37. পগারে সিদ ।

'Tis like a thief-breach through a mound in the field.

That is, a useless expenditure of effort, because attended with no result of advantage; as if a thief should dig through a mound which he could at once cross over, and beyond which there is nothing to be purloined. 38. মিনি মাহিনায় চাকরে মড়ল ।

He is chief in the village, though his service is unpaid.

Applied to one who, though he derives little other advantage from his station, yet acquires influence and publicity; attracts notice and respect. সব শিয়ালের এক রা ৷

39.

All jackals have the same howl.

Spoken in reproach of roguish dealers, &c. who all alike aim to deceive and overreach: there is nothing to choose between them, none better than another.

40. ছাইতে জানি না গোড় চিনি ।

I cannot thatch, but can lay a layer.

A modest avowal of conscious deficiency, or a humble profession of ability. 41. মিষ্ট মুখে ইষ্ট লাভ ৷ Zerg

By a sweet mouth the wish is gained.

A just encomium upon kindness of speech and gentleness of language, which will often easily succeed where harshness and a dictatorial manner will only repel and offend.

42.

গোময় দিয়ে ঘাস আলান ।

Spoiling the grass by covering it with dung!

Applied to the employment of a vile or mean person to harm another, who is equally such; both alike inconsiderable and unworthy.

[To be continued.]

IV.-Millenarian Sentiments Vindicated.

To the Editors of the Calcutta Christian Observer.

GENTLEMEN,

In your Magazine for August and September last, you have published a paper, from a correspondent, entitled "Millenarian Errors;" in which, it is attempted to be shown, that "the very ancient and often revived doctrines of the Millenarians," which have again made their appearance, are unscriptural. This is as it should be: "To the law and to the testimony; if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them."

It is a pity that your correspondent, after conducting the discussion with so much candour, as he has done, should, in the concluding remarks, have allowed prejudice to shew its cloven foot, and say, that "Millenarian opinions have, almost always, been accompanied with a practice, which has at some times been pernicious, and at other times ridiculous." I ask him,

were not Papias*, Justin Martyr, and Irenæus, those ancient orthodox fathers, who, first after the Apostolic age, handed down to posterity the memorials of the Christian Church, defended our common Christianity against the heathen, and the faith of the Gospel against the heresies which sprung up in the first ages, all of them Millenarians? And does

not Justin Martyr testify that most of the orthodox of his time were of the same sentiments? Is the writer then prepared to shew, that the Christian practice of the second century, was either pernicious or ridiculous? It is no new thing to impute the vices and follies of a few individuals, professing certain Christian doctrines, to the whole body, and to represent all among them that is evil, as flowing from their principles. This has been the standing argument of the enemies of true religion against Christianity, Protestantism, Calvinism, Methodism, and all revivals of religion. Trusting then that your readers will not allow their minds to be biassed by a slander so groundless, which I am sure your correspondent did not invent, but took up incautiously from the foes of all piety, I proceed to examine his arguments drawn from Scripture, in as brief a manner as possible.

I. The doctrine that Christ will appear at the beginning of the Millennium is first objected to.

Now this is a doctrine that, more than any other, gives clearness, harmony, and unity to the prophetic parts of the sacred Scriptures. The opponents of this doctrine are obliged to feign, at the least, three comings of Christ in power and glory, for no other reason than that otherwise the context of those passages in which his second advent is mentioned, will not agree with their theory. They have two such comings, which they say are merely figurative; one at the destruction of Jerusalem, mentioned Matt. xxiv. 30, and another immediately previous to the Millennium, mentioned, Dan. vii. 13, in these words; "I saw in the night visions, and one like the Son of Man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and there was given him dominion, glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages should serve him." They make the Old Testament to predict only the first advent, and say nothing of the second, while in the passage above quoted, Daniel, according to them, employs all that pomp of diction to describe a mere figurative advent; although to this passage, our Saviour, on the solemn occasion of his trial, appealed, when he spoke of his second coming; saying, "Hereafter ye shall see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." Matt. xxvi. 64. Zechariah prophesied that the Jews at their conversion would look on him whom they had pierced, and mourn.

I know well that, from Eusebius downwards, Papias has generally been held up to contempt, as a weak man. It may not then be amiss, that the reader attend to the following defence of him by Michaelis, a writer far enough from embracing his views about the Millennium. "It is merely in the interpretation of these parables and speeches, (those he had received from oral tradition,) in which Eusebius discovers the weakness of Papias; and he condemns him only, for interpreting literally and not mystically. Now here it must be particularly observed, that Eusebius was a determined admirer of Origen, the great father of Allegory: when he censures therefore a writer, who explained the Scriptures on different principles, we ought not to produce his censure as a proof, that this writer was deficient in understanding. Origen himself, eminent as he was, would appear to us, if we judged merely from his mode of interpreting Scripture, to be as weak as Papias appeared to Eusebius. Neither is Papias' belief in the Millennium proof of the charge, which is brought against him: for this belief he had in common with many fathers, whose understanding was never called in question. Origen had taken great pains to explode the doctrine of the Millennium: Papias was the most ancient writer in its defence, and his authority greatly contributed to its propagation. Eusebius therefore, a decided Origenean, endeavoured to destroy the credit of Papias, in order to remove one of the principal supports of the Millennium."-Introd. N. T. vol. iii. C. iv. S. iv.

