Let me, therefore, apply these considerations to the subject of the first resurrection, Rev. xx. 4, 5. This is evidently a passage upon the interpretation of which the judgment must be exercised; because it might admit of being understood either in a material or figurative sense, according to the analogy of the Scriptures. On the one hand, the word avaσraois, standing up, or arising, and its root avisnμɩ, to stand up, or arise, are continually used in Scripture, in reference to the rising of the material body out of the grave. On the other hand, the same words also occur in various other senses, as in Matt. xxii. 24; Mark. iii. 26; Luke ii. 34; Acts iii. 22, and v. 36, 37, and vi.9, and vii. 18,37, and xx.30; Heb. vii. 11,15. In many other passages also the idea of a resurrection from a state of spiritual death occurs, Rom. vi. 4-6; Eph.ii. 1, 5, 6, and v. 14 (Gr. and Eng.); Col. ii. 12, 13, and iii. 1. We might expect that the Scriptures would set forth a resurrection of the soul as well as of the body; because the death which immediately followed the breaking of the command of God by the first Adam, was that, not of the body, but of the soul. Man must have died immediately upon eating of the forbidden fruit (Gen. ii. 17); and, therefore, the death which he incurred, must have been that of the soul; for the death of the body, though involved as a necessary consequence in the former, did not take place for many hundred years. Hence the soul of every child of Adam is by nature as really devoid of spiritual life, and dead in sin, as his body will become devoid of animal life, and dead in a material sense: and the children of God are made partakers of a spiritual resurrection, that of the soul, in this life, as really as they will be of material resurrection, that of the body, in the life to come.

These considerations therefore shew, I conceive, that our first object must be to ascertain in what sense the Holy Ghost uses the term resurrection in Rev. xx. 4, 5.

With a view to this, therefore, I consider, first, The character of the book in which this passage occurs. And here I need not, I believe, adduce any proof that it is peculiarly figurative; as every writer whom I have consulted, whatever view he adopts upon this question, agrees that the Revelations abound in symbols or figures. I might, indeed, go through the preceding

nineteen chapters, and shew that each of them contains numerous figurative representations. Many of these are, in their literal meaning, of a more material character than the passage under consideration; yet Millennarian writers do not hesitate to interpret them in a figura. tive sense, though they insist upon a material interpretation of the first resurrection. Such are chap. vi. 12— 17; and the prophecy concerning the two witnesses, chap. xi. 3—12, in which the expressions dead bodies, graves, standing on their feet, &c. occur, yet these writers understand them not in their literal meaning, but figu ratively. I merely notice this to shew, not only that a figurative interpretation would be more in agreement with the general character of the BOOK itself, but also with the system which Millennarian writers themselves adopt with respect to the greater part of it, to which they give a figurative meaning, in defiance of their own rule of literal interpretation.

Secondly. I would consider the introductory context, which also appears to me not literal, but figurative : John saw in vision, an angel come down from heaven, having a key, and a great chain in his hand lay hold on a great dragon-bind him—cast him into the bottomless pit-shut him up-set a seal upon him, vers. 1-3. I have not seen any writer who interprets these material objects, as seen by John in vision, in a literal sense; that is, as foretelling similar events of a material kind, such as, that a real embodied angel will come down with a real key, seal, &c. All, I believe, agree that this introduction of the prophecy, is to be understood in a figurative sense. This second consideration, therefore, namely, the figurative character of the introduction appears to me to furnish, in agreement with the general character of the preceding parts of the book, a key to determine the kind of interpretation which ought to be given to the prophecy itself; and to indicate that we ought not to understand it in a material but figurative sense.

Thirdly. However, and especially when I come to compare what is laid down respecting the first resurrection, and the events which follow it, with what is laid down in numerous plain passages of Scripture, which unequivocally treat of the resurrection of the saints at the second coming of Christ, I find, as I have endeavoured

to shew in the first two chapters, that all and each of them, in their plain meaning and obvious inference, harmonize in proving that the first resurrection cannot be that of the saints at the second coming of Christ. From all these considerations, I cannot myself but come to the conclusion, that to interpret the first resurrection in a material sense, as referring to the resurrection of the bodies of the saints, cannot be according to the mind of the Spirit.

