throughout the plain characters of something very full and specific. God writes no word in vain. His language is most minutely accurate and worthy of being searched into with all nicety and care. There may be instances in which only one idea can be gathered from a somewhat extended figure. But these are rare, far rarer than many suppose. And admitting the exist ence of such cases, still the question arises here, "is this one of them?" If minuteness of interpretation be impossible, then we shall yield and admit that nothing can be meant but the extinction of one party and the up-rising of another; but if there be nothing impossible in a much more minute exposition of the text, we shall not reckon ourselves at liberty to generalize. In saying this we are not taking our stand upon exclusively millennarian ground. No doubt we would carry our interpretation farther than anti-millennarians do. But in general they go a considerable way along with us. They will not go so far as we do, but they go much farther than Mr Brown. His theory of generalization exceeds anything we have seen, at least in any author that has a name for soundness or sobriety, as an interpreter of the Divine word. Yet he speaks of his principles as "immoveable," and applies strong enough epithets of condemnation, which we need not cite, to those who have ventured upon a different line of exposition. In a very large number of cases Mr Brown differs totally from his own post-millennial friends, having shot far beyond his fellows in his course of generalizing or spiritualizing. And this we think, of itself, should have disposed him to a little more caution and self-distrust. For if he be right, then not only are millennarians totally wrong, but no less wrong, no less unsound must be the great mass of post-millennial commentators. 15. Mr Brown tells us that a doctrine professing to found itself upon one passage of Scripture alone must be looked upon with suspicion. (P. 299.) We know not why. We do not understand how one utterance of God should not be sufficient for us. If this doctrine of Mr Brown's be true, what would Adam have done with his one promise? And how "suspicious" must the promise of a Messiah have appeared to all the antedi * Thus Dr Owen writes in regard to Col. ii. 15, a passage which might be far more easily generalized than the present, "whereas he is said to spoil principalities and powers, making a show of them openly, I no way doubt but Satan, the head of the Apostacy and the chief princes of darkness, were led openly in sight of the holy angels, as conquered captives."-Christologia, chap. xix. "Si quis + Kuttner, a neologian, affirms this in the following curious sentence. hanc visionis norit summam non est quod de omnibus hujus imaginis particulis ad rem ipsam applicandis et explicandis nimis laboret, siquidem tantum ornatus causa addita esse videntur." See his comment upon the passage in question. VOL. XX. NO. 111. 2 A luvian patriarchs! We wonder that one who admits the full inspiration of the word of God, as we know Mr B. most thoroughly does, should have committed himself to a statement so hazardous and questionable. We do not admit that there is but one passage relating to the point in question, but even had there been only one, it would have been enough. Even Mr Stuart, with all his neologian irreverence for Scripture, would not concede this point to Mr Brown. He thus argues: "Moreover, it is not at all certain, at least to my mind, that the doctrine of a first, as well as a second, resurrection is not elsewhere alluded to in the Scriptures. "But I will now suppose, merely for the sake of argument, that it is not. Does it then follow, that we are not to admit it from the passage before us? 66 6 Why should it, in case this passage is plain, and fairly incontrovertible, as to its meaning philologically investigated? That it is so I am on the whole constrained to believe. Vitringa himself does not elsewhere reason in such a way as he does here, in respect to other passages of the New Testament. He does not call in question the doctrine, that the mediatorial kingdom of Christ will be given up when the end cometh;' nor does he doubt that Christ, i.e. the Son himself, will be subject to Him who put all things under him, that God may be all in all,' (1 Cor. xv. 24-28), because these doctrines are taught but once in the Scriptures. He does not call in question the doctrine that 'saints shall judge the world, and judge angels, because no scriptural writer, except Paul, has presented this doctrine in such a shape. He does not call in question the resurrection of the body, under such modifications as Paul has taught, in 1 Cor. xv., although no other part of the Bible presents us with these. Yet these are doctrines of high and sacred import, not lightly to be received, and certainly not to be rejected lightly. Why then, if the meaning of the text before us is clear, should we reject the doctrine of a first resurrection, even if no other scriptural writer has expressly taught it? There is nothing more improbable in this resurrection, as considered in and by itself, than there is in the second resurrection. The difficulties are the same in all important respects; and these difficulties all depend on speculative views which limit the power of God, or prescribe the order of his kingdom in heaven; or on difficulties arising from speculations respecting the nature and properties of matter, or concerning personal identity, or existence in a spiritual world, or other like things. If there be anything of this kind, which may be arrayed in opposition to a first resurrection, so it may in opposition to a second. These objections, then, plainly prove too much; of course, they can prove nothing to the present purpose. "But I have another suggestion to make here, which must contribute to present the subject in an attitude very different from that in which Vitringa presents it. It seems to me, that the passage before us is not the only one in the Scriptures which teaches or intimates, that there will be a first and a second resurrection. I need not discuss this subject again here. I refer the reader to Phil. iii. 8-11; Luke xiv. 14; Is. xxvi. 19; 1 Cor. xv. 23, 24; 1 Thes. iv. 16. In particular does Paul seem, by his aτagɣý ・・・ ÉTEITA. . . EÏTα, in 1 Cor. xv. 23, 24, to have adverted to a first and second resurrection. See De Wette in loc. On the subject of such resurrections, see vol. i. § 10, p. 176 seq. of this work, and the Comm. on Rev. xx. 4, 5." Pp. 476–478. We do not mean to follow up these rather lengthened criticisms on Mr Brown's interpretation by any exposition of our own. This would far over-stretch our limits. We prefer simply setting down the passage in successive clauses and placing opposite texts that may illustrate them, that our readers may be led to try for themselves, whether a minute and somewhat literal exposition be impossible or absurd, or "subversive of the fundamental principles of God's word." The passages in the second column are not always given as strict interpretations, but sometimes merely as kindred texts which may suggest the true meaning. 