have been involved; the ceaseless efforts made by too many of the adherents of the doctrine in question to unsettle the minds of those who have not adopted their views; the earnest wish of many to have their ancient faith clearly and fully explained and defended, and arguments put into their hands whereby to sustain the views they had been taught and in which they had been accustomed to find "strong consolation" and "great delight"; and, finally, the consideration that the doctrine of the "Pre-Millennial Resurrection" has served, in many cases, and will serve, it is to be feared, in many more, as a bait or decoy-doctrine by means of which those who embrace it are led also to receive a whole system of antinomian error, in which "repentance toward God" is blotted out as one of the conations of salvation, and the law is made void through faith—these reasons in conjunction have at length decided me, as a matter of imperative, though very painful duty, to devote this evening to the page 5 examination of the doctrine I have referred to and the grounds on which it is said to rest.

It deserves preliminary remark, that "the seat of this doctrine" is to be found, according to the acknowledgment of Pre-Millenarians themselves, in the passage which has been read in your hearing. Other places of Scripture there are which are thought indirectly and incidentally to confirm it; but this alone is even alleged directly to teach it. In other words, this point of most important doctrine is revealed, not in the didactic and properly doctrinal parts of the teaching of Christ, or of the Apostolic writings, but in a much-disputed passage of the most obscure symbolic and prophetic book of Scripture. Surely, this is not the manner in which we should beforehand have expected such a doctrine to be taught.

I believe there are some persons who profess to find no special difficulty in the interpretation of the Apocalypse. To these persons every part of Scripture is alike easy; and they find themselves as much at home among the symbols of the Apocalypse, or the latter chapters of Ezekiel, or the final chapter of Zechariah, as in reading the parable of the prodigal son. These persons deny that education, learning, or research, is in any degree needful or even serviceable to the understanding of the dark places of Scripture. They take the prophecy, "the way-faring men, though fools, shall not err therein," as if it meant that every Christian, however unlettered, should be infallibly guided into the meaning of all mysteries of Scripture, and they account themselves wiser than all their teachers. Yet the prophecy or promise so misapplied evidently refers only to the plain and practical truths of salvation and holiness—"the highway"—the beaten path of plain evangelical faith and practice—"the way of holiness." (Is. xxxv. 8.) Too often are such men "presumptuous and self-willed." Too many of them belong to that class of which St. Peter speaks—"the unlearned and unstable, who wrest the Scriptures" to their own undoing. Not such have been page 6 the sentiments of the deeply learned and truly pious students of the Scripture. These have also been truly and deeply humble, and have confessed that there are many things in the Scripture beyond their depth or reach. Sauein said of the Apocalypse, that though "to a heart desirous of maxims and precepts, it was a work which gave rich satisfaction," yet, "to a spirit eager for knowledge and light, it was of all books one of the most mortifying." The judicious, learned, and pious Doddridge found so many things "dark and mysterious" in this book, after all his study, that for some time he hesitated whether he should say anything at all upon it in his Commentary; and all that he finally did was to give a few critical hints here and there, and enforce its more practical parts. John Albert Bengel,' "that great light of the last century," undoubtedly the finest critic of his day, was engaged in the preparation of his great work on the Apocalypse during twenty years, and, after all, only produced an ingenious and eminent failure. John Wesley "for many years did not study at all the intermediate parts" of the Apocalypse, as "utterly despairing of understanding them, after the fruitless attempts of so many wise and good men." But afterwards, having "seen the works of the great Bengelius," he adopted his views, and embodied them in his own "Notes," omitting, however, the details of criticism, which, he says, "are above the capacity of ordinary readers." Of course, he fell into Bengel's errors. But he was far too wise a man at any time to suppose either Bexgel or himself to have really mastered the whole subject. "I by no means," says he, "pretend to understand or explain all that is contained in this mysterious book. I only offer what help I can to the serious inquirer." Dr. Adam Clarke, to the end of his life, professed his entire inability to understand this mysterious book. Moses Stuart, the American, one of the closest and most profoundly-learned of modern students of Scripture, in his ponderous and immensely erudite work on the Apocalypse, tells us that, at the beginning of his page 7 course as Theological Professor, he "frankly told his pupils that he knew nothing respecting the book which could profit them, and could not attempt to lecture on it." Nor was it until after he had devoted ten years of study to the whole subject, that he "began with much caution to say a few things in the Lecture-Room respecting the book in question."

