"It is admitted (See Mosheim De rebus Christ. ante Const., cen. iii. s. 38, p. 721, 722), that the earliest Christian writers adopted the literal interpretation of the twentieth chapter of the Apocalypse, on which the doctrine of the personal reign of Christ on earth, for a thousand years, before the day of judgment, has been founded. We may, therefore, infer that the general character of the ancient interpretation of the Apocalypse was the literal sense; and so indeed St. Jerome expressly tells us, Præf. ad lib. xviii. in Isaiam. The change, therefore, which took place in the opinions of the majority of Christian doctors, as to the doctrine of the Millennium, must be taken as necessarily implying a correspondent change in their interpretation of the Apocalypse. The earliest writer, whose works are now extant, by whom the ancient opinions were openly impugned, was Origen, at the beginning of the third century: and his censure of the advocates of the Millennium is, that they were disciples of the letter, led only by that signification of words which was apparent on the surface, and refusing the labour of a deeper understanding (De Princ. ii. 11, 2) : all which confirms what has been said, that the ancient exposition of the Apocalypse was essentially literal. In the middle of the same century (A.D. 247), Dionysius of Alexandria, a disciple of Origen, wrote against Nepos a book of which Eusebius has preserved the substance; for the work itself is unfortunately lost. He did not venture, he tells us, to reject the Apocalypse, as some had done; but he admitted that he did not understand it, and hinted that some hidden sense should be looked for in its words.

"Still, however, the ancient doctrine prevailed for a century later. In the fourth century we find it embraced (not in the way of a peculiar opinion, but in language which implies that it was then the received doctrine of the Church) by Lactantius, by St. Martin of Tours, and by St. Sulpitius Severus. In the fifth century, St. Jerome and St. Augustine tell us that there were many, nay a majority, of orthodox Christians who looked for a literal Millennium. St. Augustine himself once held the doctrine, as he tells us, De Civit. Dei, lib. xx. c. 7; and there is one of his sermons (259 in the Benedictine edition), still extant, in which he has distinctly put forward the ancient opinion of the reign of Christ on earth with his saints: 'Regnabit enim Dominus in terra cum sanctis suis, sicut dicunt Scripturæ, et habebit hic ecclesiam, quo nullus malus intrabit, separatam atque purgatam ab omni contagione nequitiæ." We may therefore fairly infer that the ancient literal interpretation of the Apocalypse, which led to the expectation of a Millen nium, began to be questioned in the third century: but that it continued in the tradition of the Church till the beginning of the fifth century, when it appears to have been merged as a Scriptural truth, in the superior charms of the figurative interpretations. In later ages, when various views of purgatory became prevalent in popular teaching, no place was left for the reign of Christ on earth with his saints, preparatory to their admission into the glory of the Father: and hence it is that the doctrine of the Millennium is generally regarded as heretical by divines of the modern Church of Rome.”—(pp. 13-15.)

What is it, then, that Mr. Close has done? He has chosen, first, to suppress or pass over, the recorded general opinion of the first three centuries:-He then takes up the opinion which, by a palpable change, began to prevail in the fourth and fifth centuries; and uniting this with the Romish decisions of the middle ages, he makes up what he chooses to call, "the Catholic doctrine which "has been held by the Church from the beginning." Now, on this ground, we should be glad to know how he is to meet the Romish controversialist, who maintains the virtue of relics, prayers

to the saints, and the worship of the Virgin. For all these stand on precisely the same ground. All of them were denied in the first three centuries, and adopted in the fourth and fifth. And so was the scheme of interpretation, which rejects or gets rid of the plain meaning of the twentieth chapter of the Apocalypse!

So that, in point of fact, the millennarians have, 1st. the plainest and most literal meaning of Revel. xx. ; and 2nd. the general belief of the first three centuries:-while their opponents prefer a paraphrase or spiritualizing interpretation of the apostle's words, supported by the judgment of the Church, from the fourth century downwards. And thus it appears, that the fate of the gospel itself, and of the millennarian scheme, have been nearly identical. Both can be traced from the apostles' days, down to the rise of Romanism in the days of Sylvester. Both are suppressed and declared to be heresy, from the fourth century till the sixteenth. And, with the Reformation, both revive. We say not that they are necessarily or indissolubly connected;-in fact, we know that they are not so. But at least their fate has been nearly identical. III. The last objection we must tender, is, to the mode in which Mr. Close has conducted the argument from Scripture.

It was open to him to treat the subject in either of two ways:1. Dogmatically; by the exhibition of positive truth: or, 2. Controversially; by the assailment of a specific error.

Now, if he proposed to treat the question in the first of these ways, namely, by setting forth the whole truth, as revealed in God's word, his chief duty was, sedulously to embrace in his view, all that God had spoken. To select such passages only as agreed with a preconceived system, and to omit from the argument an important portion of Scripture which could not be made to fall in with that system, was a mode of treating the question quite illegitimate and indefensible.

Now Mr. Close's subject was, "The Second Advent of Christ." He was bound, therefore, in fully expounding the truth of Scripture on this subject, to bring before his hearers and readers every important statement concerning it, which he found in God's word. And, up to a certain point, he does this. He cites the xxvth of Matthew; the vth of John (28, 29); the 2 Cor. v. 10; and the 2d of Peter, iii;-besides various other illustrative passages. But he forgets to add, that of Christ's second coming, we have a later, more detailed, and more complete account, in the xixth and xxth of St. John's Revelation. To leave this out of his statement, is to make his whole view, either wilfully or neglectfully imperfect.

