fices shall be accepted on His altar; when the Lord having avenged the blood of His servants, and proved His mercy to His land and people, the nations, not in principle merely, but in result, shall rejoice with them; when a king shall reign in righteousness, and princes shall rule in judgment. "He shall judge thy people with righteousness, and thy poor with judg ment. The mountains shall bring peace to the people, and the little hills by righteousness." "In his days shall the righteous flourish, and abundance of peace so long as the moon endureth."

could be-save to mark the sabbath, the day of rest. ther's house while the process of Egypt's judgment It is Christ, the true manna from heaven, who gives and Israel's deliverance was going on, is now manieternal life and brings us into rest. And this is the fested with the bridegroom. The name of the second more striking, inasmuch as chap. xvii discloses, in the son, Eliezer, first appears: for, as Moses said, "the rock giving out water, followed by the fighting with God of my father was mine help, and delivered me Amalek, the clear type of Christ imparting the Holy from the sword of Pharaoh," the application of which Ghost, who animates and strengthens us in our con- to the circumstances which immediately precede the flicts. Here, too, the people had murmured for joy of the millennium, must be obvious. Moreover thirst, as before for hunger: but as grace rained bread the Gentiles are there, set forth by Jethro at the and gave them rest, so did it supply living waters from "mount of God." Gladly the Gentile blesses Jehovah, the smitten rock, their refreshment in the battle that who had delivered His people from their oppressors, quickly ensued. The connexion of the manna with and confesses that He is greater than all gods. That the sabbath is as useless in Dr. F.'s hands, as is the is, we have the prefiguring of the day when the sons war with Amalek after the waters had flowed from the of the stranger shall be brought to the Lord's holy rock. So with the type of Joshua, (who always re-mountain; when their burnt-offerings and their sacri presents Christ in spirit fighting for and with His own,) going forth, while Moses, sustained by Aaron and Hur, is interceding on high. "Sin shall not have dominion over you; for ye are not under the law, but under grace." There is no fighting in Egypt. At the Passover, at the Red sea, God alone smote the foe; but now that the people are redeemed-now that they have found in Christ food and rest for their souls, and have received through Him the Spirit, as a well of water springing up into everlasting life, they are brought into conflict, victory in which is sure, for it is Jehovah that wars, through Israel, with Amalek. It The second chapter (pp. 86-194) is devoted to the is He who orders it to be written and rehearsed that subject of the law, and consists of six sections: I. What He will utterly put out the remembrance of the enemy properly, and in the strictest sense, is termed the from under heaven. But then He wars through His law, viz., the decalogue, its perfection and completeness, people, and they are as dependent on Him in the fight both as to the order and substance of its precepts: as previously they were for their food. From this, II. Apparent exceptions to its perfection and comtheir earliest struggle, but a struggle never to be re- pleteness as the permanent and universal standard laxed till God alone take all in hand, the people of religious and moral obligation-its reference to are taught that to win the day is not by courage nor the special circumstances of the Israelites, and repreby strength, not by numbers nor by skill,-nay, not by sentation of God as jealous; III. Further exceptions a just cause, were it the Lord's own cause and His-the weekly sabbath; IV. What the law could not people the assailed, not the assailants. Israel must learn the lesson, trying to flesh and blood, that all their success depends on the hands held up for them above. Blessed be the name of God! the hands of our mediator are never heavy. He needs no Aaron nor Hur to stay His hands; He is all that we want. Our need is to war only in dependence on Him; to be confident of victory, but no less confident that That which has given us most pleasure is the frank without Him we can do nothing; when victorious, to acknowledgment in the last section, that Christian build our altar to Him who is our banner; but even liberty involves deliverance from the law, not as to in victory and in worship to be watchful, because Je-justification only, but as to walk and conduct. hovah's oath is "war with Amalek from generation to generation."

do-the covenant-standing and privileges of Israel before it was given; V. The purposes for which the law was given, and the connexion between it and the symbolical institutions; and VI. The relation of believers, under the New Testament, to the law-in what sense they are free from it—and why it is no longer proper to keep the symbolical institutions connected with it.