Surely, such instances as those should teach us caution and modesty in forming, much more in pronouncing and maintaining, our opinions as to the interpretation of this mysterious book. But, if anything were wanting to impress this lesson upon us, it would be the failures and errors of even such learned and holy men as I have referred to, when they came to deduce definite results from their criticism on this book. Bengel, for instance, (and Wesley followed him), deduced from his system of interpretation the following among other curious conclusions: that in the year 1836 precisely, the mystery of God would be fulfilled, the beast destroyed, and Satan bound, the millennium then beginning. Nor are the interpreters of the present day more happy in their endeavours to fix the date of those "times and seasons which the Father hath reserved in his own hands." Dr. Cumming is, doubtless, the most popular and influential of pre-millennial expositors. In 1848 he published series of Lectures on the Apocalypse, delivered in Exeter Hall to crowded audiences. In these he predicts that in two or three years from the date of delivery the Turkish Empire would be at an utter end, and the Jews restored to their own land. More than four years have passed away, and the Turkish Empire seems quite as little likely to fall as it did in 1848; while Israel is still as far, apparently, from being gathered as for years past. It is perhaps worth remarking in this connexion that, two centuries ago, it had been predicted with absolute confidence, by the Millenarians, or "Fifth-Monarchy Men" of that day, that the restoration of the Jews would take place punctually in the year 1650. (Bishop Hall's "Revelation page 8 Unrevealed"). Dr. Cumming also teaches that in 1860, or thereabouts, the Judge will come. ^*

Dr. Cumming, for the most part, follows in the track of Mr. Elliott, popularizing him for the multitude. Mr. Elliott, however, is undoubtedly an able and learned critic and commentator; and his great work on the Apocalypse, however rash and unfortunate in some of its announcements, will be consulted with advantage by every student. Only it is monitory and instructive that he and Professor Stuart, the two most able and elaborate, by far, of recent writers on the Apocalypse, should be antithetically opposed to each other as to the date and general scope of the whole book, and as to almost every controverted passage.

Yet it is upon a single passage in this very Book—unsupported, as I shall show, by any other passage of the New Testament, and in direct opposition to very many passages of luminous distinctness—that Pre-Millenarians attempt to found then peculiar doctrine.

That doctrine is, that when Christ comes the second time to earth, He will not come to raise and judge the quick and dead, both good and evil, but to raise the saints; that between the raising of the saints and the final Judgment, which will be confined to the wicked alone, there will intervene the millennial glory, and, after that, the rebellion and discomfiture of Gog and Magog, with Satan at their head; and that during the millennium, Christ, seated on the throne of David, the New Jerusalem being his glorious metropolis, will reign in person, with his risen and glori-

^* In his Lectures on Daniel, published in 1850, Dr. C. adopts what he calls an ancient German prophecy, which, he says, "I do not say was inspired, but was certainly a strange guess for the Germans to make so long ago": "I would not be a king in 1848, I would not be a soldier in 1849, I would not be a grave-digger in 1850, I will be anything you please in 18.51." Certainly, the kings were very badly off in 1848—in which year it is possible the prophecy was made; but the soldiers were no worse off in 1849 than in 1848; the grave-diggers had much less work in 1850 than in 1849 (the cholera year); and the prophecy for 1851 is so puerile and foolish as to make a fit close and climax to the folly of the whole. But what a school of prophetic interpretation it must be which uses such material as this!

page 9 fied saints, over a world of men yet in the flesh, and born in sin, who will remain eating and drinking, planting and building, marrying and giving in marriage, under this mysterious sway.

I shall endeavour, first, to show that this doctrine is destitute of all support, whilst the contrary is plainly and repeatedly taught, in other parts of the Scriptures; and then to explain in what way we may fairly understand the passage read for the text, so that it shall both harmonize with the context and agree with the general teaching of the "Word of God.

I.—(1.) It has been alleged that, although the doctrine in question may not be directly taught, yet it is at any rate confirmed, if not implied, in several passages of Scripture. Let us look at this.

St. Paul says in one place, (Phil. iii. 11), "If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead." Why, it is asked, should St. Paul thus earnestly desire and press towards a mere general resurrection? The simple answer is: It was not a mere general resurrection—it was no general or abstract fact or doctrine that the Apostle was contemplating—but "the resurrection of the dead" as specially related to himself, a servant and follower of Christ—the general resurrection under its particular suspect towards himself, as a member of Christ, his raised and glorified Head,—"the resurrection of the dead," as bringing him, soul and body, to Christ, and Christ in glory to welcome him with all the consummated saints. Surely, all Christians, like the Apostle, rejoice in and turn with longing towards the "resurrection of the dead." Not till then shall we fully know "Him and the power of his resurrection." (v. 10). "Our citizenship is in heaven, from whence we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall change this vile body," &c. (v. 20.)

Again: I have had 1 Thess. iv. l6. cited to me triumphantly—"The dead in Christ shall rise first." Yet how page 10 exceedingly foolish is this, when the context expressly explains that this means that the living saints then on earth "shall not prevent"—that is, anticipate, or get before "them which are asleep" in Jesus.

