"That this passage is capable of wide and different interpretation is evident when we remember that another and a very numerous, learned, and respectable class of millennarians themselves take so different a view of it. Whitby, and after him Scott, Matthew Henry, Doddridge, and the great body of Dissenting divines hold that this passage predicts a spiritual reign before the coming of Christ-a general diffusion of righteousness over the earth, anterior to the second advent: these persons are therefore said to hold a postmillennial advent. Their interpretation of this resurrection is altogether figurative, and spiritual: a resurrection of principles and godly practices. They assume (as indeed they do also who believe in the pre-millennial advent) that this prediction is identical with all the bright and glorious prophecies of the Old Testament relative to the latter-day glory:-an assumption totally without proof-the groundlessness of which first suggested to my mind, many years since, the fallacy of the millennial theory altogether. I conceive that the views of this class of millennarians are far more vulnerable than those of the former to which allusion has been made their immediate tendency is to throw the doctrine of Christ's second personal, glorious advent, into an immeasurable distance. It appears to me impossible that any one can preach the second advent as it is stated in the New Testament, if he can believe that a thousand years at least must intervene before his appearing-it can no longer be the cogent, instant, urgent event which is held up in the sacred writings as the great topic wherewith to awaken the careless, and to console the believer who is waiting for his Lord. Dissenting alike from the scheme of the spiritual millennarian, and from that of the temporal reign-I refer to these conflicting opinions simply to justify the conclusion at which I have arrived-that this passage is eminently figurative and symbolical-that the Church, or pious Christians in general are not agreed as to the events to which it refers, much less as to the nature of them-and that therefore to call upon us to give up the great Catholic doctrine of Holy Scripture and of the Church of God in all ages-the general, universal resurrection of all the dead, at the coming and call of Jesus Christ, upon the ground of such a casual expression as this the first resurrection'— is to require a surrender of all the general principles which guide us in Scripture interpretation-and to ask the universal Church to make a Catholic doctrine bend to what has never been more than a private opinion."(pp. 43-47.)

There is much here to lament. It is deeply to be regretted that an eminent pastor of the Church, one set in a high place, and exercising a very extensive influence,--should give to his flock so pernicious an example of a want of reverence for God's word.

In this important passage of Scripture,-the latest and fullest revelation, be it observed, of all the warnings given us of Christ's second coming,-there are two prominent features: 1. The millennium: 2. The first and second resurrections. Both are most fully and plainly declared. Yet both are, we grieve to say it,― rejected by Mr. Close.

The word of God declares, that Satan shall be "bound for a thousand years,"-that " he shall deceive the nations no more till the thousand years be fulfilled,"-that the saints shall " live and reign with Christ a thousand years,"—that "the rest of the dead lived not till the thousand years were finished,"-that the saints shall be "priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a

thousand years,"-and that "when the thousand years shall be expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison." Thus, six times in this one passage is the declaration distinctly and emphatically made, and shortly afterwards it is added, "These sayings are faithful and true :--blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book."

But how does Mr. Close "keep these sayings?" We cannot but grieve over such language as this:

"In vain do we search through articles, liturgy, homilies or canons, for such a word, or such an idea, as a Millennium! An earthly, temporal, finite reign of Christ in a renovated world, is a visionary theory which no where finds countenance." (p. 25.) "The Church of England does not hold any kind of millennarian "doctrines, either pre-millennial, or post-millennial." (p. 27.) "Any great departure from the written and ecclesiastical confes"sions of faith: I refer chiefly to those who hold a millennium." (p. 11.) "Such are the uncouth consequences " which follow "from once admitting the doctrine of a millennium." (p. 57.)

Now let it be observed, that we are not now insisting upon this or that theory of interpretation. It is far from our object to maintain any particular system or view, in what we are now saying. All that we demand of Mr. Close, is, that when the word of God declares, thus solemnly and emphatically, that a thousand years binding of Satan, and a thousand years reign of the saints "with Christ," there shall be, he shall not thus broadly denounce" the very word, the idea even, of a millennium." We put it to him in the simplest form ;-The Lord Jesus Christ, in his last message to his Church by his beloved disciple, says, six times over, that there shall be a special season of a thousand years, of holiness and blessedness, the reign of the saints with him. Now we leave you at liberty to adopt this interpretation or that,-but a thousand years,-in short, a millennium, you must believe. You cannot, you dare not, stand up in your pulpit, and avow, that in the twentieth chapter of Revelation there are statements which you do not believe! And earnestly do we deprecate such a mode of handling Scripture, as designates a plain and momentous prophecy "a casual expression; " or, terming it "eminently figurative and symbolical," proceeds, on that ground, to set it altogether aside.

But again, the second prominent feature in this chapter, is, "the first resurrection." It is very distinctly set forth. "This "is the first resurrection." "The rest of the dead lived not again "until the thousand years were finished,"-implying inevitably that certain of the dead were raised at the beginning of the millennium, and certain others at the close of that period. Again,

"Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection,"they shall reign with Christ a thousand years," and "when the "thousand years were expired" ""the sea gave up the dead which "were in it, and death and hell delivered up the dead which were "in them."

Here, then, is another instance in which a certain fact is clearly revealed. Mr. Close may interpret it in his own way, but reject it, he must not.