rightly argues that it is this last respect which the apostle has in view in Rom. vi, vii. He meets the The thoughts of our author on the cloudy pillar de- objection that this is to take away the safeguard mand no particular notice; but it may be remarked against sin, by illustrations taken from a child no that the striking scene in Exod. xviii is passed by in longer under parental restriction, and from a good the "Typology. And no wonder; for it is the sweet man's relation to the laws of his country. (pp. 178foreshadowing of an era whose true features are 182.) The chief defect is, that this liberty is not set effaced for the eyes of the writer. From the paschal upon its right basis, viz., the possession of a risen life lamb and the Red sea we have had the types of grace in Christ, as the consequence of accomplished redempreigning through righteousness. These are closed and tion, and the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, as the crowned by the appropriate figure in chap. xviii, of power of communion and obedience, so fully brought the millennial kingdom and glory. Zipporah, the Gen-out in Rom. viii. Hence, for the want of understanding tile bride of Moses, who had been hidden in the fa- this, Dr. F. falls into a line of thought which is foreign

for two distinct objects. The Apocalypse, like Old éğavdoτaow Tv Ek veкpŵv.* This, we venture to affirm, Testament scriptures, exhibits the blessing which re- is the strongest possible statement in Greek of an sults from it to the millennial nations, yea, to the eclectic resurrection. "The out-resurrection from the universe itself, as the latter point is stated doctrinally dead" may convey some idea of its force to the unin Ephesians and Colossians. Dr. B. ought to have learned reader. It is even more emphatic, as Bengel applied the scriptures cited to those actually contem- observes, than the word used of our Lord's rising from plated in the respective passages, without going far- the dead. The main question, however, is on the lat ther and excluding what is revealed elsewhere. The ter part of the phrase. Is ek veкpŵv ever predicated Lord and His apostle, in Dr. B.'s quotations, address of the resurrection of the wicked dead,—of those who, and intend the class of heavenly sufferers only. as we believe, rise last? NEVER. 'Avȧotatis verpûv Whether there are others redeemed and saved in is, of course, true of Christ, and of the righteous, no another state of things, (i.e., the millennium,) cannot less than of the wicked; for all that it means is the be settled one way or another by these scriptures, rising again of dead persons. This, then, is in not because they refer exclusively to pre-millennial times. the smallest degree favourable to Dr. B., as he inconIn point of fact, 1 Cor. xv, 20-23, and John vi, 39, 40, siderately infers. On the other hand, the phrase could not apply to the millennial saints, because those ek veкp is restricted to Christ and His saints; texts speak of raising the dead, and these saints are because this resurrection (whether of Him or of them) never said to die, and therefore come under the was from among the dead, who were left for the time 'change," not resurrection. And John xvii seems to undisturbed by it in their graves-a prior, as well as us an unhappy chapter for a post-millenarian to a peculiar, resurrection. Nor is there the least diffiquote, because it is through the heavenly, glorified culty in discerning why St. Paul chose the more saints, that the world is to know that the Father sent general expression in 1 Cor. xv, though he there conthe Son. That is, there are others undoubtedly so fines himself (as Dr. B. believes with us, in opposition influenced by this glorious unity, as to recognize the to Mr. Birks, Barnes, &c.) to the resurrection of Lord-a strange proof that themselves are already Christ and of them who are Christ's. The reason is included in this unity. It is really a very strong because he is asserting the abstract doctrine of resurproof of what Dr. B. objects to. In his scheme there rection, which some of the Corinthians, though holding is no world which could thus and then learn the the perpetuity of the soul, had denied. But the Father's mission of the Son, when the risen or changed apostle insists on the resurrection of dead persons,saints appear with Christ in glory. of the body. He shows that to question this is to destroy alike the foundation in Christ and the hopes of the Christian-the grand motives to, and power of, present holy suffering. Can Dr. B. refuse this expla

66

Upon the closing and supplementary remarks of chap. vii, which aim at overthrowing Dr. H. Bonar's use of Isaiah xxv, 8, we need not enter; partly because we differ somewhat from the argument, and chiefly because we have already rested the co-existence of earthly and heavenly blessing and glory during the millennium upon other proofs.

If W.

*In a note to p. 183, Dr. B. says that though this "was originally an emphatic form, it came gradually to be employed even where no emphasis was intended. Winer says it almost uniformly did so: and he makes this remark in connexion with the passage before us." As for the Socinians and Dutch Remonstrants, Now we cannot say what this German scholar may have remarked (p. 181,) who employed Luke xiv, 1 Cor. xv, and in former editions, but we can affirm that, having examined his 1 Thess. iv, to deny any resurrection for the wicked, latest (sixth) edition of the "Grammatik," we believe that no it may be "interesting" to those who eke out the reference is made to the passage, much less is there an assertion so feebleness of their cause and their reasoning by puny ever committed himself to that opinion, it seems to have vanished unworthy of a really learned man as is imputed to him. appeals in terrorem; but we doubt how far it will from his most mature statements. The section 19, to which Dr. B. "strengthen" Dr. B.'s remarks. He concedes that alludes (now at least) without reason, discusses the omission of the this group of passages does "imply that believers article under certain limitations-a subject of which Winer is by no rise ALONE; that is, on a principle peculiar to them-founded an argument of apparent weight and acuteness on the common selves, and in a company amongst whom the wicked are not found." Besides, it is utterly false that the same answer suffices for his pre-millennialist brethren now, as for the Socinianizing party: because the last denied and the former hold strenuously, and more distinctly than the soi-disant orthodox divines, a resurrection of the unjust.

