"

which has been given above of the life of the slaughtered saints, there could be none, inasmuch as such life is equivalent to immortality; or, at all events, we may say that if the words "lived not again" signify those who embraced not the testimony of Jesus, the word "again must be interpolated, as it is not predicated of those who held the witness of Jesus, that their life was a living again. If not affirmed of one, where is the connexion if it be affirmed of the other. I am inclined to consider the rest of the dead (for I see nothing gained by rendering it, the rest even the dead,) as included and comprehended in this passage from Hebrews xi., "These all died in faith, not having received the promises." This view is confirmed from the circumstances of the limit which, as will be seen in the sequel, we are constrained to affix to the thousand years. It may also be mentioned, that it is possible there may be an intimate connexion between "the rest of the dead," and such scriptures as the following: "David is not yet ascended into the heavens;" or, "till the heavens be no more, I shall not awake, nor be raised out of my sleep." Besides, it may be added, where is life predicated in Scripture of any but of those who are in "Christ our life?" There is a resurrection of the unjust, but it is to condemnation, not to life, or living again: it is to condemnation, as opposed to life. As dead they live, as dead they die; as dead in a Scripture sense, they rise; and as dead, they are judged to a second death. It is death all over: "let the dead bury their dead." However, we insist not upon this - upon John's vision of the dead standing, small and great, before God;"" of the dead being judged out of the books," and so on : let it be granted, that by the rest of the dead, or the rest, even the dead, we are to understand those who had worshipped the beast, or those who had not the testimony of Jesus; still it is evident that the thousand years' reign, and the life of the rest at the close of that thousand years, are events which are staged in this world, and during a past period of the continuance of this visible system of things. It is evident, we say, if the two strongest passages on the resurrection, which are to be found, one in the Old, and the other in the New Testament, be any proof and confirmation. One passage to which we allude, is Daniel xii. 2, "which," says Professor Bush, contains, more emphatically perhaps than any other in the Old Testament, the germ of resurrection doctrine." The verse is as follows: "And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake; some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt." Now, that this scripture must be confined, as regards a fulfilment, to the present, and not to a future state of existence, will be evident by a more literal version: "And many of the sleepers of earth-dust shall awake; these to the life of the age, and these to the shame and contempt of the age." The age is the age

66

of the Messiah; and thus we see from what source the Jews derived their notion of the resurrection in this world and on this earth, to a life in the world which we have already had occasion to notice. This passage in Daniel occupies much of the attention of Rabbinical writers, when describing the glories of Messiah's kingdom. They, as we well know, stage this resurrection contemporaneously with a period of peace and prosperity, from the rising to the setting sun and, therefore, tradition, if it be of any weight, is in favour of the fulfilment of Daniel

xii. 2, irrespective of what is now generally understood by an end of the world, and a day of judgment. But we have no need to have recourse to the opinions of any learned Rabbi in this matter. We need not deviate from our well-tried practice of comparing spiritual things with spiritual. Let us examine, for one moment, the context in Dan. xii., in order to discover whether or no that context will afford anything by way of fixing the time when this awaking should transpire. Now, we learn, from a glance at the first verse, this important fact, that the event spoken of in the second verse is to occur at a period when "Michael shall stand up, the great prince that standeth for the children of thy people; and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation, even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book." Now, as I have stated before, I repeat; I do earnestly desire to know and receive what is truth. How can any man, with such desire, avoid comparing this language with the Saviour's own words in Matthew xxiv. 31? “There shall be great tribulation, such as was not from the beginning of the world to this time-no, nor ever shall be." And having instituted, as the earnest inquirer after truth is bound to institute, such comparison, how is it possible to avoid coming to the conclusion, that Daniel's prophecy is confined within the limit of the fall of Jerusalem ? The comparison clearly identifies the periods; for, as has been most justly observed, there cannot be two epochs, both of which shall exclude all parallels in the way here described, as this would be to exclude each other. This awaking, mentioned by Daniel, is assuredly something which is to transpire at a time of trouble, which time will answer to nothing but to the end of the Jewish state, and the destruction of Jerusalem. The language which describes that destruction is exclusive. What then is the consequence implicated in the above settlement of the time when Daniel's prophecy should be fulfilled? Plainly, as all must acknowledge, this awaking or resurrection is not, as is generally supposed, connected with a resurrection of the human bodies of men; for it may be asked, where is there any account of such resurrection taking place at the destruction of Jerusalem, that time of trouble which, if modern doctrines of a literal conflagration of the globe be true, will not even be paralleled in horror by such conflagration! We are constrained, by the force of a question like this, to seek out another interpretation of Daniel's awaking: and we cannot but conclude, from this one evidence alone, that the "awaking from the dead," announced by Daniel, points mainly to a spiritual, and not a corporeal resurrection, according to that emphatic declaration, “I am the resurrection and the life." Professor Bush thinks that "the words of the prophet" may be construed as having respect to a literal resurrection, in the several individual instances of resuscitation of the dead recorded in the Gospels, and in the remarkable display of resurrection power which was put forth upon "the many bodies of the saints that slept, which arose and came out of the graves after his resurrection." We see no call for such construction: but the Professor immediately adds, and with his beautiful sentiment we fully concur," But this (literal fulfilment) we regard, as in the main, a mere outward and sensible adumbration of a far more glorious work of moral quickening, which

