too the British Reviewer: at least to the extent, if I rightly understand him, of abandoning what Whitby says of the revival of the martyrs' spirit; his own view being the same as Whitby's and Brown's of the revival and triumph of the martyrs' cause.1

Thus, on much various evidence inferable from the Apocalypse itself, I come to the conclusion of the inadmissibility of Whitby's millennial theory, just as decidedly as of each of the other anti-literal theories: and at the same time, since all the counter-evidence has gone to confirm the literal theory, to a conviction of all this constituting a strong presumption in favour of that literal theory of Irenæus and the early Chiliasts. A presumption further confirmed by the simple but important fact, that the doctrine of a first literal resurrection of God's saints was no new doctrine in St. John's time; but one that had past downward to it from early currency in the Jewish Church, as will appear in my next Section."

It needs however, ere passing on from this part of my subject, that I make an explanatory observation or two, by way of answer to certain difficulties and objections that have been urged from the Apocalyptic passage against it.

And, 1st, the application of the word uxas, souls, to the saints and martyrs raised to reign with Christ, (which some have objected,) forms no real objection to the literal view. For it is but a term designative generally of their state just previous; and specially marking the identity of some of

1 I say, if I rightly understand him: for I am not sure that I do. He says, p. 183: "The principle that where a resurrection to life is spoken of, it must be a resurrection of corresponding character with the death from out of which it is a revival, is a true principle; and, as such, is fatal we conceive to Whitby's interpretation." Yet from his remark p. 176, "When the fulness of the Gentiles is brought in, and all Israel saved,.. God's martyrs will triumph in the victory of the cause for which they had suffered during so many centuries," and again, p. 189, that "the rest of the dead, like the martyrs, are the representatives of a cause, and.. supposed in their turn to triumph when Satan their leader is unbound," it seems to me that it is only in respect of what Whitby says of a revival of the martyr spirit that he differs from him. Mr. Brown, p. 242, seems to think that the revival of the old martyrs' spirit of faithfulness to Christ will suffice to answer the conditions of the case on that head. And so Clemens, p. 89. But I cannot agree to this. It seems to me contrary not only to the simple requirements of the symbol, but also to the analogy of the previous Apocalyptic case of figurative resurrection,-I mean that of the two witnesses, as explained alike by both of us. It was not the cause and faithfulness of Huss and the Waldenses that alone revived in Luther and his associates; but their martyrspirit even unto suffering also. 2 See especially p. 168, infrà.

the enthroned individuals with those oyas that St. John had seen long previously, after their slaughter, under the altar. And thus it no more indicates that they were still mere vuxa, incorporeal souls, than the title vexpo, just after in verse 12, (“I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God,") implies that these last were still, at that very time of their standing before Him, dead men.3-2ndly, as to the objection that St. John specifies only the souls of martyrs and of confessors against the Beast, as taking seat on the thrones of judgment, not departed saints generally, I answer that this does not necessarily imply that they were the only enthroned ones; but only that they particularly arrested St. John's regard, or that he had particular reasons for recording them. Must not Christ, though unmentioned, be supposed to have appeared in this self-same vision, since the enthroned ones are spoken of as reigning with Christ? I have already elsewhere argued from these parallels,3 and must beg leave to repeat the argument: also, as to the fact of the martyrs not being the only enthroned ones, that it may be inferred distinctly from the generally admitted parallel passages of Apoc. xi. 17, 18, and Dan. vii. 18:seeing that in Dan. vii. 18, 22, it was for "the saints of the Most High," generally, that the thrones were set, and to whom the judgment was given: and that in Apoc. xi. 18 the reward was declared to belong, not to martyrs only, but to God's prophets and saints and all that feared his name small and great; "the dead" specifically.5-The

Apoc. vi. 9.