1. "The Son of Man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend."Matt. xiii. 41. 2. "I have the keys of hell and death." -Rev. i. 18. 3. "The angels that kept not their first estate, he hath reserved for (not in) everlasting chains, under darkness, unto the judgment of the great day."-Jude vi. 4. "No man can enter into a strong man's house, except he first bind the strong man."-Mark iii. 27. 5. "They besought him, that he would not command them to go out into the bottomlesspit."-Luke viii. 31. "The devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire."-Rev. xx. 10. 6. "The Lord shall punish the host of the high ones that are on high, (i.e. " spiritual wickedness in high places"), and they shall be gathered together as prisoners are gathered in the pit, and shall be shut up in the prison."-Isaiah xxiv. 21. 7. "The God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly."-Rom. xvi. 20. 8. "After many days shall they be visited."-Isaiah xxiv. 22. 9. "I beheld till the thrones were cast down" or set.-Dan. vii. 9. 10. "In the regeneration when the Son of Man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."Matt. xix. 28. 4. 11. "Judgment was given to them." 12. "I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God," &c.-4. 13. "They lived.”—4. 14. "And reigned with Christ a thousand years."-4. 15. "The rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished."-5. 16. "This is the first resurrection.”— 5. 17. "Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection."—6. 18. "On such the second death hath no power."-6. 19. They shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years."-6. 11. "Know ye not that the saints shall judge the world: know ye not that we shall judge angels."-1 Cor. vi. 2. 12. "I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held."-Rev. vi. 9. 13. "In Christ shall all be made alive,” 1 Cor. xv. 23. "Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise."-Isaiah xxvi. 19. 66 14. "If we suffer we shall also reign with him."-2 Tim. ii. 12. "We shall reign on the earth."-Rev. v. 10. They shall reign for ever and ever."-Rev. xxii. 5. 15. "They are dead, they shall not live; they are deceased, they shall not rise."-Isaiah xxvi. 14. 16. "Thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just."—xiv. 14. "Many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake."-Dan. xii. 2. 17. "They that have done good, shall come forth to the resurrection of life."John v. 29. 18. "He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death."-Rev. ii. 11. 66 They which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage, neither SHALL THEY DIE ANY MORE, being the children of the resurrection."-Luke xx. 35. 19. "Thou hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth."-Rev. v. 10. "The Lord of hosts shall reign in Mount Zion, and in Jerusalem, and before his ancients gloriously."-Isaiah xxiv. 23. Its But we must now quit this passage. We have not entered upon its exposition: we have merely been trying to remove one of the false expositions with which it has been overlaid. We have sought to brush away the clouds which in so many curious forms have been drawn over it; and in truth it needs no more. light is so innately intense and powerful, that when the clouds are swept off, it shines unbidden, with its own simple brilliance. He who but reads it, may learn its meaning, as he may learn the meaning of the creation and the fall. For it is not its obscurity, but its clearness, that has so long perplexed interpreters. In the course of Mr Brown's exposition of the above prophecy, he has occasion to quote and expound the parallel passage in Daniel: "Many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt."-(xii. 2). The sense which he puts upon this is quite peculiar. He speaks of it evidently as denoting no literal resurrection of the body; but as the up-rising of the extinct party or system, as "the church's getting up its head." He takes it to mean merely the church's getting honour, and the church's enemies being put to shame. To avoid the charge of excessive spiritualization, and cover the novelty of the exposition, he tells us that still it is a "literal resurrection of both righteous and wicked" yet that it is "intelligible on the principle of a figurative resurrection," that it is "the millennial resurrection of the two opposite parties:" yet, that after all, the "real personal resurrection is seen looming through it, and almost absorbing it"! How a passage can be both literal and figurative at the same timehow it can be the mere figurative resurrection of two systems, and yet can refer to the ultimate and literal resurrection, we do not know. The truth is, we scarcely understand the passage, and do not see how it is to be reconciled with itself or with some of Mr B.'s other statements. We shall give it to our readers, merely inserting a few italics. "Here the same principle comes in, to which we have so often referred in the previous chapter, as alone adequate to explain such passages. Doubtless the literal resurrection of both righteous and wicked is here;-and the very next verse, telling us of the everlasting reward which shall be conferred on the wise and soul-converting believers, brings it out very clearly. But the pre-millennialists are perfectly right, in saying that the passage as it stands-in connection with the foregoing and succeeding context-relates to the 'time' of unparalleled 'trouble' which is to usher in the millennium. Well, here is the simultaneous millennial resurrection of two opposite parties-righteous and wicked. The one rise to 'life,' in the Christian sense of the term; the other rise to 'shame' and contempt. In both cases it is 'everlasting,' because the tables are never again to be turned.† Now this is intelligible on our principle of a figurative resurrection in both cases. The one party live, and are alone had in honour and credit; the other live too, but live only to be hissed and hooted down, and so covered with a world's 'shame and contempt,' as no more to be able to lift up their heads. I appeal to * So also is the sense he puts on Isaiah xxvi. 19: "Thy dead men shall live awake and sing ye that dwell in dust the earth shall cast out the dead." This he spiritualizes, in opposition to most commentators. In the same way he spiritualizes many others. In short, he treats so many passages thus, that he leaves few enough to prove a resurrection at all. An ingenious objector, arguing on his principles, might logically push him to the denial of any literal rising of the dead. It would turn out to be the mere re-flourishing of an extinct party. + Are the tables not to be turned at the end of the millennium? Is it not said, "the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years" were finished"? How then can both live at the same time? |