ing a place in his system. Let it be further understood, that, in producing human testimony, we do not demand any homage to mere human authority, but only present a counterpoise to that interdict which man would lay on Premillennialism, as if it savoured necessarily of the unsound or the heretical, or, if not, at least of the intellectually feeble.

Ps. 1. 1-6. This is a remarkable psalm, and the subject of it seems to lie within the domain of unfulfilled prophecy. There has been no appearance yet from Mount Zion at all corresponding with that made from Mount Sinai. And I am far more inclined to the literal interpretation of this psalm, than to that which would restrict it to the mere preaching of the gospel in the days of the apostles. It looks far more like the descent of the Son of Man on the Mount of Olives, with all the accompaniments of a Jewish conversion, and a first resurrection, and a destruction of the assembled hosts of Antichrist. The saints here summoned are those within the pale of the everlasting covenant ratified by the blood of the sacrifice of Christ. The address here given is like that from the Son of God, now manifested to the Jews, who had returned, though yet unconverted, to the Holy Land; but who, now hearing the words as well as seeing the person of Him whom they had pierced, are born in a day by the impressive remonstrance, and overpowering spectacle."-(Posth. Works, iii. 51.)

Ps. lxviii. 18-35. "Mixed up with all the literalities of the typical, the great Antitype shines forth in this high, sacred composition. We have positive evidence for Christ in this psalm in Eph. iv. 8,-after which we need be at no loss for objects in the future triumph and victory of His cause adequate to the loftiest expressions which we here meet with. There is every likelihood of allusions here to the great contest of the Book of Revelation. . . . But God has in reserve for His people still another restoration. He will bring them again, as of old, from Bashan and the Red Sea, to their own land. His people will see Him whom they have pierced,' perhaps when His feet stand on the Mount of Olives, and Jerusalem will again become the great central sanctuary by becoming the metropolis of the Christian world."-(Ibid. 69.)

Isa. xxiv. 13-23. "In this prophecy is foreshown a visitation upon the earth still future which is to emerge in the millennium-how emphatically told in this place when the Lord shall reign in Jerusalem, and before His ancients gloriously." (Ibid. p. 288.)

Isa. xxv.

"This song may have been called forth by the literal or typical deliverance which it celebrates-but suits also

the anti-typical, the great ultimate deliverance and enlargement so impressively spoken of at the end of the last chapter. . . . In Mount Zion-now the metropolis of the Christian worldshall there be a great spiritual feast for all people? . . . For verse 8, see 1 Cor. xv. 54. Can this be that in the millennium there will be no death? Surely they who partake in the first resurrection will not die over again."-(Ibid. p. 289.)

[Here, it will be seen, Dr Chalmers assumes, or takes for granted, that there is a literal resurrection at the beginning of the millennium, and of course, assumes further (by his reference to 1 Cor. xv.) that the literal advent there spoken of (v. 23), as introducing the literal resurrection (ie., of the saints) is at the beginning of the millennium.]

Isa. lii." It is quite obvious of this prophecy that it expands beyond the dimensions of its typical event, and that it relates not to a past but to a future and final deliverance of the Jews.

Their seeing eye to eye' makes for the personal reign of Him whose feet shall stand on the Mount of Olives."(Ibid. p. 326.)

Isa, lxiv. "This is the Church's prayer for deliverance, and by such manifestations, too, as might very probably be given prior to its millennial establishment in the world. There may be a geological catastrophe—a something on the large scale, similar to what took place on Sinai when God appeared to Israel. Let us wait in faith for the coming of the Son of God." -(Ibid. p. 338.)

Isa. lxv. 17-25. "It is delightful to mark how an expression so general as that of the new heavens and the new earth, and therefore of the great and general renovation, should be blended with the expression of God's special kindness to His ancient people-proving that the Jews are to bear a prominent part in the establishment of the next economy. We are greatly wanting in the details of the millennium; and perhaps from the want of scriptural data for the determination of them. We cannot think of those who bear part in the first resurrection that they will again die; but will none of the righteous die? And, if not, what is meant by the child dying a hundred years old? And in contrast with him, the sinner, who, though he should live a hundred years, will be accursed? We doubt not that there will be two contemporaneous societies at that period -the righteous, and the wicked, who are without, and will not be permitted to hurt or to destroy in all God's holy mountain. Again, will there be a change in the laws of animal nature— that the carnivorous shall cease being so; or are these things only figurative? The earth, with its curse fully removed, will

be greatly more productive, and so as that men shall not labour in vain, as now."-(Ibid. p. 339.)

[We call attention to three points indicated in these two last extracts.

1. The idea of "a geological catastrophe," as introducing the "new heavens and new earth." Though the parallel passage in 2 Peter iii. is not expressly quoted by Dr Chalmers, it is quite plain he considers the earth's renewal at the beginning of the millennium to be literal. May not an electric agency fulfil the condition ("fire") mentioned by Peter as to the mode of renewal ?

2. The fact of a felt inability to condescend on the manifold details of the millennium has not the weight of a feather with Chalmers in postponing or affecting his judgment as to those great leading outlines which he conceives to be revealed.

3. The supposition of a change in the laws of animal nature may seem very strange to men accustomed only to look at the existing adaptations-e.g., betwixt the structures and the food of carnivorous or graminivorous animals. But Chalmers, unlike some other scientific men, was child-like enough to listen to God's Word, as well as to look at God's work, and, without pronouncing dogmatically on the actual import of the saying, at least felt, that if such be its meaning, there is no hindrance whatever to its fulfilment on any merely scientific principles. If the millennium have its Cuviers and its Owens, they may be taught to admit certain new axioms, as the basis of their comparative anatomy. Let our cultivators of "natural science remember this.]

