"And when the two witnesses shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascended out of the bottomless pit [the unfathomable ocean] shall make war against them, and shall overcome and kill them; and their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which is [mystically] spiritually called Sodom and Egypt; also, the city where our Lord was crucified, [Jerusalem ;] and they of the people, and kindreds, and tongues, shall see their dead bodies three days and a half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves. And after three days and a half the spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet; and great fear fell upon their enemies who beheld them and they heard a great voice from heaven saying to them, Come up hither; and they ascended up to heaven in a cloud, and their enemies beheld them." sulted; yet they were again quickened and exalted to honor. They have been ascending for more than forty years, yet have not reached their proper heaven. There is in the 20th chapter of the Apocalypse no bolder imagery than in the 11th. The binding of Satan, his being cast down to the unfathomable abyss, the first resurrection, the rest of the dead, Gog and Magog, are not more figurative than the passage now before us. Indeed there is a similarity. We have a death, revival, ascension, a Sodom, Egypt, and Jerusalem in the first, and in the second, a burial, resurrection, and reign with Christ, a spiritual Gog and Magog, with times and circumstances specified of striking analogy. for There is, moreover, one point of much value in this passage, as explanatory of the most perplexing item to all literalists in reference to the two resurrections. The two witnesses, This passage, independent of its say they, are not two persons; intrinsic light and value, is of much no two persons could prophecy 1260 relative importance in furnishing au- years. The revival of the witnesses thority for here we have a mystical is not, therefore, of necessity the rekilling, dead bodies, graves, reanima-vival of the same persons, but of the tion, resurrection, ascension. And same class of characters. So the first in the midst of the lock we have a resurrection, or the revival of the key-a mystical Sodom, Egypt, and souls of them that were beheaded for Jerusalem.* This, no doubt, was the testimony of Jesus, is not the intended to expound the imagery of return to earth, nor the proper resurthis picturesque scene. The witnesses rection of those who had lived on were neither literally killed nor reearth before; but a return, or a reanimated; they were neither literally covery of such characters, a race of lying in the streets unburied, nor kindred souls, valiant for the same raised from the dead; they had not truth, and of the same danger and descended into the earth, nor ascended terror-defying spirit. This is farther into heaven. Still spiritually all this evident from another point which was true. They were as good as dead, seems to have escaped the optics of and their corpses were publicly in- these interpreters. The literalists generally, if not universally, make only a portion of the just participants of the first resurrection-such as were martyrs or sufferers for the cause of Christ. They are, indeed, obliged by their own principles so to limit the honors of this resurrection to such ; for "I saw," says John, "the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of *Mystical and spiritual are used by us interchangeably. The mystical or spiritual differs from the literal by transcending it. The literal meaning of serpent is a venomous reptile; but mystically it denotes the devil. Babylon literally indicated the capital of Chaldea; mystically it represents Papal Rome or the present apostacy. The mystical meaning is always obscure, and requires a knowledge of natural emblems or symbols duly to appreciate it. : 66 God," &c. " and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years." Now all the other pious dead continued in their graves, according to this view of the matter, during the thousand years. And what, then, came of them? They must be lost for ever: for such are not participants of the second resurrection! "The rest of the dead" cannot possibly include them because it is written, "Blessed and holy is he that has part in the first resurrection: on such the second death shall have no power," &c. Now is it not fairly implied that the second death shall have power upon "the rest of the dead" not participants of this resurrection: otherwise where would be the bliss of the first resurrection with regard to the second death? Is it not, then, undeniably evident that if "the rest of the dead" included the pious, not martyrs nor confessors, not participants of the first resurrection, they shall become subjects of the second death? "The rest of the dead" we conclude are all wicked, and the second death shall triumph over them. The theorists of the literal school lose all the righteous except martyrs and confessors; else they must have three resurrections--one for the martyrs and confessors; one a thousand years after for the rest of the saints; and one some time after that for the rest of the dead. To us "the rest of the dead" indicates that class of wicked spirits who shed the blood of the saints; those who withstood the martyrs, or those who would not receive the mark in their hands nor in their foreheads -persecutors, spiritually called Gog and Magog. A class of the same type and spirit shall revive at the end of the thousand