Zec. xii. 10. This is spoken figuratively, say the Anti-Millenarians. And does John speak figuratively when he says, "Behold he cometh with clouds, and every eye shall see him, and they that pierced him?" Rev. i. 7. Did our Lord speak figuratively when he said to the Jewish people in his last public discourse to them, "Ye shall not henceforth see me, till ye say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord ?" If these words of our Saviour contain a figure, it is rather in the ellipsis of a circumstance, than in any figurative sight, differing from that obtained by the bodily eyes, in which it consists. The Jews then saw him as their Shepherd, sent to gather the lost sheep of the house of Israel, endeavouring to reclaim them; but it was the last time before his ascension to heaven, that he should appear among them in that character. "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem," says he, "thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gather eth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not. Behold your house is left unto you desolate: for I say unto you, ye shall not henceforth see me till," &c. Matt. xxiii. 37-39. So he is again to see them in the sense in which he saw them before; and the time is when they acknowledge him as their Messiah, and say, "Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord;" that is at their conversion, previous to the Millennium, when "the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob." Is. lix. 20.

In the New Testament it is said that "The whole world lieth in wickedness;" 1 John v. 19. that, "Straight is the gate and narrow the way which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it ;" Matt. vii. 14. that "All that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution." 2 Tim. iii. 12. Do not these look exceedingly like general propositions, intended to apply to the Church, as long as it is solely under the guidance of the New Testament revelation? And does any one say that the world will be in wickedness, and persecute the saints, and that few will enter into life during the Millennium? Could the New Testament then, so admirably fitted for a suffering, and so alien from the condition of a triumphant Church, be intended for that season of triumph? And yet who shall dare to say that the gate of heaven has been widened, till He return to proclaimTM it, who formerly solemnly assured his followers that it was narrow? Now in the absence of the bridegroom the Church mourns, but he will return again, and she shall rejoice. The song of triumph will be raised, "Alleluia, for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth. Let us be glad, and rejoice, and give honour to him, for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready." But this return is to precede the Millennium. The absence is literal, why should the return be figurative? Compare Mark ii. 19, 20. and Rev. xix. 7.

But it is objected that we have recourse to the Old Testament prophets, and the Book of Revelations, for the proof of Scripture doctrines. I hope there is no harm in this. I trust the writer would not have blamed a Jew previous to the coming of our Saviour, if, speaking of the atonement Messiah was to make, he had quoted as proof the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah; nor find fault with Gospel ministers now, though they bring proofs of the Divine character of our Lord, his atonement, and the freedom of his grace, from the Book of Revelation. Our Lord's second advent is a future event; for proof of it we must go to "unfulfilled prophecy." But the writer seems to say that we must prove every thing out of the Gospels and Epistles, which he intimates are "the plain parts of the word of God." Now where did he learn that the Epistles were so plain, when speaking of the second coming of Christ? Not in the Epistles themselves. For Peter testifies, immediately after discoursing of the day of the Lord and the desolation of the world, that his beloved brother Paul had declared

the same great truths, and adds: "As also in all his Epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, unto their own destruction." 2 Pet. iii. 16.

"

In reasoning on the passages he quotes from the New Testament, to prove that the wicked must be raised and destroyed immediately on the advent of Christ, there is this obvious fallacy in the argument, that he takes for granted, that every thing that is prophesied in those passages is to take place immediately when Christ appears. Let us try this mode of procedure with Is. ii. 4. "Out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people; and they shall beat their swords into plough-shares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. Now all anti-millenarians apply the first clause of this passage to the publication of the gospel from Jerusalem, eighteen hundred years ago; and yet nothing like a fulfilment of the latter part of it has yet taken place. The truth is, the day of the Lord, and the day of judgment, mean the particular season when the Lord will appear, and the season when he will judge. Thus Hosea puts these words into the mouth of the faithful remnant in his own day; "After two days will he revive us, in the third day he will raise us up" that is; after two periods of suffering and captivity, first under the Assyrians, and next under the Romans, in the third or millennial period, God will restore to us peace and prosperity. Nay more, even in the plain didactic Epistle of John, the whole period from the time of the apostle to the end of the reign of Antichrist is called an hour. "Little children, it is the last time, (Gr. hour); and as ye have heard that Antichrist shall come, even now there are many Antichrists, whereby we know that it is the last time (Gr. hour); 1 John ii. 18. Since the whole period of Antichristian sway, from the time of the apostle till the present day and onward, is called by the apostle an hour, it cannot be a Scriptural way of reasoning to say that the day of judgment must be so short a space of time as to make all the events that happen in it strictly coetaneous, at least in your correspondent's sense of the word, though they no doubt belong all to that great era, and will all happen in it sooner or later. When our Saviour says, all judgment is given to the Son, it is the same, as when he says, all power in heaven and earth is given to him. Judgment among the Jews meant frequently rule, and the judges that followed Joshua were divinely appointed dictators, who performed all the parts of executive government.

