Christ after his second coming. If he had intended this, I feel assured he would have given such a designation of those who reign, as would apply to all the saints without exception, for three reasons:-1st. Because the event here foretold, would in this case be one of such infinite importance to them all. 2d. Because other passages, such as Rom. viii. 11, 1 Cor. xv. 51, and 2 Cor. v. 1, 5, Phil. iii. 20, 21, which foretell the blessedness of the saints after the second coming of Christ, contain designations which apply to them all. 3d. Because, as all the saints are to reign with Christ, after his second coming, I am convinced, such a description would be given as would harmonize with the event. These reasons, therefore, convince me that some designation would have been given us in this passage, which would include all the saints, if the reigning here foretold were intended to signify that of all the saints after the second coming of Christ. I find, however, that not only is there no designation given, which will include them all, but that the description which is given, would exclude much the larger portion of them. (1.) Verse 6 limits the reigning to those who partake of the first resurrection. This, therefore, excludes all the saints who remain alive at the time of the second coming of Christ, because they will not partake of any resurrection, as they have not died. Let the reader contrast with this 1 Cor. xv. 50 to 54, and 1 Thess. iv. 15 to 17; and he will see how fully and expressly the descriptions there given include the living saints, as well as those who have died. As, therefore, ver. 6, limits the whole to those who have experienced a resurrection, and thereby excludes all who have not been dead, in the sense signified in this passage; such an essential difference in this description from those given in 1 Cor. xv. and 1 Thess. iv., convinces me, that the Holy Ghost intends to signify an entirely different event, also in this passage, from that which he has signified in those chapters; and that the first resurrection is not the same as the resurrection of the saints. (2). Not only would the description here given, exclude all the living saints, but it would exclude the far greater part of the saints who have died. For only those who have been beheaded for the testimony of

out of heaven, of the wife of the Lamb, the holy Jerusalem, vers. 2 and 10. The church of Christ is his spouse, Eph. v. 23 to 26, which he will present to himself, a glorious church-holy and without blemish, Eph. v. 27, compared with Rev. xix. 7, 8; and she is now, under the Gospel, called Jerusalem which is above, the mother of all believers, Gal. iv. 26; and the heavenly Jerusalem, Heb. xii. 22. And as, at the period described, Rev. xxi., every believer will have put on his house from heaven; that is, his heavenly body, 2. Cor. v. 1, 2; so, in agreement with this, the Lamb's wife, his church, prepared as it were for, as well as composed of, all his glorified saints, is represented as coming down from God, out of heaven, ver. 2.

Having thus brought before the reader these ten points which appear to me to be laid down in the twentieth and following chapter, I shall endeavour, by comparing them with numerous passages in the Scriptures, to prove both that the first resurrection cannot be the same as the resurrection of the saints with their glorified bodies at the second coming of Christ; and also, that the period described in the latter part of the twentieth chapter, is the period of the resurrection of the saints. Each of these by itself, and both of them together, the one confirming the other, will shew, as far as what I advance is in agreement with Scripture, that the interpretation of the first resurrection as signifying that of the saints, at the second coming of Christ, is not according to the mind of the Spirit.

I shall begin by bringing before the reader several considerations, deduced from the passage itself, which, independent of what other parts of Scripture lay down concerning the time of the resurrection of the ungodly, convince my own mind, that the first resurrection cannot be the same as the resurrection of the saints; and that the reigning with Christ, described in ver. 4, cannot be the same as the reigning with him of all his people after his second coming.

First consideration. The description which the Holy Ghost has given of the persons, who will reign with Christ, as signified in this passage, convinces me, that he does not intend to signify the saints reigning with

Christ after his second coming. If he had intended this, I feel assured he would have given such a designation of those who reign, as would apply to all the saints without exception, for three reasons:-1st. Because the event here foretold, would in this case be one of such infinite importance to them all. 2d. Because other passages, such as Rom. viii. 11, 1 Cor. xv. 51, and 2 Cor. v. 1, 5, Phil. iii. 20, 21, which foretell the blessedness of the saints after the second coming of Christ, contain designations which apply to them all. 3d. Because, as all the saints are to reign with Christ, after his second coming, I am convinced, such a description would be given as would harmonize with the event. These reasons, therefore, convince me that some designation would have been given us in this passage, which would include all the saints, if the reigning here foretold were intended to signify that of all the saints after the second coming of Christ. I find, however, that not only is there no designation given, which will include them all, but that the description which is given, would exclude much the larger portion of them. (1.) Verse 6 limits the reigning to those who partake of the first resurrection. This, therefore, excludes all the saints who remain alive at the time of the second coming of Christ, because they will not partake of any resurrection, as they have not died. Let the reader contrast with this 1 Cor. xv. 50 to 54, and 1 Thess. iv. 15 to 17; and he will see how fully and expressly the descriptions there given include the living saints, as well as those who have died. As, therefore, ver. 6, limits the whole to those who have experienced a resurrection, and thereby excludes all who have not been dead, in the sense signified in this passage; such an essential difference in this description from those given in 1 Cor. xv. and 1Thess. iv., convinces me, that the Holy Ghost intends to signify an entirely different event, also in this passage, from that which he has signified in those chapters; and that the first resurrection is not the same as the resurrection of the saints. (2). Not only would the description here given, exclude all the living saints, but it would exclude the far greater part of the saints who have died. For only those who have been beheaded for the testimony of