years-not the old class raised to life again, but a similar brood. Thus the two resurrections are homogeneous, and of the same category; and thus this passage stands in good keeping with the history of the two witnessess-with the rebuilding of the tabernacle of David, and with other picturesque representations which may fall in our path as we advance farther into the subject. A. C. OBSERVATIONS IN CONNECTION WITH THE COMING OF THE LORD. 66 Dear Sir-I observe what you say in reply to my observation regarding the HOPE of the gospel, the coming of the Lord; for this, you are aware, was the ancient hope. Would you allow me a few remarks regarding three points in your reply, which are not intelligible to me. First, Ezekiel (xxxvii. chap.) is told that in the vision the bones were the bones of the house of Israel, (verse 11) and then their divided state is set forth in the fact of its requiring two sticks to represent them; and then their junction is figured in the two sticks becoming one: but how this could be fulfilled in the breaking down the middle wall of partition between Jew and Gentile, I cannot see. This was a totally different matter. The house of Israel is still, as Hozea said, (iii. 4) “ they would be without a king," &c. ; but as the scattering and gathering were literal, how can the unity and gathering be of another kind. Second, you say the throne on which Jesus is to sit, in his glory, is to be formed of those who now overcome. Now, how can they both form the throne and sit on it? There is surely some incongruity here. Third, you say if all the disciples were to act as Jesus acted, there would be no need of governments of any kind. The world will need then to be different from what it was eighteen hundred years ago, for Jesus then said, "My kingdom is not of this world." If you anticipate a new world, then so do I; and the spiritual kingdom which now exists will have given place to the real kingdom of the Lord himself, which, he says, is not of this world. Yours in hope of this glorious period, and with love to all, believe me, as saints will form a part of the Sa REPLY BY THE EDITOR. Dear Brother-In my remarks, which appear on page 40, no reference whatever is made to the 37th chapter of Ezekiel; and therefore, a reply to your first point is altogether unnecessary. I may, however, observe, that on again reading that chapter, it appears to me, as it does also to your self, very doubtful whether reference be made at all to the breaking down of the middle wall of partition which separated Jew from Gentile. Indeed, the walls of separation and division which existed among the various sects of Jews at that time, and prior to the coming of the Lord, were sufficiently numerous and important, to render a prediction of that kind well adapted to "both houses of Israel," without in any way referring to the Gentile world. With reference to your quotation from the Prophet Hosea, iii. 3-4, where it is said that the Jews would be many days without a king and a prince of their own, &c. permit me to ask if this does not refer to the many days in which they were in this state previously to the coming of the Lord? Or, if it do not, are we to conclude that those myriads of Jews who embraced the gospel, and who, on the day of Pentecost, and for years subsequently, became one harmonious body, were without a prophet, priest, and king? Surely not! If all, or any part of the Jews now on the earth, were to embrace Christianity, would they still be without a king? Such a supposition would be tantamount to saying, that the Lord Jesus is king only of the converted Gentiles, and not also of the converted Jews. In your second point, you conclude that there is some incongruity in my supposing that the resurrected host of In viour's glorious throne, when, at the same time, they are to sit with him on his throne; and you put the interrogation," how can they form his throne, and at the same time sit upon it ?" This may, at the first glance, seem to be incongruous, yet it is not more so than that Christ himself should be both the victim and the priest of his people-or David's Lord and David's Sonor, that the created angelic voices should come out of the throne of God and the Lamb, saying "Praise our God," &c. The term throne is applied variously in the Word of God, as you may, by examination, satisfy yourself. Isaiah it is said that a man should be for a throne-" And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah, and he shall be for a glorious throne to his father's house," Isaiah xxii. 20-5. We read that heaven (and we infer all that is in it) is God's throne, and the earth (and all that is upon it) is his footstool. So we may readily conceive that the new creation--more grand and sublime than the old-will be the throne of Messiah and of his associates for ever. He appears in the universe as a mighty conquerorhis people also are conquerors: He, by His own inherent love-they, by his precious blood, and the power of His soul-attracting love. They shall live and reign with Him, while He shall reign over them, as a part of the throne of His glory for ever. You understand me as saying, in your third point, that if the disciples would now act as Jesus and the first churches acted, the world would need no government, &c. Now this is a mistake. It is the world-or rather the lawlessness and disobedience of the men of the world to Christ-that render governmental institutions, monarchical or republican, absolutely necessary to enforce the observance of good