one day is a thousand years, but that one day is as a thousand years; which shews, that one day is not, even with the Lord, really a thousand years, but only as a thousand years; and consequently, that neither the day of the Lord, nor any other day, has been or will be really a thousand years. But (4) The last clause, and a thousand years as one day, completely sets aside all idea of the first clause being intended to convey any idea of the day of the Lord, or any other day, being really a thousand years long. For if that had been the real meaning of the first clause, then, taking a day to signify a thousand natural years, and supposing each year to consist of three hundred and sixty days, a thousand years would be in effect three hundred and sixty thousand natural years; and so the last clause would have stood, and a thousand years is as three hundred and sixty thousand years. But, instead of confirming any such meaning of the first clause, the last reverses the declaration of the first; which shews, that nothing whatever is meant to be laid down as to our regarding the length of one day, or the length of a thousand years, differently from what they really are. we may observe, that A has just as much right to omit all reference to the first clause of this verse (one day is with the Lord as a thousand years), and to quote merely the last clause (a thousand years as one day), and might deduce as solid an argument from this, that the thousand years foretold in Rev. xx. would be really only of the length of one day; as B has a right to omit all reference to the last clause, and to quote only the first; and to deduce an argument from this, that the day of the Lord will be really of the length of a thousand years. Having thus endeavoured to shew, both from the object and mode of expression adopted in this passage, that it affords no ground whatever to the hypothesis set up, that the day of the Lord is to last a thousand years, I would proceed,

And

Secondly, To endeavour to prove that this passage affords strong ground for concluding, that the day of the Lord will be, not a thousand years, but only a short period.

We could not interpret this passage to mean, that one day really is a thousand years, without at once de..

men.

stroying all its force; for a thousand years are as a thousand years, not only with the Lord, but also with There is in this passage a twofold contrast: the one expressed, namely, that between the two numbers and periods, one and a thousand, day and years; the other not expressed but implied, namely, between God and man, or rather between the being and view or mind of God, and the being and view or mind of man. And the force of the contrast consists, I conceive, in this, that whereas in comparison with the being of man, and in the view of his mind, one day, or a single day, is a very short period, and a thousand years is a very long one; so that the difference between a day and a thousand years is, in our view, exceedingly great; yet, when we come to contrast the being and mind or view of God with our own, this difference vanishes, as it were, into nothing. One day is with him as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. Hence, if we suppose the time called one day, really to be or signify a long period, the contrast would be done away; not only between the length of the two periods, but also between the being and mind or view of the Lord, and the being and mind or view of man; for a long period is as a long period, not only with the Lord, but also with man.

We only give any real force to the passage, by keeping the word, day, to its strict sense of a natural day. For this both is a really short period, and appears so in our view, especially when compared with a thousand years; yet short as a day is, and long as a thousand years are, in our view, this is not the case in the view of the Lord; for one day, or a single day, is with him as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one or a single day. Hence, I conceive, this passage would clearly prove, that when the Holy Ghost uses the term, day, in describing any period, he intends thereby to signify not a thousand years, but a period so short that its duration not only would be, but would also appear to be, very short in the view of man, in comparison with the duration of a thousand years; and that one day is as really and truly a short period, as a thousand years is along Hence, the use of such terms as, the last day—the day of the Lord-a day in which God will judge the world,

one.

&c., all lead me to conceive that the period so described will be very short; and that the decisive events which will take place in that day, will succeed each other with a rapidity as inconceivable perhaps by us, as their decisive importance and grandeur is. [Note CC.]

I have thus endeavoured to state fully and fairly all the arguments of which I am aware, as being adduced from the Scriptures in support of the Millennarian view, that the first resurrection signifies that of the saints at the second coming of Christ; and that the ungodly will be raised at the close of that period. None of them, after a fair examination, appear to my own mind to have any solid foundation, or to afford any real support to this view. On the other hand, the considerations brought before the reader in the first chapter, from the passage itself, and the harmonizing testimony of the Scripture adduced in the second chapter, appear to me clearly to prove that such a view is erroneous; and that when Christ comes, not only all the dead saints will be raised in glory, and the living saints changed in like manner unto glory; but that all the ungodly dead will arise unto everlasting shame, and the living ungodly undergo, doubtless, an awful change in their bodies, to assimilate them to the raised ungodly, and all will go into everlasting punishment.

