OBJECTION FIFTH:-'Christ assures the twelve, that "in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, they also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." (Matt. xix. 28; Luke xxii. 30.) Now, "What," asks Mr Elliott, "is the regeneration (Taλyyevεoía) spoken of, but the state when Christ shall make all things new (Rev. xxi. 5), and this earth be restored to paradisiacal blessedness? In which state, however, and over which renovated earth, Christ here declares that the apostles shall, together with their Lord, have the authority and government. ' *

Expressed in this general form, there is nothing here which I am disposed to object to. But the passage is adduced to show that the state of glory will be coexistent with the restored nationality of the Israelites; and that, while inhabiting Palestine in flesh and blood, they will be under the rule of the twelve glorified apostles. To such an interpretation I demur. Not a single commentator that I can find takes this view of it, or seems to have imagined that such a construction might be put upon it.t Nor do I find premillennialists themselves making any use of it in their scheme. Several of them draw out the details of the millennial kingdom, as they expect it to be, with considerable minuteness. Mr Elliott, for example, does so. But though he opens up a vision of earth and heaven-mortal and immortal-meeting together, blending seemingly into one, or interlacing each other so that the mind is bewildered as it tries to fix the fleeting shadows of his half-poetic, half-mystic, half-expository representation-this feature of twelve thrones, one for each of the apostles, from which to exercise rule over the twelve *Hor. Apoc., ut supra, iv. 167. See also Birks, ut supra, p. 333.

This remark applies even to Bengel, who of all expositors of note was the most likely, from his prophetical opinions, to take some such view. Olshausen alone, though in a very cautious and distant way, expresses something like it.

Hor. Apoc., vol. iv. ut supra.

tribes of the reconstituted Israel in Palestine, forms no part of it. He speaks of "the perfected company of the redeemed, the general assembly, the glorified sons of God," being "intrusted with the new earth's government, subordinately to Christ himself." But nothing of these "apostolic thrones" appears in his description. Even Mr Birks, though he deduces an argument from this passage, seems not to rely greatly on it, but merely says it points, not obscurely, to the truth he is contending for (that the advent will precede the millennium).

"Lest," says CALVIN, "the disciples should think they had lost their pains, and repent of the course they had entered on, Christ reminds them that the glory of his kingdom, which as yet lay hidden, would come into manifestation, as if he had said, 'There is no reason why this mean condition should discourage you; for I, who scarcely have a place among the basest, shall yet mount the throne of majesty. Wait, then, for a little while, till the time for the manifestation of my glory shall arrive.' What, then, does he promise them? Why, that they should be partakers of the same glory. For by assigning them thrones, from which they should judge the twelve tribes of Israel, he compares them to ambassadors or prime ministers, who in a royal council occupy the first seats. We know that the apostles were chosen twelve in number, that thereby it might be seen that God designed by Christ to gather together the scattered remnant of his people. This was the highest dignity; but it lay as yet concealed. Christ therefore suspends their expectations till the final manifestation of his kingdom, when they should at length reap the fruit of their election. For though by the preaching of the gospel the kingdom of Christ shone partially forth, there can be no doubt that Christ here speaks of the last day. . . . . In order to prevent mistake, Christ distinguishes between the commencement and the consummation of his kingdom."

So the commentators generally.

* In Nov Test. Comm., ad loc.-See also Marckii Expect. Glor. Fut. J. Chr., 1. iii. c. xvi. ? xii.-xiv.

OBJECTION SIXTH:-'In 1 Cor. xv. 23, 24, "three events are specified, separated by two marks of sequence in time. There is the resurrection of Christ, the first-fruits-an event prior by at least 1800 years to the second advent. There is afterward, at the coming of Christ, the resurrection of them that are his. Afterward there cometh the end, at the final resurrection. "Christ the first-fruits; afterward (TITα) they that are Christ's at his coming; then (tira) cometh the end," &c. The terms of order naturally imply an interval like that between the resurrection of Christ and his advent, to ensue between the advent itself and that end in which death is to be destroyed."

