But again, it has been objected, that it is not the saints themselves, but their souls that are here said to live. This objection has more speciousness than force. For it is to be observed, that a change of condition is here evidently implied-a change from death unto life. The souls, however, had not died, and therefore it could not be said of them that they "lived" again. This is further evident from the contrast between those who "lived and reigned with Christ," and the rest of the dead, who "lived not again till the thousand years were finished." As in the case of the latter their living not "again," till the close of this period, implies that they had lived at some former period, but were now dead, and as this cannot be understood of their souls, so when it is said of those who are made partakers of the First Resurrection that they "lived," these must have been brought, by the resurrection of their bodies, from that state of death in which the rest of the dead still continue. Indeed, had not unusual pains been taken to put a strained interpretation on this passage, any process of reasoning for the removal of such an objection must have been altogether unnecessary. The word 'soul,' (psyche,) is in scripture, as well as in common language, frequently used to denote the person; and when thus used by the inspired penmen, we no more experience difficulty in determining its meaning, than we apprehend danger of being misunderstood when, in common conaddition to the instances cited above, we may yet add other statements contained in this symbolical book which he himself does not scruple to quote as to have a literal accomplishment. Besides the fact of his understanding and interpreting literally (p. 510,) the account of the general resurrection in this very chapter, does he not "understand literal thrones of earthly dominion," when he quotes, Rev. xi. 15, as proof that at the period of the Millennium, "the kingdoms of this world shall become the Kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ ?" (p. 477.) "The kingdoms of this world" do not in the least lose their significancy nor change their meaning because contained in this symbolical book; neither does Dr. Wardlaw think they necessarily should. But if this is not to be understood symbolically, the supposed "force of objection" against the literal interpretation of all other passages is destroyed. And if we may believe, on the statement of this "symbolical book," that the kingdoms of this world shall become the Kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ; we may also be allowed to believe, in the same sense, the apostle's additional statement in the same verse, " and he shall reign for ever and ever," (Rev, xi. 15,)

versation, we speak of the number of souls a city contains. Although we had no other information as to what is meant when the apostle Peter speaks of the "few, that is, eight souls," who were saved in the ark, (1 Pet. iii. 20,) who would exclude the bodies of Noah and his family from the salvation referred to? When we are informed of the large accession of members made to the church on the day of Pentecost, it is in these words: " and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls." Acts ii. 41. And Paul says of those in the ship with him when cast upon Melita, "And we were in all in the ship, two hundred threescore and sixteen souls." Acts xxvii. 37. In these, and similar instances, the very word used by John is introduced, when the person, rather than the separate spirit is spoken of. It was when the Lord had breathed the breath of life into its clay tenement, that "man became a living soul." Gen. ii. 7. Indeed "soul" is used in Scripture not only for the person but sometimes for the body merely; as in Ps. xlix. 15. "But God will redeem my soul from the power of the grave."* We are therefore fully warranted in believing the apostle's vision to have been of the literal resurrection of those who had suffered for the cause of Christ, and of those who submitted not to Antichristian authority-" which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands."

But it is farther objected, that the Apostle's description of these saints who live and reign with Christ, includes at most only those who have obtained the Mar

* The Examinator in the Instructor, grants (p. 485) that "the word 'souls' ('psychai,') is frequently used in the Sacred Writings for persons." But Dr. Hamilton, who has often loaded Millenarians with a profusion of abuse, substituting sounding epithets for solid arguments, in this instance carries his censure much higher, and would seem to question the wisdom of Him who dictated the passages cited above. The Greek," says he, (p. 204,)" is not such a scanty language as to be unable to furnish a separate term for each of the ideas conveyed by the words person, soul, and body." We have no design of attributing such a sentence to wilful captiousness with the language of Inspiration, but would more charitably ascribe it to that over-hasty zeal against the supposed alarming heresy, which deprived him of the power of cool reflection and due investigation, adding it to the multitude of instances which equally prove how untenable is the theory the Doctor maintains, and his anxiety for its support.

tyr's crown, and those who have resisted the abominations of the Man of sin. Some have even endeavoured to restrict the apostle's language to the souls or persons of the Martyrs only. This is however an unwarrantable restriction; for although the language of our English Translation may suggest the idea that those "which had not worshipped the beast," are the same class who "were beheaded for the witness of Jesus," it is otherwise in the Original. On the authority even of Whitby, (who has furnished his successors with nearly all the arguments we have yet seen adduced against the premillennial advent and personal reign of Christ,) the passage ought to be read, " And I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus and for the word of God, and of them which had not worshipped the beast," &c., thus clearly marking, what many are ready to deny,—the distinct specification of two classes, first the martyrs, and secondly the whole number of testimony-bearers against the corruptions of the Romish church.