2 Let me add another example or two, as the point is important, and one on which arguments have been frequently founded. Luke vii. 15;" And the dead man sate up;"ò vekρog avɛkabiσev Matt. ix. 33, "The dumb man spake;" o kopog Eλano. So, again, Matt. xi. 5, xv. 31, Luke vii. 22, &c: and, in the Old Testament, Exod. vii. 10, 1 Sam. xxvii. 3, &c.-Thus it seems quite needless to urge the frequent use of Yuxaι for persons, by way of explanation.

3

p. 132, Note.

But

Mr. Brown (Free Church Mag. for 1847, pp. 31, 32) in reply to these my parallels,-1st expresses doubt of Christ having appeared enthroned in the vision. what says Daniel in his corresponding vision? The Son of Man (Dan. vii. 13, 14) is specially noted as the visible holder of the kingdom. 2. He thinks that the word VEKOOL, dead, in Apoc. xx. 12 includes in itself the living too: just as in the saying, "in Adam all die," albeit that some are to be alive when Christ comes to judgment. But I cannot think this counter-parallel sufficient. The death derived from Adam is spiritual death, as well as bodily. And in the former character at least it passes to those who shall be alive at Christ's coming, as well as the rest.

5 The circumstance of Mr. Brown's distinctly acknowledging the parallelism of Apoc. xi. 18 with Apoc. xx. 1-4 makes me wonder that he should take so much

reason of the martyrs being so prominently specified here seems to me easy of apprehension. It was, I conceive, to remind the reader of the vision of the souls under the altar slain by Pagan Rome, to whom an avenging was promised: and likewise of that of the confessors under Papal Rome; on whom a similar trial of faith and patience had been enjoined, with a simple similar resting on the promise.2 In the specification before us it was strikingly set forth that, though delayed, the promise had not been forgotten; and was now at length to have fulfilment.3-As to the objection from what is said of the rest of the dead not living again" till the thousand years were finished," as if indicating that they lived again immediately after the ending of that millennium, (in which case all explanation of their living again by reference to the general resurrection of the dead to judgment mentioned in verse 11 afterwards, before the great white throne, then first set, as our theorists suppose, would be precluded, because of " the little space' of the Devil's loosing, and Gog's invasion, intervening between the millennium's ending and that general judgment,) the objection is founded on a quite mistaken assumption of the requirements of the preposition till. The tempest-angels of Apoc. vii. were charged not to blow till the servants of God were sealed: but it was not until after the further interval of a little space, subsequent to the compains to make it appear that there were none but martyrs seen in the latter vision. For he admits that in the former all the saints are noted as participators in the martyrs' triumph.

1 66

Why, if this is to be, [viz. a resurrection of all the saints,] was the specification so limited as it here is? We must leave the difficulty; . . for we see no solution of it." So the Brit. Qu. Reviewer, p. 184.

2 See Apoc. xiii. 10.—In the vision too of the souls under the altar, slain by Pagan Rome, it had been said that their vindication would not be till after the slaying of other martyrs their brethren, i. e. those slain under Papal Rome; and consequently the vindication of the latter synchronous with theirs.

3 It will already have been observed that the ancient Fathers supposed, as I do, that the pre-millennial resurrection would be one of all God's saints, of both Old and New Testament dispensations. See p. 134 suprà.

In further illustration of this being the view held by the early Fathers, let me add to my previous citations from Justin Martyr and Tertullian the following from Cyprian. "Vivere omnes dicit et regnare cum Christo: non tantùm qui occisi fuerint, sed et quique in fidei suæ firmitate et Dei timore perstantes imaginem bestia non adoraverint, neque ad funesta ejus et sacrilega edicta consenserint." And again; "Nec solos animadversos et interfectos divine pollicitationis manent præmia; sed etiam si ipsa passio fidelibus desit, fides tamen integra atque invicta perstiterit,.. ipse quoque à Christo inter martyres honoratur." Ad Fortunat. De Ex

hort. Mart. c. 12.