order, personally and collectively; and at this period of the individual, and even professedly supported by miracles, the credibility of it must gradually decrease in the course of ages, till it is entirely dissipated and destroyed." Again -"When the earth relates its own history, and that with world's history, these institutions, which are ordained of God, have become essential to the protection of the disciples of Jesus Christ from persecution and death. What may be ac-it and the aid of the sciences, we require nocomplished by the diffusion of good, and the further restraining of evil principles, no one can with any certainty predict. Affectionately yours, J. W. LITERARY NOTICE. thing else to instruct us in religion and the existence of a Deity." And again-" If God even made a supernatural revelation to mankind, is it likely that he would make it through such an imperfect medium as human language must necessarily be? It is a medium subject to a great diversity of interpretations. It is full of ambiguities. The Christian religion had its first exposition in a language that was soon to become obsolete." The foregoing extracts from Dr. Fellows' Religion of the Universe, are not calculated to prepare us for the sentiments that follow, and what I shall next introduce from this work :— Christianity itself," he says, as it is professed in this country, has degenerated into a totally different system, from what it was in its original form. Avarice and ambition have made it sudservient to their purposes, till its primary brightness is extinguished, and its native loveliness is destroyed." We certainly were not prepared for such an admission from the Doctor, and so unequivocally expressed. Still we find him rejecting the written records of the faith and practice of the early professors, because, forsooth, the corruption inherent in human nature has, in these days, dimmed the native lustre of Christianity. He thus expresses himself with regard to the New Testament"If, therefore, we suppose the New Testament to contain a divine revelation, we must allow it to be conveyed to mankind through a very dark medium; and so far apt to perplex and mislead even men of learning and research, as to be totally unfit for a guide to the generality of mankind." Yet notwithstanding his rejection of the Scriptures, in another part of his work, our author, when he attempts to prove the existence of a future state from natural causes, does not disdain to use Scripture language to enforce his arguments, to wit:"Hence this must be a reward for the righteous, else the ungodly would never have flourished like a green bay tree." The Doctor as THE RELIGION OF THE UNIVERSE, BY ROBERT FELLOWS, LLD.-It not unfrequently happens that the theorist and promulgator of a new system, in his earnestness to impress novel opinions on the public mind, overshoots his mark—a want of unity and consistency of parts is often discernible in his reasoning, which defeat their object. When such occur, the labour of refutation is easy, it being only requisite to select from your author's work those passages where such discrepancy is apparent. Robert Fellows, LL.D. may be classed among the authors I have alluded to, whose own writings are sufficient to confute him. In his Religion of the Universe, he tells us, "That he has made religious truth the primary object of his pursuit; that he has travelled far and wide from the confines of what is commonly called orthodoxy, at which he set out, till, after a long period of doubt and perplexity, his mind has at length found the serenity of conviction, and his heart the solace of hope, in a pure and unsophisticated Theism." He adds, If the religion of the universe which he inculcates should ever be generally cherished by the people, and encouraged by the government, the clergy would become public teachers of a higher order; for, instead of inculcating irrational mysteries and mischievous dogmas, they would lay all the works of nature under perpetual contribution, in order to furnish instruction to their auditors." "Science," "is the only form to which the religious sentiment can attach itself with any bene-serts, "the more we cultivate the mind, the fit to mankind. Religion has been made to consist principally of dogmatical assertions, incapable of proof in themselves, and of which no proof was supposed to be necessary. Authority was supposed to be sufficient, and that authority was either some text of a book which admitted of different interpretations, or the positive declaration of some arrogant council, or some weak-minded visionary. But if religion consist in knowing God, and if the knowledge of God comprise every species of knowledge, then religion requires the perpetual exercise of the understanding." Dr. Fellows continues" When a revelation is made by an he says, more God will reveal himself to us"-meaning, we presume, by science and learning. But what doth the Scriptures say on this subjectthose writings which Dr. Fellows quotes, while in other respects he reprobates them?"God has hid these things from the wise and prudent, and has revealed them unto babes." See how he carries out his consistency in his own boast, that human wisdom and learning are sufficient to teach us the knowledge of God, when he says, "For how can the finite hope to comprehend the infinite, the material the spiritual, the temporal the eternal ?" In this sentiment of the Doctor's every Christian ought 66 to concur, as it exhibits a proper sense of the imperfection of human