the omission in them of any notice of the resurrection of the ungodly, does not afford any ground for the conclusion that it will not take place at the same time with that of the godly; because such omission evidently springs from another cause.

The second consideration which shews, I conceive, that no inference of the kind can be drawn from the omission of any notice of the resurrection of the ungodly in these passages, is, that we find continually, both in the prophetical and narrative parts of Scripture, that all the incidents connected with an event are not noticed in every passage which relates to that event. To instance two or three of the incidents connected with the first coming of Christ: one passage, and one only, foretold that Christ, at his first coming, would ride into Jerusalem upon an ass (Zech. ix. 9). Let me then ask, would there have been any weight in such an inference as the following, if a Jew had advanced it before the coming of Christ? "I find many prophecies in Deuteronomy, the Psalms, Isaiah, &c. foretelling the advent of Messias: not one of them takes the least notice of any such incident as his riding into Jerusalem upon an ass: therefore I infer, that no such event will take place at the time of his coming." We know that such an inference would have been erroneous, although only one passage in the Old Testament notices the incident itself. How much more, therefore, may we feel assured that although the incident of the resurrection of the ungodly is not noticed in 1 Cor. xv. and 1 Thess. iv., as taking place at the second coming of Christ, no inference can thereby be drawn, that it will not take place at that time; since not merely one solitary passage in a prophetical book, but the harmonizing testimony of the numerous plain passages which have been adduced in the second chapter, out of the unfigurative books of the New Testament, plainly points out that the resurrection of the ungodly will take place at that period. The same conclusion may be drawn from the narrative parts of the Scriptures. Mark and Luke and John give each an account of the trial of Christ before Pontius Pilate; yet not one of them takes the least notice of the dream of Pilate's wife, or the coming forth of the bodies of many of the saints

out of the graves. If I were to infer from this omission that these incidents did not take place at that time, would not such an inference be proved to be erroneous by the express, though single, declaration in the Gospel of Matthew, xxvii. 19, 52. So Matthew, Mark, and Luke each record Christ's going into the hall of judg“ ment, and also that Peter went in with him; but none of them makes the slightest allusion to any other of the Apostles going in at the same time. Yet it would be altogether erroneous to infer from this, that no other of the Apostles could have gone in at the same time as Peter; because the Gospel of John expressly declares, that John also went in at the very same time (John xviii. 15, 16). These instances, among multitudes which might be added, shew, that to infer that the resurrection of the ungodly cannot take place at the time of the second coming of Christ, because such an incident is not noticed in two passages (1 Cor. xv. and 1 Thess. iv.) which treat of his second coming, and of the resurrection of the saints, can have no weight; because it is set forth in numerous plain passages, that the resurrection of the ungodly will take place at that time.

It appears therefore to me, that these two considerations; namely, (1) the different object which these passages (1 Cor. xv. and 1 Thess. iv.) have in view; and, (2) the continual usage of Scripture where an event is foretold or related in several passages, not to notice in each passage all the incidents connected with that event; shew most satisfactorily, that the inference that the ungodly will not be raised at the second coming of Christ, because this incident is not noticed in these two passages, has no weight whatever.

VI. The last passage which I purpose to notice, is 2 Pet. iii. 8: 66 'But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."

From this it is inferred, that the day of the Lord will be a thousand years long; and that we may suppose that Christ will raise his people in the beginning of the day; reign with them during the day, that is, the thousand years; and raise up and judge the ungodly in the evening of the day. I have already endeavoured to

shew, that these two hypotheses will not remove the difficulty which the use of the term day occasions (see pages 41, 42). Indeed this very passage declares, that the earth itself is to be burned up at the coming of the day of the Lord; and, consequently, that all the ungodly must be destroyed at that time. I shall now endeavour to shew, First, That this passage affords no ground for the proposed hypothesis: Second, That it does afford ground for conceiving that the day of the Lord will be in reality a short period.

In order, however, to do this, I would call the reader's attention to these two points:-1st, The object of the passage: 2d, The mode of expression adopted in it.