It has been asked, too, how it happens that in 1 Cor. xv. and 1 Thess. iv., chapters treating expressly of the Resurrection, there is no mention made of the resurrection of the wicked. The simple answer is, because those chapters treat expressly and exclusively of the "resurrection of the just." The Apostle is dealing with the privileges of Christians, as such. He "comforts" those to whom he writes "with these words." (1 Thess. iv. 18.) He urges them to be "steadfast, immoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch an they know that their labour is not in vain in the Lord." (1 Cor. xv. 58.) What has the resurrection of the wicked to judgment to do with such a subject as this? True, they also shall rise, and rise, as well as the righteous, "at the last trump," but not in the same company, or on the same principles, or to the same reward. "They will not rise as represented by and entitled to life in Christ. When He said to his disciples, 'Because I live, ye shall live also,' he enunciated a principle under which the wicked do not stand, and spoke of a life which they will never taste. The character of that life, the grounds of it, and the subjects of it, are all restrictive." ^* What have sinners to do with a resurrection of which Christ's is the model and the pledge? Do they belong to the harvest of which He is "the first fruits"? It is plain, then, why in these glorious chapters there is no reference to the resurrection of the wicked. Such a reference would be a sad and dark intrusion here. But, because of this omission of all reference to their resurrection, it would be quite as rational to argue, as Socinians have done, that they shall never rise at all, as that they shall not arise until after the interval of a thousand years.

Again: in Luke xiv. 14, we read of those who shall be

^* David Brown on the Second Advent.

page 11 "recompensed at the resurrection of the just." But, surely, this allusion gives us no reason whatever to believe that the "resurrection of the unjust" shall not take place till more than a millennium after that of the just.

These are, I believe, all the passages of Scripture in which it has been thought by pre-millennialists of any reputation that the doctrine of a "first resurrection" is implied or hinted at. This is the amount of confirmatory evidence which is adduced: and, certainly, the sum total comes to nothing. Passages which agree as well with the usual doctrine on this subject as with the pre-millennial cannot be reasonably adduced in support of the latter. And where is a passage to be found which, while it favours the latter, disfavours the former?

(2.) But now I proceed to show, that many plain passages of Scripture emphatically teach a doctrine entirely contrary to that of Pre-Millenarians. The constant teaching of Scripture is, that in the same "hour" all the dead, both righteous and wicked, will be raised by Divine power, and that, in the same "day" they shall all be judged by the Universal King.

The Judge Himself affirms "The hour is coming in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the re-surrection of life, and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation." (John, v. 28-29.) Can words be plainer? Can authority on this point be more conclusive? And how broad a light do these words throw upon the prophecy of Daniel: "Many of them that sleep iu the dust of the earth shall awake; some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt." (Dan. xii. 2.) Paul, standing on Mars' Hill, proclaimed to the Athenians that "God hath appointed a day, in the which He will Judge the World in righteousness by that man whom He hath ordained." (Acts, xvii. 31.) Accordingly, he thus adjures his "son Timothy": "I charge thee before God, even the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and page 12 dead at his appearing and his kingdom." (2 Tim. iv. 1.) And how awfully distinct and impressive are his words in writing to the Romans! To make the sense more clear, in citing his words I omit the parenthesis towards the close. "The day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; who will render to every man according to his deeds, to them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory, and honour, and immortality,—eternal life; but unto them that are contentious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousnesss, indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon ever soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile. For there is no respect of persons with God. For as many as have sinned without law, shall also perish without law; and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law,—in The Day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my Gospel." (Rom. ii. 5-12, 16.) This, then, was Paul's Gospel; and who-ever preaches otherwise, preaches "another Gospel" than Paul's, "which is not another." Listen to the same Apostle, teaching the Corinthian Church: "We must all appear before the judgment-seat of Christ, that every one may receive the deeds done in the body, according to that he hath done, whether good or bad." (2 Cor. v. 10.) How startlingly bright and distinct, even as though illuminated by the very fire and glory of the Judgment-day, is the following revelation, contained in an epistle to which Pre-Millenarians are somewhat fond of referring: "The Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power, When He Shall Come to be glorified in his saints and admired in all them that believe in that day." (2 Thess. i. 7-10.) Who now, after so plain a testimony as this, shall dare to deny that in one and the self-same day the Lord page 13 shall "come to be glorified in all them that believe," and to "punish the wicked with everlasting destruction"? Nor shall He be revealed more for the one purpose than for the other, or for the one before the other. No; but He shall be "revealed in flaming fire, to take vengeance," at the very time that He is "coming to be glorified in his saints." Now, can it be possible that the advocates of a literal interpretation of Scripture will endeavour to put any other sense upon so plain a passage as this?—I shall only add to the above two other passages, of themselves quite sufficient to settle the controversy:—"When the Son of Man shall come in his glory and all his holy angels with him, then shall He sit upon the throne of his glory. (Compare Mat. xvi. 27.) And before him shall be gathered all nations; and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: And He shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the King say to them on his right hand, Come ye blessed, (&c.) Then shall He say to them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, (&c.) And these shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal." (Mat. xxv. 31-46.) "And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their work. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire." (Rev. xx. 11-15.)