II. Zechariah xiv. is alleged in support of the Millennarian interpretation of the first resurrection. With regard to the prophecy or prophecies contained in this chapter, the very first point appears to me to ascertain to what period it relates. I find it said (vers. 3, 4), Then shall the Lord go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle; and his feet shall stand in that day upon the Mount of Olives, &c. And again, in ver. 5, and the Lord my God shall come and all the saints with thee. Supposing that the going forth of the Lord in ver. 3, and his coming in ver. 5, are the same events, (though this does not appear by any means clear to me), the first question is, Whether this coming of the Lord refers to the second coming of Christ in person; or whether it is to be understood in some figurative sense, similar to those to which I referred in Note L, page 29. Let me then compare what is laid down in this chapter concerning the coming of the Lord, with what other Scriptures declare concerning the second coming of Christ, as I have endeavoured to shew in the second chapter. First, This going forth of the Lord is to take place upon the present earth (vers. 4, 5, 10, 11); whereas I know that this present earth is be burned up at the second coming of Christ, with all the works that are therein: see page 60. Secondly, Ungodly persons remain after this going forth of the Lord, in open enmity and rebellion against him and his people, and subsequently fight against Jerusalem (vers. 12—15, 18, 19); whereas I know that all the ungodly will be punished with everlasting destruction from his presence, and will go into everlasting punishment, at the time of his second coming. (See pages 54, 55). These considerations, therefore, at once convince me, that those events cannot take place after the second coming of Christ; and as they do take place after the

going forth of the Lord, in ver. 3, the latter cannot be the same as the former, but must be understood in some figurative sense, similar to those comings already noticed.

I may remark here the apparent absurdity of referring verse 3 to the personal coming of Christ in glory. For if his going forth be in person, then his fighting also, in the same verse, must be in person also. Every idea of common correctness in interpretation would forbid our saying of the one clause, This is personal, and of the other, This is not personal, when the same person is spoken of in each. Thus, then, this interpretation would involve us in the conclusion, that nations of ungodly men in their present bodies will fight against the Son of Man in person, when he will be revealed from heaven in the glory of his Father, and all the holy angels with him. The palpable absurdity of this (see note D, page 6,) at once convinces me, that this interpretation cannot be correct; nor can I express how my present view of the glory of the person and second coming of Christ would be lowered, indeed, I might say, entirely set aside, if I adopted this interpretation.

I would, however, still further remark, that as the expression in ver. 3, as when he fought in the day of battle, does not refer to any literal personal fighting of the Lord, and as the expressions day, night, evening, light, waters, &c. in vers. 6, 7, 8, cannot be understood literally, but in some figurative sense, so the analogy of interpretation leads me to conceive that the going forth of the Lord in ver. 3, and his feet standing on the Mount of Olives (ver. 4), are not to be understood in a literal sense. These considerations, therefore, appear to me to shew, that the going forth of the Lord, here foretold, cannot be the same as his second coming in glory. First, Such an interpretation would be in direct contradiction to what we collect from numerous plain passages in the New Testament concerning his second coming. Secondly, It would necessarily involve, what appears to me, a palpable absurdity. Thirdly, It would be an entire violation of the analogy of interpretation, mixing together the figurative and literal in a way which I cannot conceive to be intended in the word of God. Hence, I cannot but feel convinced that such an interpretation is erroneous; and consequently that no support can be

deduced from it to the Millennarian interpretation of the first resurrection.

III. It is alleged, that whenever the word avaoтaois, resurrection, is joined with vɛкpwv, the dead, in passages which notice the resurrection of the saints, the preposition ε, from, or out of, is put before vɛкpwv, the dead; and that this proves that the resurrection of the saints is to be out of or from among the dead; and, consequently, that the ungodly dead will remain in the grave, and not be raised at the same time.

I conceive, however, that the ground of the argument is altogether erroneous; and that no such peculiarity of expression exists. The word avaoraois, resurrection, is, as far as I can find, joined with the word VEKρWV, the dead, in thirteen passages in the New Testament; namely, Matt. xxii. 31; Luke xx. 35; Acts iv. 2, and xvii. 32, and xxiii. 6, and xxvi. 23; Rom. i. 4; 1 Cor. xv. 12, 13, 21, 42; Heb. vi. 2 ; 1 Pet. i. 3. Of these there are only three,-namely, Luke xx. 35; Acts iv. 2 ; 1 Pet. i. 3,-in which the preposition &, out of, occurs. Of these three, the last, 1 Pet. i. 3, has no bearing upon the point, because it does not treat of the resurrection of the saints, but of that of Jesus. The whole argument, therefore, is reduced, if I am correct, to two passages only in the whole of the New Testament. With regard, moreover, to these two passages, it appears to me that no stress can be laid upon either of them. For, first, although the resurrection from the dead, in Luke xx. 35, refers, I conceive, to the resurrection of blessedness of the saints, yet, as the same discourse is recorded in Matt. xxii. 29-32, and as the same resurrection is there noticed (ver. 31), as the resurrection of the dead, without the preposition ɛɛ, we could not, I conceive, infer that the Holy Ghost intended any stress to be laid upon the use of the preposition in Luke xx. 35, or it would certainly have occurred in Matt. xxii. 31 also. Secondly, With regard to the only remaining passage, (Acts iv. 2), being grieved that they taught the people, and preached through Jesus the resurrection of the dead (EK VEKρWV), it does not appear to me that this relates to the resurrection of believers only. For, 1. Jesus will raise the ungodly, as well as the godly (John v. 28, 29); and, 2. The resurrection which the Apostles preached,