was to be the result of Christ's accomplished redemption in behalf of his people, and in which this prediction was to receive its more complete and signal fulfilment."

But further.

We stated above that the thousand years' reign was an event which must have been staged in this world: our proof of which position we would draw from the passage in Daniel, which has just been considered. Let us now revert to Revelation xx., in order to see if there be any connexion between that chapter and Daniel xii. The passage in Daniel suggests the idea of a judgment, as well as of a resurrection. Now, after the vision of the living, reigning, and judging saints, John has a vision of a judgment, which judgment, as we learn from Rev. xi. 18, is subsequent to the close of the thousand years, and intimately connected with the sounding of the seventh trumpet, at the period of which sounding it is said, "And the time of the dead is come that they should be judged, and that thou shouldst give reward to thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and to them that fear thy name, small and great.' This judgment, we cannot but conclude, is referred to in Daniel's prophecy. There is internal evidence which fixes the period of the fulfilment of the prophecies to be the same. We read in Daniel, "At that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book." So, parallel to this, we have in Revelations, "Whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire." Now, the common opinion refers this to the last judgment, and makes it synchronical with the parable in the latter part of Matthew xxv. This is correct: but if the judgment in Revelations be the same with that in Daniel, then the last judgment is long since passed, and death and hell have long since been cast into the lake of fire. How so? Because we have already proved that, if words have any meaning, the deliverance spoken of by Daniel was assuredly something which was to transpire at a time of trouble, which time can, by no fair principle of interpretation, be applied to any other event or period than the destruction of Jerusalem. Now, if this deliverance and judgment of the dead must thus, by scripture comparison, be referred to Jerusalem's desolation, and if the judgment be subsequent to the first resurrection, and prior to the New Jerusalem, which New Jerusalem (as Mr. Bush allows) supervenes immediately or speedily upon the overthrow of mystical Babylon (Jerusalem)-if these be fair positions, and we shall be glad if any one will prove that they are not, then, at once we settle it for an established truth, that the millennium of John must be sought for, must be platformed, previously to the overthrow of the Jewish Church and State, in the year 70, by the Romans. This, one would think, is conclusive against all millennial schemes, whose accomplishment is yet future. We confess to the most intense anxiety, to know by what process of interpretation this result, as to the time of the thousand years, is to be set aside.