II. Having dwelt so long on the first head of argument, we shall be able, with our way thus cleared, soon to get over all the rest. The second, relating to the separate place of holy departed spirits, needs not detain us long.

The happiness of departed spirits is not so perfected, as to keep them from further expectation. This is evident from the language of the saints in the Revelation, crying, "How long," and anticipating "reigning on the earth;" when happiness is completed there is no further room for hope. See these points proved, Rev. vi. 10; v. 10. 1 Cor. xiii. 13. Rom. viii. 24. The apostle points to the resurrection of the body, as the time when the happiness of the Christian is to be perfected. Rom. viii. 23. 1 Cor. xv. 54. The doctrine then is clear: call the present abode of the saints heaven or Hades,—still it is not the place where the Christian is to be a participator of the highest bliss to which he is heir. No argument can be founded on the use of the word heaven to denote that place. The abodes of evil spirits, at the present time, are called "heavenly places:" in our translation it is high places, very properly considering our English sense of the word heaven. Eph. vi. 12.

BB

III. Your correspondent says, that the grand hope of the Millenarians is to reign with Christ a thousand years. Ah, he does not know our inward thoughts of Christ. Our grand hope is to reign with him for ever and ever to all the days of eternity, and our most earnest desire is to be speedily so united to him, as to be made "like him, and to see him even as he is." We would not be put off a thousand years longer. Surely that is not a flaming love which can be content to wait so long. Meantime indeed our treasure is in heaven; yea our life is hid with Christ in God, but when Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall we also appear with him in glory, Col. iii. 4. What should a Christian do in heaven after Christ has left it? The heavens are to contain him only to the time of the restitution of all things. After that, "the tabernacle of God shall be with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them and be their God." Rev. xxi. 4. Where could a Christian reside in heaven after that the heavenly Jerusalem, which is the Mother of us all, shall have descended from God out of heaven (Rev. xxi. 10.) and this earth, where God has been most blasphemed and contemned, made the theatre of his highest praises and loudest Hallelujahs? How glorious the scene to the grace and wisdom of God. Paradise restored; souls fitted by nature only for the society of devils, conformed to the image of him, who is the brightness of the Father's glory; bodies full of corruption, now clothed with immortality; a cursed earth now the gar den of the Lord; a world deserted of God, now the place of which the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple.

IV. We come now to the first resurrection, mentioned particularly Rev. xx. 4, 5. " And I saw the souls of them that were beheaded, and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years." Your correspondent, following many great names, wishes to make this, not a resurrection of the bodies, but a spiritual resurrection, arguing from the use of the word soul. Now this is a most unhappy idea; for, first it is well known to all who have learned the first rudiments of the Greek language, when they are not engaged in this controversy, that the word here translated soul, cannot mean spirit, in the sense of figurative. When our Saviour says, "the words I speak are spirit," he uses the word pneuma: the same word also is used Luke i. 17. where John the Baptist is said "to come in the spirit of Elias," and a form of the same word is used in this book of Revelation, when speaking of the city which is called spiritually Sodom. Nay the adjective derived from the word (psuche) here translated soul, so far from meaning the same as the one derived from (pneuma) spirit, in the New Testament, means exactly the contrary, and is translated natural or sensual; as in Cor. ii. 14. "The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God;" and Jude 19," sensual, not having the Spirit." The word 'soul' then, from its use in the New Testament, is one of the last words we should expect, if the intention had been to lead us to the consideration of something spiritual or figurative. But farther, every one, who knows any thing of the Bible, knows, that soul often means simply person; as when mentioning the persons that went down with Jacob to Egypt, they are called "70.souls ;" and, in the original, captives of war are called "souls of men," 1 Chron. v. 21*. Phrases of the same kind are also to be found in classical authors. See Schleusner's Lex. to the Old Testament, article Psuche.Farther, in Judges xvi. 13*, the words of Sampson in the original are, "let my soul die with the Philistines ;" and in Rev. xvi. 3, we have also in the original, " every living soul in the sea died." In both of these instances, and others that might be quoted, the dying of the soul can mean nothing more than the extinction of animal life; so on the contrary when Jeremiah said to Zedekiah," go forth to the king of Babylon's princes, and thy soul* shall

In all these places the reader can consult the original, or Cruden's Concordance.