With my sincere prayer that the blessed portion of the saints may be that of every one who reads this little book, and that he may be a subject of Christ's kingdom of grace here, and of glory hereafter, I close this part of my subject.

[CC.] Though, for the reasons given above, I conceive that the term day, when it refers to a portion of time, is to be understood in Scripture to signify a period of time which is short in comparison of a thousand years; yet I by no means intend to assert, that it is always used in its strict sense of a natural day of twelve or twentyfour hours; for the day of Christ (John viii. 56) seems to mean the time of his being upon earth.

CHAPTER IV.

sense.

CONTENTS OF THE CHAPTER.

Reasons for interpreting the first resurrection in some figurative The author's former view respecting the Millennial period, as being one of universal holiness. His reasons for conceiving his former view to be erroneous. Some considerations which lead him to suppose there will be no period, previous to the second coming of Christ, during which universal holiness will prevail in every part of the earth. Suggestions, as to the meaning of some passages in the Old Testament, which the author formerly considered, as foretelling such a period. The terms, the world, all the world, all men, all flesh, &c. in the New Testament.

CONTENTS OF THE NOTES.

DD. On Isai. xi. 6-8.-EE. Suggestions respecting the extent of the

atonement.

IN the three preceding chapters I have endeavoured to shew, that the event foretold as the first resurrection, does not signify the resurrection of the saints in their glorified bodies at the second coming of Christ. In noticing the asserted rule of literal interpretation, I observed, that the analogy of the figurative character both of the preceding parts of the Book of Revelation, and of the introductory context of the xxth chapter, would of itself lead me to conceive, that it would be more in accordance with the mind of the Spirit to give a figurative than a literal interpretation of the first resurrection. The various considerations which I have adduced convince me, that to interpret it in a material sense with reference to the rising of the bodies of the saints, is forbidden, (1) by the passage itself, for the reasons set forth in the first chapter; (2) by the harmonizing testimony of numerous plain passages of Scripture, which unequivocally treat both of the resurrection of the saints, and of that of the ungodly, as I have endeavoured to shew in the second chapter; (3) by the analogy of the book itself, and of the context. Hence, therefore, I am brought to the conclusion, that it is to be understood in some figurative sense.

I would now proceed to notice a view which I once entertained upon this subject. I conceived that there

were many passages in the Old Testament, which foretell the universal spread of religion in some period of the Gospel dispensation; during which, every individual of the human race would be converted to the knowledge of Jesus; universal righteousness and peace would prevail in every part of the earth; and thus Christ would in a peculiar manner reign, though not personally, yet in his spiritual kingdom upon earth. Hence I was led to conceive, that the Millennial period predicted in the xxth chapter of the Revelation, must be the same as that to which I have just referred. I considered the third verse as foretelling the entire suspension of all spiritual influence of Satan at the beginning of this period; during which the Spirit would be poured out in a far fuller measure than heretofore; and every human being would be endued with the same faith and spirit as the martyrs. All mankind being thus peculiarly holy, and Satan's power entirely suspended, one generation after another would be holy and blessed, to a degree entirely unknown in any previous era of the Gospel. I conceived, that at the close of this period, the Spirit ceasing to be poured out, the then generation would not be renewed after the image of God, but remain dead in trespasses and sins; and Satan, being let loose, would work in their minds with awful power; and, in consequence thereof, the events foretold in vers. 7-10 would take place. Such is a statement of the view which I formerly took of this passage; and I shall now lay before the reader the reasons, which, upon a more mature consideration, have led me to conceive that my former view was erroneous; not only respecting this passage, but also as to the existence of any such period of universal holiness under the Gospel dispensation.

The following considerations appear to me to shew, that, even if other Scriptures indicated such a period, we could scarcely interpret the passage in Rev. xx. 1—5` in reference thereto.

FIRST. If it had been intended to foretell, that the influence of Satan over all mankind would be entirely suspended during this period, and that all were to become the subjects of a spiritual resurrection, and to live and reign with Christ in his Gospel kingdom, I cannot but conceive that the description in ver. 3, of the