66

Still, however, it is to be observed that these two classes refer only to the times of Antichristian idolatry. But this omission of all the prophets and saints of previous ages, appears to have been designed, in order to preserve the unity of the vision. The preceding part being occupied with a prediction concerning the Man of Sin, and of the sins and the sufferings he should occasion in the church, the apostle's attention at his overthrow was principally confined to the fate of those who were engaged in the transactions to which the vision more immediately relates. In the interval between the period of Antichrist's rise, and that of his destruction at the coming of the Lord, the fidelity of the church has been, and will be, continually put to the test, either by the wiles or the cruelty of that insidious and destructive foe. To the faithful, therefore, who had steadfastly maintained the truth as it is in Jesus amid the terrors of death, or when surrounded by more dangerous temptations to compliance with his devilish devices, the limitation in the passage seems peculiarly appropriate. All who had not been seduced from their allegiance to

the Saviour, during the existence of that apostasy, and within the reach of its influence, are included, either among those who "were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God," or among those who, though they may not have been called to lay down their lives for the truth, "had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands." When this is considered, it gives rather a peculiar significancy to the very limitation on which the objection is founded; the apostle taking especial notice of the privilege of those whose circumstances had formed the subject of the preceding visions. It is, however, worthy of notice, that although he names no other as sharing the glorious privileges of which they are made partakers, yet the manner in which this part of the vision is introduced, leaves it to be inferred that others are so. For, says the apostle, "I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them; and [being divinely directed in making the most interesting selection,] I saw [among those on these thrones] the souls [or persons] of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus," &c. Those whom he saw upon the thrones, and to whom judgment was given, do not appear to be merely the two classes to whom he immediately refers. But for a knowledge of who these others may be, and of God's designs with respect to His people in former ages, we must have recourse to other parts of his word, which, as we shall see, contains ample evidence of their enjoyment of the same glorious privilege.

Let us, however, for a moment suppose, that this passage is not to be understood as speaking of a literal resurrection of these saints, but of a resurrection of the principles they held, and see how this will accord with the language employed. A resurrection, it will be ad mitted, pre-supposes the death of the object to be raised, and therefore before there can be a resurrection of Christian Principles, they must first have died from the earth. And how does this supposition coincide with the idea generally entertained, that the present laudable exertions for the diffusion of the gospel shall progres

sively increase, until it be ultimately successful in the conversion of the whole world, and the glorious day of promise be realized in the universal reception of its gracious truths? Christianity has already taken root in far distant lands, and although its power has not been so extensively manifested as every friend of Jesus must have wished and prayed for, and although we have much reason to fear that the exertions for its propagation will relax as infidelity prevails, still, we believe, that, at our Lord's return, He shall have trophies of redeeming love from every clime. But on the principles of those who suppose that the Millennium shall be simply the result of Christianity's extending influence, when is it to die, that it may be made to live again in the First Resurrection? Let it not be said that this Resurrection is of the principles of the martyrs, and therefore means a greater degree of purity. The principles of the mar tyrs were just those of the truth as it is in Jesus: the same Scriptures which they enjoyed being now in our hands, and professedly received as the standard of our faith; although it must be acknowledged, that, in early times, they entertained different opinions of some of its truths, as the present necessity of vindicating their sentiments with respect to the time and purpose of the Saviour's return sufficiently testifies. But the resurrection witnessed by John was not only of those who had sealed their testimony with their blood, but of all who had resisted the blasphemous usurpations of the Man of sin-who "had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands." Until the principles of all who have maintained the truth in opposition to his errors have become extinct, there can, therefore be no resurrection of them; and if, as is maintained by those who urge the objection, the Millennium is to be gradually introduced by the gospel's extending influence, this cannot at all take place. How then can this apply to the First Resurrection? Besides, if this Resurrection meant merely the revival and extensive prevalence of Religion, still we may ask, would such a revival at any future time, after the various out-pourings of the Holy Spirit in dif