those who conceive it to embrace the righteous at large, some-and the most distinguished—have come to that conclusion with much hesitation, and with great diffidence as to the soundness of that opinion. Should it be said that the difference above noticed, is, after all, not so great as to throw doubt upon the clearness of the passage, I have just one question to put in reply:— Has there ever been any such diversity of opinion about the subsequent prophecy of the final resurrection? That I call a clear and unambiguous prophecy of the resurrection of all the righteous and wicked at once, and in proof of this I appeal to the all but universal voice of the Church. Has there ever been any testimony approaching to this, either in amount or harmony, in favour of the literal sense of the millennial prophecy? No, there has not. This, then, is my second presumption against it. It would be unreasonable to insist that every testimony in favour of a truth should be equally explicit. But if we are reduced to one direct testimony, as we are here, in favour of a literal millennial resurrection, it is reasonable to require that it be unequivocal; and because it is not, as I have shown, I think this circumstance must be set down among the presumptions against the literal sense. 3. If a resurrection of the righteous in general-as contradistinguished from the wicked-be the true sense of this prophecy, the description is very unlike the thing to be described. It is not in the least like any other description of that event in the New Testament. Every other description of the resurrection and glory of the saints, as such, is catholic in its character, while this is limited-even laboriously so. Let me request the reader to run his eye over the few following specimens of the usual language of Scripture on this subject: "But the righteous into life eternal."—(Matt. xxv. 46.) "All that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life." -(John v. 28, 29.) "Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day."-(John iv. 54.) "To them who by patient continuance in well-doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life."-(Rom. ii. 7.) "They that are Christ's at his coming."-(1 Cor. xv. 23.) "Who shall change our vile body"-our's "whose conversation is in heaven."--(Phil. iii. 20, 21.) "IIe shall come to be glorified in his saints, and admired in all them that believe."-(2 Thess. i. 10.) “Our gathering together unto him.”—(Chap. ii. 1.) "To them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation."―(Heb. ix. 28.) "An inheritance incorruptible, undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation. . . . . . The grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ." -(1 Pet. i. 4, 5, 13.) "And now, little children, abide in him; that when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming. It doth not yet appear what we shall be but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is."-(1 John ii. 28, 29; iii. 2.) "I saw the dead, small and great, stand before the throne. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.”—(Rev. xx. 12, 15.) Now, compare with this catholic and transparent style the description here given of the subjects of this millennial resurrection, and say if it is natural to suppose that they are the same class of persons-the righteous at large. "And I saw the souls of them that had been beheaded for the witness of Jesus and for the Word of God, and such as had not worshipped the beast, nor his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads or in their hands; and they lived," &c. I shall by and by analyse this description, and show how studiously limited it is to one particular class of saints. At present, I take it as it strikes one on first reading it; and I have just to ask, whether it be natural to think that this is UNTENABLE ARGUMENTS FOR THE FIGURATIVE SENSE. 215 neither more nor less than a description of "the righteous" "entering into life eternal"—of "them that have done good" "coming forth unto the resurrection of life"--of "those who have eaten Christ's flesh and drunk his blood raised up at the last day,”-in short, of our universal "gathering together unto Him"? If it be so, I can only say as before, that the description is singularly unlike the thing to be described-not in the least fitted to suggest it, and wholly unlike all other descriptions of the same thing. These presumptions-and more that might be mentioned-against the literal sense of the millennial prophecy, though they are far from superseding the necessity of examining the passage itself, are more than sufficient to neutralise any supposed presumptions on the other side. In now coming to the examination of the passage in detail, I will first disencumber myself of some arguments in favour of the figurative sense, which I believe to be untenable. It is frequently urged, for example, that because "SOULS” (uxai) were seen in this vision, and no mention is made of BODIES, it cannot be a bodily resurrection that is meant.* But this is to mistake what the apostle saw in the vision. He did not see a resurrection of souls. He saw "the souls of them that were slain;" that is, he had a vision of the martyrs themselves in the state of the dead-after they were slain, and just before their resurrection. Then he saw them rise: "They lived"-not their souls, but themselves. Mr Elliott puts this very happily. "The word souls' is but a term designative of their state just previous; . . . and thus it no more indicates that they were still mere (uxaí) incorporeal souls, than the title 'dead' (vexgoi) 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 be * Scott (in loco), Dr Hamilton (Mod. Millen. pp. 203, 204), Barnes (Notes on Revel., 1852), &c. &c. fore Him, dead men." He gives other examples equally in point.* VITRINGA, who takes the prophecy figuratively, nevertheless takes the same view of the thing seen in the vision, namely, a literal resurrection from the dead. Indeed, all figurative resurrections in Scripture are couched in the language of literal ones; and why should this be any exception? Again, it has been argued, that because no mention is made of the earth in this prophecy, a literal resurrection to reign on the earth is not the sense of it. But nothing, I think, can be clearer than that the earth is the theatre of the millennial reign;-that having "destroyed them that destroyed (or corrupted, drapesígovras) the earth," he is now giving it into the hands of those who will possess it for the Lord;—that it is just what Daniel saw, "the giving of the kingdom and dominion of the greatness of the kingdom, under the whole heaven, to the people of the saints of the Most High" (Dan. vii. 27); or what the elders were heard anticipating in song, "We shall reign on the earth" (Rev. v. 10). Whether this reign be literal or figurative, the earth is without doubt the place of it. Once more, it has been said, that because the word " resurrection" is sometimes used in Scripture to denote the life of the soul in its disembodied state, there is no reason why it should not be so taken here. Thus Dr Ash and others. Mr Gipps, in his able "Treatise on the First Resurrection," though he does not go this length, recounts the various senses in which the word "resurrection" may be taken in Scripture, to show that we are not compelled, by the mere use of the word, to understand it literally here. I am not aware that any one has been so unreasonable as to say this; *Hora Apoc. iv. 147, fourth edition. + Dr Ash, in some sensible and judicious Lectures on the Apocalypse, urges this. (Four Lect. on the Apoc. delivered in the Spring of 1848, p. 87.) On the same ground, Piscator, Dr Henry More, Bengel, and others long ago, while they took the millennial resurrection to be literal, made the place of their reign with Christ to be not earth but heaven. So also Moses Stuart now. nor can I see what is gained by such criticism. It is impossible to deny that the word here denotes the restoring of life to the dead; and as such language is, beyond all contradiction, employed in Scripture to express a figurative resuscitation as well as a bodily resurrection, the only question ought to be, In which of the two senses is it employed here? To that question, then, let us now address ourselves. There appear to me, then, to be NINE INTERNAL EVIDENCES THAT THE MILLENNIAL As the vision is followed up by certain explanatory clauses, it is natural to begin with them. And, FIRST.—The clause, "This is the first resurrection” (v. 5), which is thought to prove it literal, seems to me to suggest the reverse. "It is allowed by all," says Daubuz, in his Commentary on the Revelation, "that the second resurrection is of bodies; and if so, why not also the first, since both are expressed in the like terms." And Bishop Newton says, "We should be cautious and tender of making the first resurrection an allegory, lest others should reduce the second into an allegory too." Unfortunately for this way of reasoning, the very next verse contradicts it: "Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection, on such the second death hath no power" (v. 6). Here" the first resurrection" and "the second death" are intentionally brought together and contrasted. But are these deaths of the same nature? Quite the reverse. The first death is that of the body, the second that of both body and soul; the first death is common to the righteous and the wicked, the second is the everlasting portion of the wicked alone. To suffer the first death for Christ carries with it exemption from the power of the second death-" Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee the crown of life”—“ He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death" |