As far as concerned the Gospels and Acts, we willingly admit that the general tenor of the Divine Revelation seemed to be, that

Christ would at some future day return to this earth in power and glory, gather the quick and the dead before him for judgment, and then re-ascend with his saints to heaven. We say, this seemed to be the general tenor of New Testament language; though there were in the Old Testament, certain prophetic glimpses which scarcely agreed with this view.

But it pleased God to grant us a further and more explicit revelation of his purpose; and that, of a peculiarly solemn and emphatic character. The beloved disciple, the now-venerable apostle St. John, being the last of his Master's personal followers, and being about soon to leave this earth,-received a special revelation, intended to show unto Christ's people" things that must shortly come to pass." A peculiar blessing is pronounced on those who read or hear the words of this prophecy. Can we then with safety neglect it?

This Revelation was expressly intended to enlarge the Church's knowledge; to show her things not previously known. If, therefore, we find in it things not declared by the preceding writers, can that be a valid reason for rejecting them? Are we to resolve, that if the book merely repeats what we knew before, we will accept it; but that if it adds to our previous knowledge, we will on that account reject or neglect it? Will that be a reasonable or obedient course of action?

Now the information given to us in this book, on the subject handled by Mr. Close," The Advent of Christ," is of this kind:"I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he "that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. His eyes were as a flame "of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name "written that no man knew, but he himself. And he was clothed "in a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called, The Word "of God. And the armies which were in heaven followed him "on white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. And out "of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite "the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron; and he "treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty "God. And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name 66 written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS. And I saw an "angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, say"ing to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God; "that ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and "the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them "that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond,

"both small and great. And I saw the beast, and the kings of "the earth and their armies, gathered together to make war against "him that sat on the horse, and against his army. And the "beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought "miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had re"ceived the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his "image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning " with brimstone. And the remnant were slain with the sword of "him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his "mouth and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.

"And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key "of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. And he "laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, "and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, and cast him into "the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, "that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a "little season. And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them and I saw the souls of them "that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in "their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thou"sand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. Blessed " and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such "the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God "and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years. And "when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out "of his prison, and shall go out to deceive the nations which are "in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather "them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of "the sea. And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and "compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: "and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured "them. And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake " of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, "and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. And I

saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose "face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, stand "before God; and the books were opened: and another book was "opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out "of those things which were written in the books, according to

"their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; "and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: "and they were judged every man according to their works. And "death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second "death." (Revel. xix. 11. xx. 1—14.)

What does Mr. Close do with this deeply-interesting and important revelation? Does he adopt it into his system? No,-for to do so would destroy that system. Therefore he briefly notices it in passing, in a few querulous observations, as reasons for almost disregarding it. But let us quote his own words:

"But here it may be asked,—is there not one passage, at least, in Holy Scripture, in which a first and second resurrection are distinctly named? Admitted there is one, and one only; and that is contained in the former part of Revelation xx. usually denominated the millennarian passage. Here a resurrection is spoken of, which is twice called a first resurrection. It is said, the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. Blessed is he that hath part in the first resurrection.' How then are we to deal with this passage, in which two resurrections are named; not two kinds of resurrection, but resurrections at two distinct periods; one of which is also said to be blessed, as though it were the resurrection of the righteous only. Is Scripture inconsistent with itself? Impossible! Yet we have on the one hand a series of clear and plain descriptions of one general resurrection of the entire dead—and on the other, a passage in which two resurrections are predicted? Is it not the naturaĺ course, under such circumstances, to seek for some interpretation of the one solitary passage which shall make it harmonize with the numerous and clear testimonies on the other side? This will appear to be the more reasonable, when it is considered that the language in question occurs in a highly figurative and symbolical prophecy-the true interpretation of which is, and ever has been greatly disputed, and is likely to continue an enigma until events yet future unravel its mysteries. The question then may well be raised, is the Evangelical prophet here speaking of that resurrection of the dead which all are agreed must take place at the second coming of Christ? Is there here any reference at all to his second advent? (!!) Is there any proof whatever that this entire passage refers to events which shall immediately succeed the personal appearance of the Lord Jesus? (!!!)

"The advocates of the first resurrection all agree that the resurrection which is to take place at the coming of Christ is that of ALL the righteous who had ever lived and died: but the resurrection here spoken of is confined to two classes only of the dead-those who were 'beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and those who had not worshipped the beast.' There is no mention here of a general resurrection of the pious dead! Besides, nothing is said of their bodies-the Prophet saw their souls'-it was a vision of transactions in the separate state-and these souls of the dead martyrs are said to live and reign with Christ, a thousand years-it is not said on the earth'1-nor in their bodies-and it may refer altogether to some special accession of glory and honour in the separate state, in the Paradise of God. I do not affirm that it does so-but I do affirm, and that constantly, that there is no such clear evidence and proof that the first resurrection' here spoken of, is the resurrection of the bodies of all God's saints at the coming of Christ, as can render it safe for us to build up such a theory in opposition, irreconcileable opposition to the plain sense of so many scriptures of God, in other places.

6

Could Mr. Close forget the 10th verse of the vth chapter, "And we shall reign on the earth"?