But Phil. iii, 11 receives from Dr. B., and claims from us, a fuller notice. "It was a resurrection peculiar to believers a resurrection exclusively theirs-exclusive, however, not in the time of it, but in its nature, its accompaniments, and its issues." (p. 183.) Moreover, he acknowledges that the preferable reading is (not the vulgar égaváoτaow TŵV VERρŵv, but what, since Bengel, and in spite of Griesbach, "has been established")

master. It may be remarked here, that the late Mr. Gipps text against a literal resurrection of saints before the rest are raised for judgment. The absence of ek was the gist of his reasoning. But the fact is that the sentence is not correct Greek, and hardly sense, as it stands in Text. Rec.; whereas, the oldest and best have felt that his main objection was gone-nay, that the clause authorities for Tŵy read Thy ék. Had Mr. G. known this, he would told strongly against him. "If," says he, "Phil. iii, 11 had been meant to express the rising from the dead, the preposition in composition with avάoraois would have been repeated." (p. 85, Lachmann, and Tischendorf, none of whom sympathizes with prenote.) It is repeated according to the latest critics, Scholz millennialism. The ancient MSS. A, B, (C is here defective,) D, E read Thy èk. F, G. give Tŵv x, which is evidently a slip for Thy, and this again was, probably, the parent of rv without er in J, K and the cursive manuscripts which follow them. The best versions and fathers confirm the reading from the dead. The currency which the common reading once had says little for the accuracy of copyists, editors, and commentators.

nation of his objection? If not, the argument founded be involved. (pp. 191-194.) We reply that pa on the distinctness of the Greek formulas is tho- ("hour") has nothing to do with the continuity of roughly sound and conclusive. Neither is there am- facts occurring in it, but with the unity of the epoch, biguity in the phrase ek veкpŵv: it means "out of," so as to make one time or season of it. Thus it is used or "from amongst the dead," not "from the place or for a year; yet spring and summer, autumn and winter, state of the dead." Mr. Inglis's criticism on Heb. xi, seed-time and harvest, very opposite and not con19, (preface, pp. vi, vii,) founded on "0ev, "whence," as tinuous facts occur in it. If, in the case before us, if it necessarily meant the dead state, is quite inept; the hour derive its character from the resurrection, because the expression being figurative, (èv apaßoln,) the whole argument is unfounded; for there are two "out of dead persons" yields a sense just as good as resurrections opposed in character, and no continuity its rival. Like the Latin unde, this Greek adverb is derived from them. If it does not derive its chameans not only "whence," but from whom or which, racter from the resurrection, then the fact of its having and this, not in mere loose and barbarized dialects, two resurrections in it, a thousand years apart, does but in the purest Attic authors. Mr. I.'s remarks not destroy its continuity. Two periods were in the ignore this, (being founded on the mistaken idea that first "hour," (ver. 25,) characterized by Christ's preOev can only mean whence, and only be applied to the sence and His absence. There was an epoch when dead state,) and therefore, if ingenious, must forfeit souls should rise at the voice of the Son of God; claim to accuracy. there was another (ver. 28) when bodies should rise. Dan. xii, 2,* if it treat of a literal bodily resurrection, This hour derives its unity, not continuity, from someis decidedly opposed to Dr. B., because it makes it im- thing else. What gave that unity is another question, mediately succeed the great conflicts in Palestine, which to which, we believe, the true answer is, the presence most certainly are before, not after the millennium. of the Lord in glory, in that power in which He rose The Gog and Magog insurrection (in Rev. xx) is too from the dead. They were not to marvel if He quickdistinct to need discussion. We do not doubt that ened souls, for at a future epoch He would manifest it is borrowed from the resurrection of just and un- His power in raising all that are in the graves, and this just, which it supposes to be a known truth; but it is a in resurrections as contrasted as "life" and "judgment" figure to express the resuscitation of Israel, just as in can make them. This distinction reappears in Rev. Ezekiel xxxvii; Hosea vi, xiii, and many other Old xx; only that in the prophecy we have, as might be Testament scriptures. In John v, 28, 29, we have the expected, the contrast of time, as well as of character. Lord's testimony to two resurrections, a life-resurrec- A chronological period of a thousand years, or more, tion and a judgment resurrection, both comprehended separates the two resurrections, but their identificain an hour that is coming. Dr. B. deduces simulta- tion with John v is palpable. Rev. xx, 4, 6, describes neousness, we distinctness, of the two, be the interval the life-resurrection-"they lived and reigned with short or long. That the word does not of necessity Christ. On such the second death hath no power." imply shortness, the context just before proves un- Rev. xx, 12, and seq. describes the judgment-resurrecanswerably. But, answers Dr. B., the unbroken con- tion-"The dead were judged out of those things," &c., tinuousness of the period is essential; and, in that case," They were judged every man according to his works." a long continuity of resurrection in both kinds would

