plain, in order to ascertain whether it is well founded or not, they bring all these Scriptures to the test of their own interpretation of this passage, and endeavour in some way or other to make them agree with that. Thus, on the one hand, if the literal meaning of any passage of Scripture appears to suit their view of the Millennium, a literal interpretation must be given, however figurative the character of the book may be in which the passage occurs. On the other hand, although a passage occurs in an unfigurative book of Scripture, and its literal meaning is very plain and obvious, and altogether possible according to the nature of things, so that they are bound by their own rule to give a literal interpretation; yet, if that would shew that their view of the first resurrection and the Millennium cannot be true, they reject the literal intepretation, and adopt some other. Thus in practice they appear to me to have no general rule of literal interpretation; but to exercise their judgment with regard to every passage, as to giving the literal or some other meaning; their judgment being guided, in each case, by their own view respecting the first resurrection and the Millennium, however unconscious they may be of such a bias.

Let me, however, adduce a few instances of their system of interpretation, in proof of the correctness of the remarks which I have just made.

Millennarian writers interpret Isai. xi. 6-8, as already observed, in reference to the state of things during the Millennium; and conceive that it is to be understood as applying to real lions, bears, &c. In Isai. xxxv. 9 it is said, No lion shall be there, nor any ravenous beast shall go up thereon, it shall not be found there. This is, evidently, connected with the coming of Christ foretold in ver. 4; in the same way as Isai. xi. 6-8 was connected with his coming, as foretold in ver. 1 of that chapter. According to their own rule, they are bound to give a literal interpretation of ver. 9, and to understand the lion and ravenous beast of real animals. They discard, however, their own rule in this case; and take these expressions not in a literal but figurative sense; although the literal meaning is possible in this passage according to the nature of things, and is not so in Isai. xi. 6—8. Again; the proposed rule, as already observed, seems

H

to be laid down with express reference to Rev. xx. 4,5. We might therefore expect, that these writers would peculiarly adhere to it in the interpretation of every part of this passage. Instead, however, of this, they immediately throw aside their own rule with regard to some important parts of ver. 4. First, The expression is, "I saw the SOULS of those who," &c. Upon their own rule, therefore, they are bound to interpret this as foretelling a resurrection of the souls, because such a resurrection is possible, according to the nature of things, as described in various passages of Scripture (Eph. ii. 5, 6, and v. 14; and Col. ii. 13, &c.) This however would shew that their view of the first resurrection, as signifying that of the saints in their glorified bodies, cannot be true. Hence, they reject the literal interpretation of the word souls; and assert that the passage foretells a resurrection of the material bodies.—Secondly, If we take the literal meaning of the designation of those who reign with Christ as signified in ver. 4, it would include only a very small number of the saints. This therefore would prove, that ver. 4 cannot be intended to foretell the reigning with Christ after his second coming, because that will include all the saints; and, consequently, that the Millennarian view of the first resurrection cannot be the true one (see pp. 14-16). Again, therefore, the asserted general rule of interpretation is discarded by those who have laid it down. Instead of taking this designation according to its literal sense, they in some way make out that it includes all the saints; and apply it to those who have not partaken of any resurrection (ver. 6), and to those who have died in generations and countries which were entirely before the period, and out of the kingdom of the beast, to all of whom its literal meaning is entirely inapplicable. Thus, therefore, I find that the above rule is rejected by those who propose it, in their interpretation of some of the leading parts of the very passage with a view to which they have laid it down.

Let me, however, adduce one or two more instances. The passage, in reference to which the above rule was asserted, occurs in a book which Millennarian writers, as well as others, allow to abound in figures or symbols. If, therefore, it be a good general rule for interpreting