Such a chain of luminous passages as I have thus given is far too bright to be obscured, too strong to be broken, page 14 and too long and comprehensive to be escaped or evaded. Yet many more links might have been added, not less impenetrably and irrefragably strong, though in some in-stances less impressively bright, than those arranged above. Let the inquirer on this subject refer particularly to Rom, xiv. 10, 12; 1 John ii. 28, iv. 17; Matt. xiii. 30, 38-43, xvi. 24-27, vii. 21-23, x. 32, 33; Rev. xxi. 7, 8, and xxii. 12-15.

(3.) My next argument against the pre-millenarian system is founded on 2 Peter iii. This chapter, it is admitted on all hands, refers to the changes which shall take place in the present terrestrial system at Christ's second coming. But we are here taught in the plainest possible terms that the whole of this terraqueous globe shall, at the coming of Christ, be consumed and dissolved in one "all-involving, all-reducing, conflagration." How, then, shall the Jews be preserved alive during this universal conflagration, to be converted and become missionaries to the Gentile nations, or how shall the Gentiles be preserved alive to be converted by the Jewish missionaries, or reigned over by the risen and glorified saints?

This difficulty is felt by all pre-millenarian writers. Some, to get rid of it, endeavour to make out that the conflagration will not be universal. But, surely, this is to "diminish from" the sayings of the "True and Faithful Witness," to tamper with the plainest revelations of Holy Writ. In that "day of the Lord," "the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and all the works therein shall be burnt up, and all these things shall be dissolved." If these words do not describe a universal and all-dissolving conflagration, no words can be found to do so. Others think that, as Noah and his family were saved in the ark during the deluge of water, so a seed of Jews and Gentiles—including, of course, some of the family of "Gog and Magog," the great post-millennial rebels—shall in some way or other be caught up and preserved alive during this page 15 dissolution of all things, and then deposited again in the "new heavens and new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness," to form a stock from which Palestine shall be repeopled with Jews, of all the tribes of course, and the rest of the earth with "sinners of the Gentiles," to be converted by the Jews (how soon after the replacement on the earth must be left to conjecture). I need not answer such speculations as these.

(4.) Another and very obvious objection to the pre-millennial theory is, that it is degrading to the majesty of the Mediatorial King, and incompatible with the glory of the risen saints.

St. Peter expressly teaches us that Christ is now upon the throne of his father David, by the right hand of God exalted as a Prince and a Saviour, and seated on the right hand of his Father, there to remain until his enemies be made his footstool (Acts, ii. 30-35, v. 31.—Comparo Is. ix. 7); St. Paul, that when, having offered one sacrifice for sins, He had by himself purged our sins, He for ever sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high, from thenceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. (Hebrews x. 12, compared with i. 3). From that glorious throne of his Holiness, He now upholds, rules, and administers all tilings by the "word of his power." "Angels, and authorities, and powers" are "subject unto him." (1 Peter iii. 22). Being thus unlimited in his power and resources, He is "Head overall things unto the Church, which is his Body, the fulness of Him which filleth all in all." (Eph. i. 22, 23). And can we believe that He who, from his throne in the highest heaven, thus "filleth all things," will one day limit and localize himself as resident ruler over the earthly realms of this sinful world, over nations of flesh and blood, born in sin and shapen in iniquity? That He, who is seated in sovereign majesty and in the unruffled glory of conscious Omnipotence, "expecting till his enemies be made his footstool," will ever come down to the battle-field of this page 16 earth, literally to "rule the nations with a rod of iron" and "dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel"—literally to contend in Armageddon^* with his earthly foes in "battles of shaking," where there is "confused noise and garments rolled in blood"? Or, that He who fought His fight in Gethsemane and on the Cross of Calvary will ever with his saints be beleaguered on earth by a literal rebellious Gog and Magog? Such ideas are more than degrading, they are revolting. No! my dear brethren, our Glorious King will not descend again to this earth, the scene of his humiliation, till he comes in final triumph. At the moment of his descending, "the last enemy shall be destroyed, even Death." Satan, Sin, and Death, shall all be vanquished then. His "expecting" will then be over. He will have seen "of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied." Without ever leaving his "seat,"^†—for He will descend upon that throne from which He now rules heaven and earth,—He shall have "put all enemies under his feet," and then, his last awful office as Mediatorial King of Men having been discharged, and the Judgment being over, He shall render up to the Father the Mediatorial trust and commission which he had received from Him, and the Son himself shall be subject unto Him who had put all things under Him that God may be all in all. (1 Cor. 24-28).

The same argument may be put in another form, less impressive perhaps, but still conclusive. Our Saviour is now "at the right hand of God in the heavenly places, far above all principality and power, and every name that is named" (Eph. i. 20-21); God hath given to Him "a name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth" (Phil. ii. 9-10);" angels and authorities and powers" are now sub-

^* Rev. xvi.—(See "Delta on the Revelation,"—a high pre-millenarian authority.)