It is attempted, by the help of Augustine, (De Civ. Dei. XX, xxiii, 2,) Calvin, and others, to maintain a strict parallel between this text and John v, 28, 29. But it is not true that "many," is equivalent to "all." The chief witness called by most is the alleged interchange of these expressions in Rom. v, 18, 19. But we deny the fact even there; for in the latter verse oi wóλλo is employed in relation to d els, (the mass connected with the one,) and in the former there is no such relation expressed; and the idea is the universal bearing of one offence and of one righteousness respectively, not the actual effect which follows in the next verse, where, accordingly, the phrase is altered. Moreover, "many" is not the same thing as "the many:" they are very particularly and frequently distinguished in Daniel. Compare, for the former, chaps. xi, 34, 44; xii, 2, 4, 10, and, for the latter, chaps. ix, 27; xi, 33, 39; xii, 3. Marckius' reply to Cocceius, which identifies them, is therefore unfounded, and even Dr. B. "now greatly doubts it." And it is evident that he has little confidence in the explanation of Munster and Clarius, who suppose that the change of the living righteous is hinted at in the word "many." The truth is that, on no view, premillennial or postmillennial, can our text be applied to a literal resurrection consistently with other scriptures or with the context. We have no doubt, therefore, that it refers to God's revival of Israel, both nationally and spiritually, and with the open judgment of the wicked among them, after the destruction of the last king of the North, "the Assyrian," so often predicted in the prophets. Dan. xi had already spoken of the Jews in the land up to their closing troubles and deliverance for the elect. Dan. xii, 2 shows us the reappearance

As to the argument for universality, based on the phrase," the dead, small and great," it will not stand

on the scene of "many" long slumbering among the Gentiles. They
had been "asleep" when movements of the deepest interest had
been going on in the land and people of the Jews.
Now they
"awake;" but, as among the Jews in Palestine, not a few were apos-
tate and cut off by God, and only such were delivered out of their
last time of unparalleled tribulation as were "written in the book;"
so of these returned Israelites, some are found destined to everlast-
ing life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. For they are
not all Israel which are of Israel. We doubt not that, though
employed figuratively, as often in the Psalms and Prophets, the
language pre-supposes the known truth of a bodily resurrection, and
this of just and unjust. It is possible that John v may allude to
the passage, but that would not prove the literality of Dan. xii, 2.
It is much more certain that itself alludes to Isa. xxvi, 19, which
Dr. B. correctly refers to the figurative resurrection of Israel. (pp.
234, 235.) The language is at least equally strong in both, and
the resemblance striking and undeniable. "Thy dead shall live, my
dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, (the prophet addressing
them,) ye that dwell in dust," &c. Ezek. xxxvii is, if possible, stronger
than Dan. xii. 66
Behold, O my people, I will open your graves, and
cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the
land of Israel." Beyond a doubt, not a physical, but a figurative,
resurrection is here meant, just as in Daniel. It is the only inter-
pretation which meets all the conditions of the text and context,
and it is entirely free from the insuperable difficulties which encum-
ber the use made of it by many on both sides.