This argument, though found in almost every defence of the premillennial theory, is of the slenderest possible description. The terms referred to are indeed marks of sequence in time, but of any sequence, whether long or short. All that this passage says is granted by every body, namely, that "the end" will be after the second advent and the resurrection of Christ's people.

OBJECTION SEVENTH :- The "rest," or sabbatism (calCaTouds), which the apostle says "remaineth for the people of God" (Heb. iv. 9)-meaning "the departed saints-seems to indicate some septenary of time, the which could scarce be any other than the seventh millennium of the world. Now, without entering at all minutely into chronological details, it is evident from our present actual position near the end, on the lowest computation, of the world's sixth millenary, that were we to postpone its commencement yet a thousand years-in other words, were we to admit of a millennium of earthly bliss still intervening before the departed saints' entrance on their promised blessedness-then their rest, even though this millennium were to begin instantly, would be postponed long after the opening of the seventh millenary; and consequently *Birks' Proph. Emp., ut supra, pp. 339, 340.

be, in the then generally understood sense of the term, no sabbatism.""*

I should not have noticed this objection, but for the quarThe following is, I think, more

ter from which it comes.

than sufficient reply:

1. It is incredible to me that the blessedness of departed saints should be expressed by any term denoting a limited period of time, and expressly intended to be understood of that definite period. Even premillennialists themselves, when asked how it could be said of the risen and glorified saints that "they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years," are wont to reply that this period has no reference to them and their glory, but only to the mortal and terrestrial department of the kingdom under their rule; and though this looks too like a door by which to escape from a difficulty, seeing it is expressly said that it is the living and reigning of these saints themselves which is to last thus long, still it shows that the difficulty is felt, and must somehow be got over. But here Mr Elliott will have us to take this "sabbatism"-though "applied (he says) to the departed saints' expected rest❞—to express a septenary of time, and founds on this supposed sense an argument for its reference to the seventh millennium of the world!

2. Independently of this, the argument is without a shadow of foundation. For God's holy day, as every one knows, is called the Sabbath, not from its being a septenary of time, but from the rest enjoined and enjoyed on it-(from л, to rest).† From this came the Greek word to sabbatize, or keep sabbath (accari(w, Exod. xvi. 30, lxx.), and our word

* Elliott's Hor. Apoc., ut supra, iv. 182.

"But," replies Mr Elliott to the above, was not the Jewish holy day of rest, or Sabbath, so fixed to the seventh day as to convey the idea of a septenary almost necessarily to a Jewish mind?" True, but the resting, in a passage like that in the Hebrews, is all that would naturally occur to any mind.

here, sabbatism, or sabbath-keeping, meaning, as many think, the celestial and eternal repose of the saints with God, but, as I rather think-with Calvin and others-the present rest which is the portion of believers in Jesus, of which it is said in the same chapter (ver. 3), "We who have believed do enter into rest” (εισερχόμεθα—οἱ πιστεύσαντες), and of which Jesus himself says, "Come unto me all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." Of this rest, heaven is indeed the consummation; but so far from its being untasted here, it is a repose to which (as Calvin says on the passage) God invites us every day.

These, I think, are all the objections to the doctrine of this volume deserving of notice, which have not been anticipated and replied to in the two foregoing parts. One or two more, which Mr Birks urges, might have been taken up. But they all resolve themselves into one, already examined pretty fully in the first part of this volume—namely, that the New Testament affords no ground for expecting "universal holiness to last for a long time before the Lord shall come," and gives 66 no intimation that the corn-field of the Church will be cleansed or purified long before the separation in judgment."* In this I perfectly agree. I expect no period-long or short-of "universal holiness before Christ come. Does Mr Birks himself expect it—during the millennium? I do not expect the corn-field of the Church to be "cleansed or purified" before Christ comes, in the only sense in which the parable referred to by Mr Birks (of the wheat and tares) announces a purification, namely, that all the tares, or children of the wicked one, will be purified out of the world, which is the field." Does Mr Birks himself believe that not one child of the wicked one, one unregeneFour Proph. Emp., ut supra, p. 333.