Let the reader mark the grand outlines of the advent era, as indicated by Chalmers in the above extracts. There are, 1. A renewing of earth; 2. A first resurrection; 3. Israel's glory; 4. Destruction of antichrist; 5. A large conversion-work; 6. A judgment at the close; and the whole ushered in by the personal appearing of Immanuel. That they are given as gropings, rather than as distinct findings, he himself would have explained by the fact, that he had never set himself to digest these outlines of the prophetic word into systematic order. But the very indeterminateness-the very groping character of the views as a whole, instead of weakening our argument, strengthens it immensely, because it proves that, so far from coming to the class of texts which seem to announce a pre-millennial advent, with a foregone conclusion that this could not be their meaning, he came to these texts with a mind wholly unbiassed-came simply asking, "What saith the Lord here?"-came with a resolution to admit whatever the Word

should declare, even though as yet unprepared to assign to the truth, so declared, its fitting place in a symmetrical system.

Mr Coleridge, in his "Aids to Reflection" (p. 365), speaks of "the practice of certain persons to explain away positive assertions of Scripture on the pretext that the literal sense is not agreeable to reason,—that is, THEIR particular reason. (The italics and capitals are Mr Coleridge's.) "And inasmuch as, in the only right sense of the word, there is no such thing as a particular reason, they must, and in fact they do, mean that the literal sense is not accordant to their understanding, i.e., to the notions which their understandings have been taught and accustomed to form in their school of philosophy." Against this practice the entire life of Chalmers was one lengthened and impressive protest. And nowhere perhaps is the protest more impressive than in his mode of dealing with the texts now quoted. His was indeed a Baconian mind. In his view, the most crying of all heresies, whether theological or philosophical, was to explain away or distort a text or a fact in order to harmonise it with a preconceived system. Galileo was content to go to the prison of the Inquisition and into exile, because, true to the Baconian method, he could not, in deference to the received opinion, contradict the plain facts of nature, as observed and certiorated by his own senses. Not less joyfully would Chalmers have endured (if needful) the crucifixion of a theological outlawry, rather than consent to evade or explain away the plain sayings of the Word.

Our object in this tract is preliminary. It is to secure for our scriptural evidence a candid and patient hearing. There are many beloved brethren who will not be offended when we say of them, that their minds are strongly biassed against premillennialism. The writer, in saying this, is only recording an experience which his own mind knew at a previous stage of its history. He was accustomed to stretch on the Procrustes-bed of what Coleridge so justly calls "his own particular reason" the many Scripture texts bearing on this blessed theme, and to stretch them with a violence which seemed to threaten their very life. But he was enabled to overcome the prejudice at last; and he now seeks for his brethren the same liberty. Reader the theme is one admitting of no postponement. We crave your earnest and immediate heed to it, as one affecting most closely the personal glory of our coming King; and as one, too, affecting most closely your own personal growth in grace. It is not a mere dogma to be speculated on-if it were so, it would have no attractions for us-but a glorious truth to be daily lived upon. Our Master knew its preciousness to His

afflicted Church in this her dark night; and so His parting word to her was, "Surely, I come quickly." If we would hold up our heads," our eye and heart must be fixed on that scene, and we must be crying, day by day, and hour by hour"Even so, come, Lord Jesus.'

"In the confidence that these sayings are faithful and true (writes Chalmers once more,- —on Rev. xxii.), “I would pray the Lord to come quickly. The sayings of this prophecy are, we conceive, on the eve of their fulfilment. I desire to be vigilant and observing, and to wait for the Lord from heaven.

Come quickly, Lord Jesus; and to prepare me for this coming, let Thy grace be abundantly bestowed, and Thy power ever rest upon me. In the attitude of habitual service, and of habitual. supplication would I wait for Thy coming to our world.”— (Sab. Scrip. Readings, i. 436.)

SECT. II.-NO NOVELTY.

ABOUT a hundred years ago, Augustus Toplady, well known throughout the Churches for spirituality and soundness in the faith, thus wrote, "I am one of those old-fashioned people who believe the doctrine of the millennium, and that there will be two distinct resurrections of the dead-first, of the just, secondly, of the unjust; which last resurrection of the reprobate will not commence till a thousand years after the resurrection of the elect. In this glorious interval of one thousand years, Christ, I apprehend, will reign in person over the kingdom of the just."

Let us now proceed briefly to show on what grounds Toplady applied the epithet of " old-fashioned" to premillennialists. In so doing, we make the following statement :-That for the first two centuries and a half, premillennialism was the universal doctrine of the Church. The opposite system, which so widely prevails in our own age, was entirely unknown. All the early fathers who were sound in the faith were declared millennarians; and history testifies to the fact that the whole Church of these earlier and purer times held the same doctrine.

We might produce many testimonies in proof of the above statement. Let one, however, suffice, as it is the testimony of an opponent of our doctrine. Whitby thus writes, "The doctrine of the millennium, or the reign of saints on earth a thousand years, is now rejected by all Roman Catholics, and by the greatest part of the Protestants, and yet it passed among the best of Christians for two hundred and fifty years for a tradition apostolical, and as such is delivered by many fathers