a passage in such a figurative book, much more are these writers bound to adhere to the literal meaning in passages which occur in the comparatively unfigurative parts of Scripture, such as the Gospels. Thus Jesus, in John v. 28, 29, declares, An hour is coming in which all that are in the graves shall hear the voice of the Son of Man, and shall come forth, they that have done good unto the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil unto the resurrectian of damnation. Nothing can be plainer to my own mind, than the literal meaning of this passage, as proving, (1) That the resurrection of the godly and that of the ungodly will be distinct from one another; (2) That they will take place at one and the same time; (3) That the term, an hour, must be intended to signify a very short period, within which all that are in the graves will come forth. Much more, therefore, are those who have laid down the literal rule of interpretation in respect to a passage in a figurative book, bound to adhere to it in such a plain passage as this; because the literal meaning is evidently possible according to the nature of things. But, if they thus adhered to their own rule, they would at once prove that their view of the first resurrection cannot possibly be true. Hence the literal meaning is discarded; and, in order to remove this difficulty, the word hour is interpreted to signify the very long period of a thousand years. The same course is adopted with regard to the expression, in the last day, occurring in John vi. 39 and xii. 48. passages prove that the resurrection of the saints, and the judgment of the ungodly, must both take place in the last day; and the literal meaning of this would imply that they must occur either at the same time, or within a short interval of one another, according to every common idea of time. As, therefore, the literal meaning is possible according to the nature of things, Millennarian writers are bound to adopt it by their own professedly general rule. But this would overthrow their interpretation of the first resurrection; and, therefore, instead of understanding it in any sense which would harmonize with its literal meaning, the last day also is interpreted to be a period of a thousand years.

These

Again, in 2 Pet. iii. it is declared, that the earth and all the works that are therein shall be burned up (ver. 10).

Nothing can be plainer than the literal meaning of the Greek word katakanσɛтaι, and of our translation of it, burned up (see note V. p. 59). Hence, as the literal meaning of the words is possible according to the nature of things, Millennarian writers are bound to adopt it by their own rule. If however they did so, they would at once prove that their own view of the first resurrection cannot be true; because, if the earth and all the works therein be burnt up at the coming of the day of the Lord, no ungodly persons or dumb animals could survive. They therefore discard their own rule of interpretation; and instead of understanding the word karakaŋσɛraι in its literal meaning, as signifying burning up, according to its real sense and invariable use in every other passage in the New Testament, they interpret it in the sense of refining, which it neither can bear, nor has in a single passage. And they give it this figurative sense in order to support their hypothesis, that neither the ungodly, nor the dumb animals, nor indeed any thing else (as far as I can collect their view) upon the surface of the earth will be destroyed, as they must be by a burning-up fire.

So again, in ver. 13, a new earth is foretold. This, according to its obvious literal meaning, foretells the creation of a new earth in the place of the present earth, which will be burned up; and this literal meaning strikingly harmonizes with and confirms the literal meaning of the prophecy concerning the burning up of the present earth. But, whatever sense other writers might attach to these words, Millennarians are bound to take the literal meaning of the word new by their own rule; because it is possible according to the nature of things. As, however, this would prove that their interpretation of the first resurrection cannot be right, they discard their rule, and interpret the word, "new earth,' in the figurative sense of an altered, or improved, or refined earth. So the literal meaning of Heb. i. 10-12 would plainly indicate, that the present earth will hereafter perish, and will be entirely put aside like an old and worn-out garment; and that a new earth will be, like a new garment, substituted in its place (see note V. p. 61). This also would prove that the Millennarian view cannot be true; and, therefore, writers who adopt it, instead of taking the literal meaning of the words

pérish and changed, interpret them in the figurative sense of altering and improving the earth; although no such process is carried on with respect to an old and wornout garment; which is not altered and improved, but put entirely away, and a new one is substituted.

From these, therefore, and similar instances of the system of interpretation which Millennarian writers actually adopt, it appears to me that the literal rule which they profess to lay down as a general one, is only adopted by themselves when it will support their view of the first resurrection; so that if the literal meaning of any passage would prove that their view cannot be right, they discard their own rule, and affix any other meaning which will get over the difficulty. I conceive that such is their actual system of interpretation, however unconscious they may themselves be of it; and that such must be the result of assuming that their own interpretation of the first resurrection is right, and making that the standard to which other passages must be referred. Hence also they are led into a course of interpretation, the reverse of that which appears to me to be according to the mind of the Spirit; for they take the literal meaning of passages in the figurative parts of the Old Testament, and reject the literal meaning of others which occur in the unfigurative books of the New Testament.

Let me venture to observe, that I doubt whether any one general rule of interpretation can be laid down; and to state the considerations which guide me in endeavouring to decide between a literal interpretation or otherwise; leaving it to the reader to judge for himself, as to their propriety. The first consideration is, the general character of the book or portion of Scripture in which the passage occurs, whether it is figurative or unfigurative. The second is, the character of the context, and particularly of that which forms the introduction of the passage; as it appears to me frequently intended as a key to the whole. The third consideration is, whether a literal or figurative interpretation would most harmonize with other passages of Scripture which treat unequivocally and plainly upon the same subject. In some such way I conceive I ought to exercise my judgment respecting each passage, where the meaning admits of doubt.