^† Christ is represented as standing to intercede, as our Mediatorial Priest; but always as seated when spoken of as Ruler or King, and as seated never to leave his throne again.

page 17 ject unto him." (1 Peter, iii. 22). These Scriptures certainly teach that God hath constituted his Son, Jesus Christ, the visible centre of angelic adoration; and that where He is there must all the hierarchies of heaven be gathered together. When Christ, then, shall descend to earth, what will happen? It is impossible to conceive that earth can compass or contain all heaven, or that heaven's full glory could be concentrated on earth. But if not, then must heaven, during the reign of Christ on earth, be deprived of its light and glory, of the presence of its adorable King.

Further, how could it be possible for men in "flesh and blood," still but earthly and sinful men, to behold the glory of the Son of God, and of the risen saints? The Israelites could not bear to look upon the radiance even of Moses' face; Moses himself could not see God's face and live; Daniel, the man greatly beloved, when he saw celestial glory, fainted and was sick certain days, and there was no strength in him; the glory of the transfigured Christ altogether overpowered his chosen disciples; John, the beloved disciple, who had known Jesus so well upon earth, and had been with him in the Mount of Transfiguration, when he beheld His flaming eyes and refulgent countenance in Patmos, fell at his feet as dead. And yet, in the millennium, some would have us believe that the tribes of men on the earth, "eating and drinking, building and planting, marrying and giving in marriage," shall mingle face to face and continually with the King of Glory and his risen and refulgent saints, all whose bodies shall be fashioned like unto His glorious body. If this may be, then may flesh and blood inherit the kingdom of God, and corruption inherit incorruption. (1 Cor. xv. 50).

Nay! we are required to believe that, even after this descent of heaven's power and glory to earth, the earthly race of Gog and Magog will dare, in open rebellion, to "compass the camp of the saints and the beloved city"!

(5) Another difficulty, on the pre-millennial scheme, is page 18 found in answering the following question: After the "first resurrection," and during the millennium, under what category must the living (but not glorified) saints of earth be reckoned, and under what dispensation of grace will they live?

We are taught in the Scripture that the whole Church of Christ will be complete at his coming. The harvest of which Christ is "the first fruits" shall bo, without limitation, "they that are Christ's" (1 Cor. xv. 23); "Christ shall come to be glorified in his saints, and admired in all them that believe in that day" (2 Thess. i. 10), and so shall "He present unto himself" all that are His, "a glorious Church, without spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing." (Eph. v. 27). That will be the day in which He "shall make up his jewels." (Mai. iii. 17). Then shall the Bride, the Lamb's wife, have adorned herself, and made herself ready for the Bridegroom. But all this shall be past before the saints of the millennial age are called into being, or, at any rate, before their conversion. Where, then, is the place for them? In the first resurrection they have no part; and the second resurrection, after the millennium and "the little time," when the earth and the sea shall give up their dead, is, we are assured with one voice by Pre-Millenarians, the resurrection of the wicked only. They belong not to Christ's "glorious Church" and Bride, although they are His, and they appear not at the later resurrection—the resurrection of the unjust, of which Pre-Millenarians speak. What, then, becomes of them?

And under what dispensation do they live? Until the second coming of Christ, believers live "a life of faith" in Him "whom having not seen they love." The Bible is a revelation addressed and adapted to those who live under a dispensation not of sight, but of faith; and nearly the whole of it will be put out of date by the actual coming of the Saviour. The sacrament of the Lord's Supper is a commemorative ordinance only destined to continue until Christ's second coming. (1 Cor. xi. 26.) The preaching page 19 of the Word and the ordinance of Baptism are to continue only until the same great event. (See Mat. xxviii. 19-20—"Go ye, and teach all nations," &e.,—where it is agreed on all hands, Millenarians included, that by the "end of the world" we are to understand the period of Christ's second coming.) What, then, shall be the condition of the saints of the millennium, bom indeed under the curse, and in sin even as we are, and included (as we are told) in the same covenant of grace, hut who, unlike all other fallen and redeemed children of men, live under a dispensation not of faith but of sight, to whom the Books of the Covenant are obsolete, for whom the sealing ordinances of the Christian faith and the ministry of the Word exist no longer?

(6.) Finally, let me ask Pre-Millcnarians, whence shall spring, and how shall grow, during the personal reign of the Omnipotent and Universal King, and the bright ages of their millennium, the seed of Gog and Magog, the nations whom Satan is to deceive and to lead against the camp of the saints and the beloved city? (Rev. xx. 8-9.)