Yet this is his language: "It is a favourite topic with those "who hold the doctrine of two resurrections," (p. 17) " the advo"cates of the first resurrection," (p. 44) " the supposed millennial reign." (p. 80.) "It is impossible to read these testimonies "from God's word without coming to a conclusion contrary to the "millennial theory of two resurrections," &c. (p. 23.)

Again we repeat, that Mr. Close must not do this. He must not read in God's word, "This is the first resurrection ;" and reply, There is no first resurrection :-there is only one, neither first nor second, but general and final.

And how palpably illegitimate are his reasons for refusing to submit to this plain declaration of Scripture! "This passage," he says, "is capable of wide and different interpretation; "—and therefore,-what? He will hold neither this interpretation, nor that, but will push it aside altogether!

If Mr. Close puts away from him all declarations of Holy Writ "which are capable of different interpretations," he will very considerably narrow his creed. He declares, for instance, every Sabbath-day that he officiates, that he believes that Christ "descended into hell." He is bound to declare this intelligently ;i. e. to come to some conclusion as to what sense he attaches to these words. Yet here he will find,-as a writer in our last number shewed,-that great Doctors and venerable Fathers have given "wide and different interpretations" of this article of our creed. Does he make that a reason, -as in the case of the millenium, for pushing the doctrine aside altogether?

"The washing of regeneration" is another doctrine, as Mr. Close well knows, which sorely divides the Church. Very "wide and different interpretations," are given of it. Yet surely Mr. Close has a meaning of his own, one on which he rests, when he reads the Baptismal service. He does not say, "there are such wide and different interpretations, that I do not profess to understand the matter." But surely the rule applies equally to the chapters before us.

It will be seen, we trust, that we are not advocating this or that scheme of interpretation. Our object is, not to establish the pre

millennial or the post-millennial, but simply to remind Mr. Close that the passages which we have quoted are a part of God's word;-of that word to which his humblest submission is due :That these are also part of the Lord's latest message to his Church; and that it would be most unreasonable to reject that message on the ground that it told us more than had been revealed in earlier teachings:-And, that the confession of the Church of England is, that even she herself "may not so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another."

We place before Mr. Close, then, the xixth and xxth chapters of the Apocalypse, and claim his submission to their authority and their teaching. He will not deny it ;-but he will perhaps answer, that " we must not so expound them as to be repugnant to Matt. XXV." We admit the rule; but we apply it in our turn. Let not Mr. Close attempt so to expound Matthew xxv, as to be repugnant with the later message of St. John.

We must not lengthen this hasty notice; and shall therefore only add, that, as Mr. Close has not done justice to the subject, dogmatically, by the full exhibition of the truth,-so neither has he treated it with propriety, controversially, by the detection and refutation of error.

To bring out to view the whole truth on this momentary subject, would have required him reverentially to take up the xixth and xxth chapters of the Apocalypse, and to give their meaning. This he has not done, nor even attempted to do. Hence, as a dogmatical statement, Mr. Close's argument utterly fails.

To expose and refute an error; it would have been needful, to present a fair view of the scheme of a competent antagonist, such as Mr. Elliott, and then to have refuted it, shewing how the closing portions of the Apocalypse might be more satisfactorily interpreted. But this course, also, Mr. Close has either refused or neglected. Thus his book is neither an exposition of truth, nor yet a refutation of error. In sober sadness, -as we said at the beginning, we now repeat, our impression is, that Mr. C. has refuted and overthrown no one but himself!

MEMOIR OF THE REV. RICHARD CHAPPLE WHALLEY, B.D. Late Rector of Chelwood. Illustrated by Select Letters and Sermons. By JOHN S. HARFORD, Esq., D.C.L. London: Nisbet. 1846.

"A GREAT many men," Hannah More used to say, are near heaven, but Richard Whalley is in heaven." Our readers, therefore, may safely conclude that this little volume, containing the memoirs, letters, and sermons, of this excellent man, are worth their perusal. They are indeed a very precious memorial of victorious grace, and will, we have no doubt, "prove an acceptable offering to the Christian public." A brief outline of Mr. Whalley's interesting case may serve to recommend his Remains to the notice they deserve.

Mr. W., it seems, was the youngest son of the Rev. John Whalley, D.D., Master of Peter-House, Cambridge, and Regius Professor of Divinity in that University. His mother was a daughter of Francis Squire, Chancellor of Wells. He was born in the year 1748, and lost his father while yet an infant. Where he was educated does not appear: but his attainments, as a scholar, were such, as prove that it must have been at some superior seminary. As he approached manhood, he manifested no inclination for any of the learned professions; but was induced from a passionate love of the fine arts to repair to Italy, and make painting the object of his peculiar study. It seems to have been, at this time, his ambition to devote himself to it professionally; and for this reason, probably, it was, that he did not matriculate at either of the Universities: but on coming of age, or soon after, bent his steps to Italy, and spent several years amidst the great works of art, and the enchanting objects of that classical land. After pursuing, however, his pictorial studies for some time with much ardour, he found his health giving way, and came to the conclusion that he was incapable of sustaining the requisite application for acquiring eminence as an artist. But though the particular object of his visiting Italy was thus frustrated, he carefully viewed and studied its fine scenery, and its monuments of ancient and modern grandeur. "These things," he afterwards writes, altogether make a strange mixed impression upon the mind: at least, they did so upon mine: an impression of soothing, delightful, melancholy, which would now be heightened by considerations and feelings which I was then quite incapable of."

But "unhappily for Mr. Whalley," as his Biographer observes,