faith and holiness which "the books" evidenced them to possess, and they will say, Now we know that "God had from the beginning chosen us to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth;" for, while the

sanctification" and the "belief of the truth" have been evinced by "the books," lo, the "choice" of us from everlasting, is found in that "other book, the book of life!" "Who, then, hath made us to differ, and what have we that we have not received?" Thus they will for ever feel that they are mere "vessels of mercy before prepared unto glory." But, when those on the left hand find not one of their names in the book of life, they will discern therein God's eternal purpose, that they should be left to show what a fallen state is, what a state of wilful and wicked, persevering and determined, rebellion against the God of heaven is; and that what God might righteously have done with all, he resolved to do with them, as "vessels of wrath fitted for destruction"—to glorify his justice in their " everlasting destruction from his presence, and from the glory of his power." Thus, this "book of life," while it will show that "known unto God were all his works from the beginning of the world,” will at the same time "stop every mouth"-the mouths of the righteous from ever boasting, the mouths of the wicked from ever complaining.

If this be a correct view of the object for which the book of life is produced at the last judgment, it of course takes away even the shadow of a plea for limiting it to the wicked; though I am far from admitting that there is so much as that. As for the negative way in which the book of life is mentioned in the concluding words of the passage-"Whosoever was not found written in this book of life was cast into the lake of fire"-the chief difficulty is to persuade one's self that those who urge it place any reliance on it themselves. (Compare Matt. xi. 6.)

On the whole, I hesitate not to say of this passage-and

of the testimony which it bears to the simultaneous presentation, in a resurrection-state, of the whole human race before the great white throne-what AUGUSTIN says of the two following chapters, that "if we deem this obscure, we ought not to seek or find any thing clear in the Holy Scriptures."— (De Civ. Dei, lib. xx. cap. xvii.)*

Other irrefragable testimonies to the same truth will present themselves when we come to the subject of the Judg

ment.

* Even premillennialists themselves, when their system does not require them to limit the subjects of the last judgment, feel all the force of our reasonings upon it. Mr Burgh, for example, thus writes on this subject: "If all the saved had been raised previously [to the final resurrection], and 'the dead, small and great'-including all the dead whom 'the sea,' and 'death and hades' deliver up-be only the lost, wherefore open the book of life to judge them? And if it be said, Merely to show that none of them were entered there, I think verse 15 leads to a different conclusion—' And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire;' which surely does not imply that the whole number of those so judged were cast into the lake, and none of them found written in the book." Again: "The whole [twentieth chapter of Revelation] closes with the scene of the last and general judgment, where again I think we have proof-both from 'the dead, small and great, standing before God' to receive judgment, and from 'the book of life' being one of the books then opened-that the award of the whole redeemed Church had not been decided so long before as the commencement of the millennium." -(Lect. on Sec. Adv., pp. 273, 274, third edit.; and Lect. on Book of Rev., p. 367, fourth edit.)

CHAPTER IX.

SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED: THE MILLENNIAL RESURRECTION -LITERAL OR FIGURATIVE?

We have seen that, by the confession of candid premillennialists themselves, there is no direct announcement of the literal resurrection of the righteous a thousand years before the wicked—if it be not in the twentieth chapter of the Revelation: We have seen that even confirmatory evidence of it there is none—all mention of it, all allusion to it, elsewhere being sought in vain: And finally, we have seen that the very contrary of this the simultaneous presentation of the whole human race, in a resurrection-state, before the great white throne—is unambiguously announced in Scripture. At the same time, the judgment of distinguished men and acute interpreters in favour of a literal resurrection in this passage, and the confidence with which that sense of it is continually pressed in the present controversy, demand a full and candid investigation of it. This I shall now endeavour to give it. The passage is as follows:

Rev. xx. 4-6: "And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them,

:

and judgment was given unto them and I saw the souls of them that had been beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and whosoever (oires)* had not worshipped the beast, nor his image, neither had received * The supplement here may either be, "I saw those whosoever," or "I "saw the souls of those whosoever." In either case, as we shall presently see, the sense is the same. Tregelles translates simply, "such as."

his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. [But] the rest of the dead lived not [again] until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years."

It would take whole pages to enumerate the treatises that have been written upon this celebrated passage, and nearly as much space to mention the opinions and speculations to which it has given rise. The one question, however, of any great importance-whether the resurrection here predicted is to be taken in a literal or figurative sense-may be brought within moderate compass, and determined, I conceive, by ordinary Christian intelligence.

Before entering, however, into the details of a passage like this, it is natural to look at the presumptions and probabilities of the case, in so far as they lie on the surface, or suggest themselves readily to the mind. We are not, of course, to be swayed by these in opposition to direct and explicit evidence. But in all questions of such a nature as this, it is usual to take a broad view of the case first, and then to inquire how far our general conclusions are or are not borne out by closer and more detailed investigation.

de

If the question then be,-Was this celebrated passage signed to announce A LITERAL AND GENERAL RESURRECTION OF THE SAINTS? the following appear to me to be strong prima facie

PRESUMPTIONS AGAINST IT.

1. It is very strange that the resurrection of the righteous a thousand years before the wicked, if it be a revealed truth, should be directly and explicitly announced in one passage only. We are not, indeed, to set limits to God; but, judg

ing of Him by his way of revealing other truths of equal importance and of kindred nature, we may safely say, that it is not according to his usual method. Still, there might be reasons for a deviation in this case; and if we found, scattered up and down the Scripture, hints of a prior resurrectionhints which, though not at all explicit, were yet sufficient to suggest it, or at least were best explained on that theory, and thought by impartial expositors substantially to express it— this might go far to neutralize the presumption against it, arising from its being nowhere directly announced, if not here. But it is not so. Though the resurrection be a theme on which the apostles delighted to expatiate-though the nature of it, the grounds of it, and its connection in point of time with the coming of Christ, be abundantly dwelt on-and though in such passages the prior resurrection, if a true doctrine, could hardly miss to have dropt from the apostolic pen -it is altogether wanting, as we have seen, and what are alleged to be hints of this doctrine are not so, nor have ever been so regarded by critics and expositors. This, I think, makes the presumption against its being found here very strong. But if to this be added all that points in an opposite direction—what the overwhelming majority of the Church have held to be direct, explicit, and indubitable announcements of a simultaneous resurrection of the whole human race -the presumption that a general resurrection of the righteous a thousand years before the wicked, is not the true sense of this prophecy, is greatly increased.

2. If this was to be the chosen place for announcing such a prior resurrection, it is surely reasonable to expect that a clear and unambiguous revelation of it would be made. "It was enough," says Mr Birks, "that one clear statement should be given before the inspired volume was closed, which might serve for a key to all the other prophecies, and brighten into fuller and fuller evidence when the time of the fulfilment should be drawing near.”—(Pp. 158, 159, ut supra.) This is