1st, The object of the passage. The context plainly proves, that this verse has no reference to the length of the time which the day of the Lord will last; but to the length of time which elapses before the day of the Lord begins. We collect from vers. 3-8, that the object of the passage is to answer the cavils of scoffers, who will arise in the last days, and endeavour to shake the faith of the Lord's people, as to whether the promise of his second coming will ever be fulfilled (ver. 3). These scoffers will urge the great length of time which has elapsed since the promise was given, and that there was still no symptom of the promise being fulfilled; for "since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation” (ver. 4). In order to shew the folly, as well as falsehood, of these infidel scoffs, the Apostle urges the consideration, First, of the original creation of the heavens and earth (ver. 5); Secondly, of the destruction of the world, of the ungodly, by means of the very waters which, at the first creation of the earth, were and still continue part, as it were, of its constitution (vers. 5, 6: see note V., page 59). The object of this seems to be, to shew, (1) That all things are not, as the scoffers assert, in the same state as they were at the creation: (2) That God did, in his own appointed time, produce an awful destruction of the ungodly world by the flood; although these scoffers remain in wilful ignorance both of his creation of the heavens and earth, and of his destruction of the world: (3) That as God effected the destruction of the world by water, one of the elements of the first crea

tion, so he can effect the destruction of the heavens and earth itself by another element, fire. This is enforced by the expressions (ver. 7) kept in store (Gr. treasured up, тεησavρioμevo) and reserved; which point out, not only the absolute certainty of the event, but the fixed appointment of a precise time when the whole would take place. And then, in order to remove the discouraging effect which the length of time between the promise of the Lord's coming, and the actual fulfilment, might have upon the minds of believers, especially when exposed to the infidel arguments of these scoffers on this very subject, the Apostle brings before them the consideration suggested in ver. 8: But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."

66

The object, therefore, of this evidently is to assure us that there is no real delay or slackness in the Lord in fulfilling the promise of his coming; but that all the length of interval which elapses between the giving of the promise and the performance of it, arises from his long-suffering towards his beloved (ver. 8) people; and because it was not his will that any of them should perish, but that all of them should be brought to repentance; so that his coming, and the destruction of the earth, &c. would not take place until every one of his people had been brought to repentance and saved (ver. 9).

Such appears the evident object of the verse from the context. It seems to say to us, that although there is apparently a great length of interval between the promise of his coming and the performance, yet there is no real delay. That period which appears so long in our view, is not so in the view of the Lord. For one day is with him as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. All difference between a long and short period, time and all its intervals, are as nothing in his mind and view, who is from everlasting to everlasting. In effect this is the same solemn truth as that in Psa. xc. 4 ; to which the expression, be not ignorant of this one thing, seems to shew us that the Apostle is referring : "For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night" (Psa. xc. 4). The object, therefore, of the passage is to account for

the apparent delay which takes place before the day of the Lord comes, and has no reference whatever to the length of that day. The scoffers in vers. 3, 4, do not scoff about the length of the day of the Lord, but of the time which elapses before it comes. The minds of believers are not exercised with distress and perplexity, because the day of the Lord will be long; but because the period preceding it has been long. And I will only add one more consideration upon this point: If the passage had been worded in the way which would have appeared to give some weight to the Millennarian hypothesis, it would entirely fail of answering the object in view. Let us suppose, instead of one or a single day, we read the day of the Lord; let us omit the words with the Lord, the word as, and the whole of the second clause, and one day as a thousand years. The passage after all this alteration and omission would, I conceive, just be framed to suit the hypothesis; and ver. 8 would thus be, But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that the day of the Lord is a thousand years. And now let me ask, how would such a declaration as this effect the twofold object of the passage? How would it afford the least answer to that infidel scoff, Where is the promise of his coming? Or how would it remove the distress and perplexity occasioned in the believer's mind, by the delay in the Lord's coming? It would effect neither the one nor the other of these objects: but would be entirely irrelevant to the real point in each case. The object, therefore, of the passage being so entirely different from that of the Millennarian hypothesis, convinces me that the passage itself lends no support whatever to that hypothesis.

2d, The next consideration is the mode of expression. (1) The passage does not say the day, or the day of the Lord, or any particular day, but one day or a single day; which is a general expression, evidently adopted to denote that no particular day is meant. (2) The passage does not say one day is, but one day is with the Lord as a thousand years; shewing hereby that this is peculiar to him and to his mind, but not in the least implying that a day signifies a thousand years in his word, or is ever to be so understood or regarded in the mind of man. (3) It does not, even with regard to the Lord, say, that