II.—We may safely pronounce the foregoing objections to the millenarian theory insuperable. Singly, they are strong, and indeed most, if not all of them, invincible: together, they settle the question with overwhelming force. Whatever the vision under consideration may mean, it cannot be intended to teach a literal first resurrection of all the righteous. It will be expected, however, that, having exploded one interpretation, I should be prepared to substitute a better. I am not, indeed, convinced that this should necessarily be required. We may well be able to say positively what a text does not mean, without being able to pronounce what it does mean. Plain texts may be understood by even a "wayfaring man," and such a man will have a right to refuse any interpretation of a difficult passage which contradicts the teaching of such plain texts; yet it does not follow that he must be able to explain such page 20 a difficult passage. It is often a mark of true wisdom and knowledge to confess our ignorance. Here we see through a glass darkly. "What we know not now we shall know hereafter." There are still many obscure passages in the "Word of God, which no interpreter has been able fully to explain. Very many there are of which I find it best to confess, like Adam Clarke and Professor Stuart, that I know nothing. The Bible is a book for all minds, and for all time. All intellects may task their powers upon it, and yet have much to learn. It is an ocean of truth, where there are at the same time shallows in which a child may safely wade, and depths which the most vigorous and skilful diver cannot bottom. ^* There are plain paths for the simple man, and deep and intricate harmonies for the scribe well instructed in the kingdom of heaven. "When I venture into the depths, I cannot do it without fear and awe. And, in dealing with so difficult and obscure a subject as the vision under our notice, I feel that only with the greatest diffidence ought I to explain my views, of the truth of which I am far from being so confident, that I dare recommend them to others as an article of faith, or stake my soul's salvation upon them. But I feel no doubt or hesitation in saying that if the Revelation is a part of God's Truth, and if God cannot deny or contradict himself, then the view of this passage, which I have this evening combated, cannot be true.—What is now to be unfolded is the most probable explanation, so far as I may judge, that can be given you.

(1.)	We must particularly take notice that the scene described in the vision before us, be it literal or be it * "In the waters of life, the Scriptures, there are shallows, and there are deeps; shallows where the lamb may wade, and deeps where the elephant may swim. If we be not wise to distinguish, we may easily miscarry. He that can wade over the ford cannot swim through the deep, and, if he mistake the passage, he drowns. What infinite mischief hath arisen to the Church of God from the presumption of ignorant and unlettered men, that have taken upon them to interpret the most obscure Scriptures, and pertinaciously defended their own sense!"—Bishop Hall's "Select Thoughts, No. 44." page 21 figurative, is not a resurrection of all the righteous dead, but of the martyrs only. "The souls" seen by John are of those who had been "beheaded" for Christ, and of those who had not worshipped the beast or his image, or received his mark. These last, we cannot doubt, though not spoken of as "beheaded," had been put to death, since we read (Ch. xiii. 15) that the fate of so many as refused to worship the image of the beast was that they "should be killed." The company, then, is composed of the brave witnesses of Christ, in two classes, who in the hour of fierce persecution, and even to the extremity of death, had been faithful to their Lord. The two classes are supposed to be those who had suffered under Pagan and under Papal Rome. The former class had been "beheaded"—a kind of punishment peculiarly characteristic of the heathen Romans; the latter put to death in various ways. Now, if we turn back to Ch. vi. 9-11, we shall sec and hear the souls of the former class "under the altar." They "cry with a loud voice" unto the Lord of the temple for judgment and vengeance. Then white robes are given unto them, and they are told to "rest yet for a little season, until their fellow-servants also, and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled." Lo! now, the number of their fellow-servants is fulfilled. Both companies are seen together by the prophet. And the "judgment" for which the first company cried is now "given" unto both together. They are seated upon thrones of glory, and they live and reign with Christ a thousand years.
(2.)	But is this a literal or a figurative resurrection of the martyrs? Some have understood it to be literal. And if, like Bengel, Wesley, and Moses Stuart, we take it to be a resurrection of the martyrs at once from earth to heaven,—no visible reign on earth being supposed, and the general resurrection both of good and evil being understood to follow at the coming of Christ and the end of all things,—the opinion, whether true or false, cannot be considered page 22 dangerous. Such an opinion involves no plain contradiction of the manifest and momentous doctrines of Scripture. The martyrs, in this case, thus caught up into heaven itself, would constitute but an earnest of the vastly more numerous resurrection of the body of the righteous at the Judgment-day. There is, however, this great difficulty lying against this view. Why should those two classes of martyrs only be thus eminently distinguished and rewarded? Why should Abel, Isaiah, and Stephen—those who were in former days "stoned, sawn asunder, slain with the sword," or otherwise tormented, "of whom the world was not worthy,"—why should those be excluded from these eminent rewards of martyrdom? Nay! if patience and constancy in confessing the name, and maintaining the faith, of Christ, be what are thus eminently rewarded, are there not many who have never been "beheaded," or in any way put to death, who are yet equally deserving of such distinction? There are other conflicts and sufferings, beside those that are bodily, not less, nay! more severe; there are true martyrdoms of soul where life was never taken away. I think, then, that in this view the literal resurrection of these martyr-companies, two in one, can hardly be maintained as the real purport of the vision. Of course, if they were conceived as literally enthroned and reigning upon earth over mankind, most of the arguments already adduced against the doctrine of the pre-millennial resurrection would lie against this supposition; and the more widely the honour of martyrdom should be extended—in order to meet the difficulty last raised—the greater would be the force of these objections.* * Pre-Millenarians are accustomed to claim Bengel. for themselves; and sometimes they claim Wesley, too. And they have made the utmost of the one point in which Moses Stuart coincides with them. But neither of these eminent men was a Millenarian. All of them believed that at the last great day, not only will all the evil, but the great body of the just, arise. None of them believed in anything like an earthly reign of the risen saints. Indeed, few men have been more severe than Professor Stuart upon the "phantasies" and "dreams," as he calls them, of "the ancient or the modern enthusiastic interpreters, who find in our text a temporal and visible reign of Christ on earth, in the midst of a church militant and triumphant, mingled together in one and the same terrestrial abode." "To recite such" things, he says, "is to refute them." And how far Bengel and Wesley were from being Pre-Millenarians will be plain from their notes upon 1 Cor. xv. 23. Bengel, after speaking of the resurrection of Christians, adds: "Eodem tempore resurgent impii, sed illi non veniunt sub hunc beatum censum"—that is, "At the same time the wicked will rise again, but they are not included in this happy reckoning." Wesley's note on the same passage is an echo or translation of Bengel's: "At the same time the wicked shall rise also, but they are not here taken into account." And the whole tenor of the "Notes," as well as the sermons, of our Founder, is in unison with this. Indeed, when Pre-Millenarians endeavour to support their views by the authority of names, they act very foolishly. It is true that opinions resembling their own have had supporters in every age. Similar notions as to the Messiah's reign were held by the Jews of our Lord's day, and even by the disciples themselves; but by our Lord himself such views were continually rebuked and refuted. He taught that "his kingdom is not of this world"; that it "cometh not with observation," that it is "within" the soul. That Judaized Christianity—or, perhaps, we should better call it, that baptized Judaism—which was the faith of those earliest of heretics, the Ebionites, embodied similar views. But these sectaries rejected all the epistles of Paul, as anti-Jewish, and only held to a mutilated version of one Gospel (Matthew's). Some weak good men among the early Fathers, also, were doubtless, to a considerable extent, led away by notions of the same general character. The "Fifth-Monarchy Men," likewise—a fanatical sect of Cromwell's time, were notorious on account of similar opinions. And a few good and really able men of more modern times—such as Joseph Mede, "the Prince of Pre-Millenarians," as he has been called,—have held some of the fundamental views of Pre-Millenarianism; not being aware, apparently, into what results these must necessarily develope. But even Joseph Mede, though a learned man, and an acute and ingenious critic, was of but slender capacity as a theologian. And in no age has Pre-Millenarianism, properly so called, been accepted by the great masters in theology. No really profound and comprehensive divine, no one of the calibre of Augustine, or Calvin, or Melancthon, or Turretin, or Howe, or Baxter, or Charnock, or Owen, or the Goodwins, or Bishop Hall, or Bishop Pearson, or Lightfoot, or (in recent times) Dr. Pye Smith, or Dr. Harris, or Dr. Winter Hamilton, or Richard Watson, or Dr. Candlish, or Dr. John Brown (of Edinburgh), has ever held any such views. Such views, indeed, are incompatible with profound theology. Though obscure, they are shallow; and, though mysterious, childish. I may add, that the kindred dreams of the early Chiliasts, or Millenarians, brought the book of Revelation into such discredit with the ancient Church, that, from the end of the third to the middle of the fifth century, its canonical authority was extensively doubted, and it was not suffered to be read in the churches. Nor is it possible to conceive anything more likely to bring the study of unfulfilled prophecy, and especially of the Revelation, into general disfavour than the extravagances of pre-millenarian interpreters. page 23
(3.)	The vision, then, is one of a martyr-resurrection—a resurrection of Christian martyrs, who have suffered under the persecution of heathen Rome and of "the Beast": and yet it docs not seem that it can well intend a literal resurrection of these two martyr-companies. We are, consequently, shut up to understand a figurative resurrection,—that is, a resurrection of the principles of the martyrs and of the martyr-spirit in the persons of living men on the earth.