Jesus and for the word of God, and who worshipped not the beast and his image, &c., are described as reigning with Christ. This limitation, therefore would exclude all the saints who lived during the four thousand years which preceded Christ's first coming; and all that vast multitude of them who lived during the first ages of Christianity, previous to the establishment of Popery; and all who, since that time, have lived or shall live in countries not under the dominion of Popery, except such of these three classes as actually suffered martyrdom. When, therefore, I consider the infinite importance to all the saints, of the event here described, if it were really intended to include them all, and when I find that the Holy Ghost, instead of giving a description of those who reign, which will include all the saints, has given one, the obvious meaning of which excludes the greater part of them; I feel convinced, that he cannot intend to signify all the saints reigning with Christ after his second coming, by the reigning with him here described, but some entirely different event; and consequently, that the first resurrection cannot be the resurrection of the saints in their glorified bodies.

Second consideration. The description which the Holy Ghost has given respecting the duration of the reigning appears to me another reason for believing it is not the same as the reigning of the saints with Christ after his second coming. If this passage were intended to foretell such a reigning of the saints after their resurrection, as would be immediately connected with, and precede their reigning for ever, I feel convinced we should have met with some express declaration upon this subject; and that the mode of expression in ver. 4 would have been somewhat of this kind: and they lived and reigned with Christ a (Greek, the) thousand years, and for ever and ever. I should expect this both from the analogy of other Scriptures, and on account of the immense importance of such a declaration, in a passage which was intended to fortell the reigning of all the saints in glory after the second coming of Christ. Not only, however, is there nothing intimated respecting the continuance of this reign, but the expression in ver. 4, they reigned with Christ the thousand years, would of itself seem to imply

that this reigning does not continue beyond the thousand years. In addition, however, to this, as the similar declaration in ver. 5, they shall reign with him a thousand years, is immediately followed (ver. 7) by the words and when the thousand years are ended, &c. it conveys to my mind an impression that the reigning foretold in this passage will end with the thousand years. [Note I.]

[I] I venture here to observe, that one great objection to interpreting the first resurrection, to signify the resurrection of the saints at the second coming of Christ, appears to be, that it leaves the eternal state of the church of Christ involved in darkness. Those who adopt this interpretation must, of course, refer every description concerning the saints which is connected with the second coming of Christ, to their state during this period of a thousand years; so that there would remain, as far as I can discover, nothing revealed concerning the state of the saints during eternity. That such is the view to which this interpretation leads, will appear from the following quotation from a work called "The Nature of the First Resurrection," written lately by one who adopts this interpretation. After laying down that the final judgment and condemnation of the wicked will be pronounced after the Millennium is finished, and that death, the last enemy, will be destroyed at that time, he adds, "Beyond this we cannot advance. For, should it be asked, What dispensation shall succeed to these wondrous transactions? we can only reply, in the language of inspiration, that when Jesus shall thus have reigned in his mediatorial glory, until all things shall be subdued unto him,' then cometh the end, when he shall deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father; and then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be ALL in ALL.'»

I merely quote this passage, to shew that the adopting this interpretation of the first resurrection, would involve the conclusion, that there is nothing revealed concerning the state of the saints after this period of a thousand years, no information given respecting that eternity which follows, except that Christ, their King, would give up reigning in his mediatorial glory. Now, when I consider that a period of a thousand years bears a less proportion to eternity, than the smallest grain of sand does to the whole earth; and that the saints are to live for eternity, I never can conceive that the Holy Ghost has given such numerous and glorious descriptions concerning the state of the saints during the period of a thousand years, and has left the infinitely more important eternity which follows, wrapped up in darkness; or with nothing more revealed concerning it than what would appear to me to indicate a diminution rather than an increase of their blessedness and glory; namely, that their King will cease to reign in his mediatorial glory at the end of the period. I therefore feel convinced that an interpretation which would necessarily involve this, to my mind insuperable, difficulty, cannot be the true interpretation according to the mind of the Spirit.