a moment's investigation; because the wicked are the to the number of years which should separate them, only dead left. In immediate juxta-position with the one clear revelation being as certain as one hundred. account in verse 4 of the various classes who share in Besides, we have already demonstrated, that the term the first resurrection, it is said, "the rest of the dead" resurrection from (or from among) the dead," which lived not." But now, when the thousand years are is restricted to the resurrection of Christ and His over, when the last fruitless rebellion of the nations, saints, implies in both cases a prior resurrection. led on by Satan, and dealt with summarily by divine What can be plainer than these words, for example, judgment, has added a countless throng to the mass of "They which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that the dead, all are summoned up from their graves to age, (aiwvos,) and the resurrection from the dead, stand before the throne. Here there is neither need (τής ἀν τῆς ἐκ νεκρῶν,) neither marry nor are given in nor room for describing them as "the rest of the dead," marriage; neither can they die any more; for they because of the interval which separates them from the are equal unto the angels; and are the children of first resurrection. Nay, more; "the rest of the dead," God, being the children of the resurrection." We in verse 12, would have been a misleading and im- do not wonder that Dr. B. has found it convenient to proper phrase, because it might naturally have been evade the discussion of this striking testimony, and restricted to the same body of whom verse 5 had only refers to its existence in the notes to pp. 181 and spoken; whereas in fact it includes ALL the dead, ex- 186. But the reader will see that, among the dead, cept those already disposed of in the first resurrection; none but the worthy, the children of God, are to not those only who were dead when the millennial obtain that age that special and long-expected age, reign began, but such as had died during its course, when God shall fulfil His blessed promises in all their and the vast multitude whom fire from God devoured precision, as well as all their breadth and compass. at its close. Nothing can be plainer. A blessed re- For such, as far as concerns the dead, are reserved surrection is first described of those who reign with" that age and the resurrection from the dead." "The Christ, and with this is expressly conjoined the state- rest of the dead" are not to live till that age has run ment that the rest of the dead lived not till a certain its course, and the resurrection FROM the dead is no long period terminated. During this period we know, longer possible. "And I saw the dead, small and from Isaiah lxv, lxvi, that the wicked, at least, die; and great...... and the dead were judged." The wicked at the end of it, we know, from Rev. xx, 7-9, that the dead are excluded from that age no less than from the living wicked are destroyed without remedy. Most resurrection from the dead. The truth is that an appropriately, therefore, on our view, scripture speaks indiscriminate resurrection (p. 260) is totally unknown of those called up afterwards for the judgment- to scripture, and the reasoning goes much farther than resurrection as "the dead, small and great," the the millennium. All scripture which speaks of resurlargest and most precise possible terms, so as to em-rection shows a distinct act, if there be only a minute brace all that remain, who are necessarily all wicked. between. Those who are Christ's are never conThe righteous had been long since raised. After that, founded with the rest, whatever the interval, which is no righteous are ever intimated as dying. No matter naturally made known in a prophecy, that is peculiarly how comprehensive, then, may be the phraseology em- rich in times and seasons, days and years. 2. We ployed, it can only apply to the wicked, because they utterly reject the assertion that Rev. xx, 4-6 is an only, at that epoch, are "the dead." The minute spe- ambiguous revelation. People may have made miscification of the sea, death, and hades, is most solemn. takes about the extent of its subjects; but the thing No hiding-place could longer detain the wretched itself has been clearly held even by men as eccentric victims of sin. The deepest gulfs of the sea and un- as Mr. Burgh. And Dr. B. forgets that all premillenseen worlds deliver up their prisoners to stand before nialists differ from his opinion of the subjects of the the Judge. And as to the production of "the book final resurrection, and most of them from his view of of life," and "the books," it is quite simple. Here its character and results. 3. His last presumption, is a figure, (for, indeed, the description of the second viz., that any other description of the resurrection of death is just as symbolical as that of the first resur- the saints is catholic, while this is limited, is a mere rection,)—a figure taken from human tribunals, and from but decided blunder. Dr. B. omits the first clause two sides of an account. The books prove that their of Rev. xx, 4, ("And I saw thrones, and they sat works were evil. The book of life discloses that their upon them, and judgment was given unto them.") names were not written therein; for not a hint is Having thus decapitated the verse, having deprived it given of even one who was. Both agree that they of a clause which, in our judgment, was purposely should be cast into the lake of fire. written in the most general form, so as to take in the saints of the Old and New Testaments, no wonder that he finds in the rest only disjecta membra. But then the mutilation is his own deed, as will be seen more fully by and by. At the same time we must do our author the justice to say that he discards the old objections, grounded on "souls" (not bodies) being named, on the want of particular mention of the earth, as the theatre of the millennial reign, and on

Not content with his general remarks upon Rev. xx, Dr. B. devotes his entire chap. ix to certain presumptions and nine internal evidences against the literality of the first resurrection. His à priori probabilities are of no weight. 1. It is true that the duration of the interval between the two resurrections is only mentioned six times in one passage of the Apocalypse; but surely this was abundant testimony