It was prophecied by Malachi, that Elias, the Prophet, should re-appear on earth before the coming of the Messiah, to prepare His way. (Mai. iv. 5, 6). Hence our Lord's disciples, and the Jews generally, understood that Elias was literally to descend again to earth before the arrival of "Him who was to come." But the prediction was in reality fulfilled, not by the re-appearance of Elijah, but by the coming of the Baptist. "This," said our Lord, "is page 24 Elias, which was for to come" (Mat. xi. 14.—Compare ch. xvii. 12 and Mark ix. 11-13): and the explanation was, that John the Baptist came "in the spirit and power of Elias." (Luke i. 17).—John Huss, in his prison at Constance, had a remarkable dream, which taught him that though the Popes and Bishops might stifle his testimony and silence his voice, yet the truths for maintaining which he was suffering, and was still to suffer, should, after his death, be taught anew and with impressive vividness by "much better preachers than himself." "The nation that loves Christ," he added, "will rejoice at this. And I, Awaking from Among the Dead, and Rising, so to speak, From my Grave, Shall Leap with Great Joy."^† How vivid the picture! Surely, it is that of a martyr's resurrection, reviving in the person of others who inherited his spirit, and "living and reigning" joyfully upon the earth. So Mr. Elliott mentions a medal

^† D'Aubione's "Reformation," vol. i., chap 6.

page 25 (whether struck before or after the Reformation matters not for the purpose of my illustration,) which represents Huss at the stake, and has around it, in Latin, a legend of which the translation is, "When a hundred years shall have revolved, Ye shall Answer to God and to Me." The reference is, of course, to Luther, as the representative and (so to speak) the resurrection of Huss. In precise conformity with this manner of speech, a Brief was addressed by Pope Adrian, in 1523, to the Diet of Nuremberg, containing these words: "The heretics Huss and Jerome are now alive again in the person of Martin Luther."