But to proceed. It was stated that we should examine two passages on the resurrection-one from the Old Testament, and the other from the New with a view towards determining the locale of the first resurrection. We now come to the New Testament passage, in John v., 28, 29; "Marvel not at this: for 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 resurrection of life, and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation." It is admitted, on all hands, that our Lord in this passage refers to the prophecy of Daniel, which we have just been examining: the marginal references in all Bibles point out these Scriptures as parallel passages. If so, then the same period which fulfils Daniel's prediction will apply to this also, even though it were (as it is confessed to be) the strongest passage in the New Testament in favour of the common view of the resurrection. We have quoted the passage merely for the purpose of connecting it with that in Daniel, and thereby obviating objections which might, and doubtless would, have been urged, if it had been passed over in silence. Before this Scripture can be adduced as evidence of a resurrection of dust, the positions which were taken up, in a consideration of Dan. xii., 1, 2, must be overturned. With this remark we take our leave of the passage. It does not otherwise come into that part of the subject which now engages our attention, or we might notice the violent strain of language which the common notion puts upon this Scripture. "When we read, The hour is coming,' it cannot be questioned (says Mr. Bush) that this is usually the phrase to denote an event, or order of events, just upon the eve of occurring: whereas, if Christ had intended to point forward to a very distant future, it is not easy to perceive why he should not say, "The hour will come,' not to mention that the word hour' seems to imply a season, contracted within narrower limits than those which we should assign to such an event as is usually understood by the general resurrection." These observations are very just, though Mr. B. seems quite at a loss for an understanding of the passage, and is forced to acknowledge that Christ did adapt his teaching to prevalent ideas, which were grounded on the literal record of the Scriptures. This is most painful, and utterly inadmissible, as witness the conversations in Matthew xxii. Had Mr. B. been able to recognise the meaning of the phrases, “last days" and "last day," he would never have arrived at such a conclusion. The hour that was coming, in the which all in their graves should come forth, was the hour that John had in view when he wrote, "Little children, it is the last hour". the hour of Jerusalem's desolation, when the Lord would come again to be glorified in his saints, and admired by all them that believed. This construction does no violence to the meaning of words; but surely it is a strange talk to say, "The hour is coming," when eighteen hundred years have gone by, and the hour is still coming

But it is time to conclude our examination of the first resurrection. From comparison of spiritual things with spiritual, we have been constrained to fix the thousand years to times preceding the destruction of Jerusalem. If this be a correct view, then it will be argued, we must seek for the commencement of this period somewhere in the history of the Old Testament. But this argument proceeds on the supposition that the thousand years were literal years: while we maintain that it is just as reasonable to believe that the silence in Heaven,

mentioned also in the Revelation, was a silence for a literal half hour. As we are persuaded, from internal evidence, that the Millennium must be platformed previous to the overthrow of Jerusalem, so, from similar evidence, we date the commencement of the thousand years from the day of Pentecost. The slaughtered witnesses of Jesus, who worshipped not the beast, "lived and reigned with Christ." So we read, in Rev. xx. 4, and, again, in the 6th verse, "Blessed and holy is he, having share in the resurrection that is the first; on these the second death hath not power; but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years." This is merely a repetition of what had just before been advanced and we allude to these two passages for the purpose of showing their reference to the announcement of the Apostolic ministry. "Therefore," said Peter, "let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ," i. e., King and Priest on his throne; as it is written, "The Lord said unto my Lord, sit thou on my right hand, until I make thy foes thy footstool." Now, Christ was not King and Priest till his ascension; for, "if he were on earth," says Paul in Hebrews viii. 4, " he should not be a Priest"-so, neither were any who were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, for "they lived and reigned with Christ." But on the reception of his own kingly and priestly power, he would confer that same power on his disciples; and surely it is a violent interpretation to think that so many years have rolled away, and "the Kings and Priests" have never yet appeared. This, however, is the construction which modern Millennarianism adopts. How simply and forcibly opposed to all this is the statement of a scripture which we have often quoted, "In the regeneration, when the Son of Man shall sit on the throne of his glory, ye (my disciples, my Apostles) shall sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." We suppose it will be allowed that the regeneration commenced on the day of Pentecost: that, there and then, there were those who were born again of water and of the Spirit: "by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Ghost," as we read in the Epistle to Titus: that there and then the desire of the mother of Zebedee's children was answered, “Grant that these, my two sons, may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left, when thou comest into thy kingdom.” The church, or corporate body of divinely-inspired members, was the sole interpreter, the " pillar and ground of the truth," during this first resurrection state, the Apostolic ministry: but now the word itself, which they preached and left on record, is its own sole and all-sufficient interpreter. Paul, as one of the heads of that body, (for God set forth divers officers in the church, first Apostles) declares that Hymeneus and Philetus had erred concerning the truth now under consideration, saying that the resurrection was past already. Now, so far from that being the fact then, the first resurrection was not past, let alone the second; and yet, will it be believed, that after the lapse of eighteen hundred years, we who condemn the error of which Paul spake as emphatically as he condemned it himself—is it credible that we should be quoted as the followers of Hymeneus and Philetus? Such is a specimen of the grossly inconsistent charges which are urged against the doctrine of a past second advent. They who prefer these charges