wisdom. Again, he says "The contemplation of the celestial phenomena would carry an impression of the divine agency even upon the minds of the peasantry, much beyond what the perusal of any chapter of the Bible would do." Yet he tells us that conscience usually inflicts a pang when we omit to do what we think right, or do what we think wrong." Where did the Doctor learn this? Did he read it in his Geological studies, or did he discover it in his Astronomical observations ? Surely not! He could only have obtained the correct belief of such an inward monitor being implanted in man from his Scripture readings. In page 72 of his work, in proof that religion and true wisdom were the same thing, he refers us to "that beautiful and indeed sublime representation of wisdom in Proverbs viii. 22-35." Again, he writes in page 137, "Even the mild and gentle, the humble and love-breathing religion of Him, the great Reformer of Nazareth, has been perverted to purposes as opposite to those which the benevolent Author designed, as the sword is to the ploughshare, or darkness to light." Then why try to overturn that religion, and substitute in its stead an ignis fatuus of his own invention ? In page 139 he even professes himself a believer in one of the prophecies of that book which he elsewhere contemns -his words being." The time is yet to come, but come it will, when at least in the metaphysical sense, the wolf will lie down with the lamb, and the tiger will play harmlessly with the child; when everything noxious and venomous shall be removed from the face of the earth; when peace and harmony shall pervade the globe." In page 149 will be found the following:-" Even Christ, in his early day, anticipated a period when the worship of the Deity, in stated formularies and local sanctuaries, would be abandoned; and when better and purer motives of the Infinite Spirit would so generally prevail, as to replace a gross and formal, by a more spiritual and intellectual adoration." "The time is coming," said Christ, "when neither in this mountain, nor at Jerusalem, shall ye worship the Father. God is a Spirit, and they that worship, must worship Him in spirit and in truth." And yet, notwith standing this testimony which Dr. Fellows has been constrained to give in this place, of the pure and spiritual worship inculcated by the religion of Jesus Christ, we find again, in page 162 of his book, the following remarks:-"Of the two revelations which have been associated with Judaism, and which have exercised such a long and paramount influence over the religious opinions of the European world, the light of the first may be said to be extinct; and that of the second is fast going out. They may be recorded among those productions of human wisdom, which were wanting in the primary exigences of society, which corrected some great immediate evil, or promoted some temporary benefit; but which, not strictly harmonizing with the great and eternal views of the Creator, in the moral and intellectual advancement of his rational creatures, are destitute of the only true principle of interminable duration, and are consequently doomed to vanish in length of days." We shall now take our leave of the Doctor's Religion of the Universe, which we pronounce to be a glaring incongruity, and like the Mahometan, made up of a mixture of different and adverse systems. Christianity and the Bible have withstood the learning of Porphry, and the power of Julian-they have resisted the genius of Bolingbroke, and the wit of Voltaire, as well as the sophistry of Mirabeau, and they will not now be brought into disrepute by the absurdities of Robert Fellows, LL.D. T. G. CORRESPONDENCE. LAYING-ON OF HANDS AFTER DEAR SIR--I have taken all the volumes of your periodical from its commencement, while it bore the name of CHRISTIAN MESSENGER, and I find a great many things that I might approve of, and especially those from the pen of A. Campbell. There is always something in his productions that throws light on the subjuct in hand; but, as I before hinted, there is an ordinance of the New Institution that seems to be entirely overlooked by him, as well as almost all the professing world of Christians, namely, that of laying on of hands. The confirmation of the Established Church is no more like the Scripture ordinance, than is their christening like the "one baptism." It appears by the Acts of the Apostles that this ordinance followed the baptism of the believer, and that in faith of the promise of the Holy Spirit. Witness the case of the Samaritans, Acts viii. 17, and the twelve, which, suppose, constituted all the disciples at Ephesus, Acts xix. 5-6. These are but few instances, in comparison of the many accounts we have on record of the baptism of believers; but because it is not mentioned every time, forms no argument against the universality of the practice, as it is no ground of excuse for a servant to neglect his master's business because he was only once or twice ordered to do it, and not every time he saw him. Besides, in the 6th chapter of the Hebrews we have this ordinance classed with those of unquestionable perpetuity, such as repentance, faith, and baptism, Heb. vi. 1-2. I am not dogmatical in this or any other view that I take of spiritual things, but while the wisdom that is from above is casily to be persuaded, it is also requisite to hold fast the faithful word as we have been taught, and keep the ordinances as they are delivered unto us in the Sacred Oracles of Divine Truth. I have been lately |