These instances now abundantly illustrate the interpretation of this martyr-resurrection which has been suggested. Nor will it avail anything to say, that because the death of the martyrs was literal, so also must be their re-surrection. Who knows not how often and how suddenly in Scripture there is a transition in the same connexion, or even in the same sentence, from a literal to a figurative, from a material to a spiritual or mystical, sense of the same word? As well say, that because Elijah, and no other, went away from earth, therefore Elijah, in his own person, and no other, must come back to earth, to fulfil the prediction which our Saviour has taught us was fulfilled by the coming of the Baptist. As well say, that because Huss was looking to suffer, and did suffer, a literal death on earth, therefore he, in that exulting exclamation, must have looked forward to a literal resurrection upon earth. As well say, that Pope Adrian meant literally to affirm the resurrection of the two martyrs, Huss and Jerome, in the one person of Martin Luther!

Huss did, figuratively speaking, re-appear on the earth in the person of Luther. He lived again and reigned. He was even exalted to a throne, and judgment was given to him. The wrong that had been done him was reversed, his martyrdom became his glory, his name was exalted as one of the Leaders of the Truth, he became a Prince among the beloved and admired Benefactors of the Race. The page 26 principles which he had maintained re-appeared and gained a great ascendancy. The martyr-spirit was again abroad in the earth, confessing to the truth of God, and now its hour of victory had arrived. Such, but far more glorious, shall be this martyr-resurrection. "The only difference is, that what was realized at the Reformation in Luther and his compeers, was but as a drop in the bucket—'the little cloud as a man's hand'—compared with the millennial resurrection, not only in point of numbers, but of the completeness of the triumph. For while Huss and Jerome, as witnesses for Christ, were put completely down by the anti-christian party in their day, Luther and his coadjutors at the Reformation were not able to put them completely down in their turn. But, at the time of our vision, the witnesses for Christ in every age shall not only 'live and reign' in their successors 'for a thousand years,' but the 'rest of the dead' (the opposing party) 'will live not again till the thousand years be fulfilled. This is the first resurrection.' And 'blessed,' surely, shall he be whose lot is cast in such times, and 'holy shall he be that hath part in this first resurrection,' representing in his person the zeal, and love, and faithfulness, and Christian truth and feeling of 'the noble army of martys,' yet without being exposed; as they wore, to be crushed and swept off the stage, merely because Jesus and his truth were dearer to them than life itself." ^*

But the glory of the millennium will pass away—Satan will be loosed again for a little while—"the rest of the dead"—the same as "the remnant" (the same word in the Greek is used for "the rest" and "the remnant") spoken of in the last verse of the previous chapter—the slain followers of the "Beast and false prophet" shall "live again" upon the earth in their successors and represe itatives; that is, there shall be a revival of long-exploded and forgotten errors—the Tempter shall again "deceive the nations," who are still of the seed of Adam, and born in sin, and therefore

^* David Brown on the Second Advent.

page 27 liable to temptation and apostacy—the enemies of Christ, designated by the mystical name Gog and Magog, prompted by the evil spirit, shall again assault the Truth and Church of Christ—and shall be finally and utterly overthrown. Then shall be seen "the great white throne" in the heavens, and "the mystery of God shall be finished."

Such is the reading of this august scene which seems to me to be right. It may be wrong. I shall blame none for rejecting it after fairly weighing it. I shall thank any who will show me a better. But whether this is wrong or not—a matter of very minor moment—that must be wrong which directly contradicts the plainest revelations of God's word.

In closing, I have still one or two questions to put to Pre-Millenarians. On your scheme, how is it that the "rest of the dead"—by which phrase you understand all the wicked—do not rise again, as they ought (v. 5), at the end of the thousand years, nor until the Judgment-day, which, though the intervening time is called, in comparison of the thousand years, "a little time," must yet, considering the events that intervene, be after an interval of some considerable length? (verses 7-10). Again: Who and what are Gog and Magog, and whence come they? I may perhaps mention, that Mr. Perry in the last century, and Dr. Cumming recently, have taught them to be the wicked-dead raised out of their graves; and that the Rev. J. Burchell, not long ago, published a work in which he teaches us that they are no other than "evil angels" come up upon the earth. The idea of Satan's "going forth to deceive" either the one or the other of these classes may be left without comment. ^*

"To the law and to the testimony." Let every doctrine be "weighed in the balances of the sanctuary."