άχρις οἱ σφραγίσωμεν τους δουλους του Θεου ημων. Apoc. vii. 3.

pletion of the sealing, that the first Trumpet sounded, and the tempests began. In Luke xxiv. 49 the Saviour's charge, "Remain in Jerusalem till ye shall have been endued with power from on high," did not imply that they were then instantly after to end their sojourn there. And so too in other passages. Which being the case, the objection appears to be groundless: and we may without hesitation explain what is said about the resurrection, or living again, of "the rest of the dead" after the millennium as fulfilled in the uprising of the dead generally to judgment before the great white throne, supposing our theorists' view correct of this vision; contradistinctively to the martyrs and saints spoken of just before, as raised premillennially to live and reign with Christ.

Such, and so strong, is the various proof deducible from the Apocalyptic passage itself, with its context and parallels, against Whitby's futuro-figurative view, and in favour of the literal view, of the first resurrection in Apoc. xx.; and consequently of the resurrection of the just (as it is elsewhere called) being premillennial. As the point, however, is one so controverted, as well as so surpassingly interesting and important, it is clearly incumbent on every earnest inquirer after truth to consider the Scripture evidence that may bear upon it on a larger scale. This constitutes the second branch of my argument. Nor, I think, will its examination fail to issue in a deeper, fuller persuasion of the truth of the premillennial theory of Christ's second advent, and premillennial resurrection coincidently of his saints.

§ 3. GENERAL SCRIPTURE EVIDENCE AGAINST WHITBY'S

FUTURO-FIGURATIVE THEORY, AND IN FAVOUR OF THE LITERAL THEORY OF THE MILLENNIAL FIRST RESURRECTION.

Under this head I shall hope to prove the synchronism of the departed saints' resurrection, and of Christ's second

1 Ε. g. Matt. i. 25 ; Και ουκ εγινωσκεν αυτήν έως ού έτεκε τον υιον αυτής τον Tрштотокоν where, from the nature of the case, there must have past some time after the end of the we; even supposing that the old Catholic view respecting the Virgin Mary, as still after Christ's birth at Tap@evoç, is not to be insisted on.

So again Cyril, Catech. xv., argues from the till in 1 Cor. xv. 25, "He must reign till he hath put all things under his feet." 2 Luke xiv. 14.

and glorious advent, alike with the epoch of Israel's promised conversion and restoration, with that of the contemporarily opening blessedness of the world, and with that of the fall of Antichrist:-some other and different points of evidence being added afterwards.

And, in preparation for this important branch of my argument, it may be well first to trace the subject of Scripture promise somewhat fully, and from the fountain

head.

Every after-promise then made to man was wrapt up (if I may so say) and contained in that original and primary promise made to our first parents after their fall, "The seed of the woman shall bruise the serpent's head." Now on this promise we have what I may call an inspired comment, in the apostle's saying, "For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil." And, as Satan's work was the introduction of both natural and moral evil,-including alike a curse on man, with death as its special sign and accompaniment, and a curse too on the creation made for man, ("for the creation was subjected to vanity, not through any voluntary act, but by reason of him who subjected it," i. e. if we construe the word of the instrumentul cause, the Devil,) therefore the undoing of his work involved a twofold restoration and removal of the curse; the moral restoration of man, with abolition of death, and the physical restoration of this created earth of his habitation. Nor, I think, is it mere unfounded conjecture to suppose that Adam, Abel, Enoch, so understood, and hoped themselves to profit by it.3-The promise was not jeoparded by the judgment of a flood of waters which God would bring on the earth to destroy all flesh: for, together with his declaration of the coming judgment, God made the saving declaration to Noah, "But with thee will I establish my

1 1 John iii. 8.

2 Rom. viii. 20. Some commentators prefer to explain this of God, as the judicial subjector of the outward creation to vanity. But if the instrumental cause be meant, it must be either the Devil or Adam,-the tempter to original sin, or the sinner; seeing that the curse on the creation followed the sin. Which of these, is immaterial to my argument.

3 By the use of propitiatory sacrifices these early patriarchs expressed their hope in the promise.