reference to the Church as a body, the Reformation was what is commonly called a revival; and if the word "resurrection," in this passage, denotes nothing more than a revival of principles, it is improperly called "the first resurrection;" for the Reformation was at least the first, and this should rank no higher than the second.

PART II.

Let me now examine the passage itself. St. John says, "I saw the souls." If souls mean "principles," what does he mean by saying that he saw them? And mark the full description which is here given-"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." I ask, would not this be a most tedious, circuitous, and unnatural way of describing religious principles? In the original Greek, the phraseology of the passage, too, shows more expressly and distinctly that it is the identical persons who had not worshipped the beast who lived and reigned with Christ—οἵτινες οὐ προσεκύνησαν τῳ θηριῳ : whosoever did not worship the beast lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. It has been said, that to "rise from the dead," and to "live again," with other similar expressions, are frequently used in Scripture to denote a revival, whether in communities or individuals, of political, moral, or spiritual existence. This is undoubtedly true; but this is not the question, it is only part of the question. The question is, not whether the words "lived or "lived again" may be used when only a revival of principles is meant; but the question is, whether the assertion that "souls of men lived," or "lived again," can be used when nothing more is meant than a revival of their principles in others; and we have shown that such language cannot be so employed.

We are referred by some, who argue for the figurative interpretation of this passage, to the account of the vision of Ezekiel, related in his 37th chapter. But this does not refer to the revived glory of the Church, but to the future resurrection of the Jewish people to inherit their own land (Ezek. xxxvii. 11 -14); or, if this interpretation should be called in question, the reference is of no effect, for

"Nil agit exemplum litem quod lite resolvit."

But what is the meaning of what we read in the 5th verse— "The rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished"? Does this refer to a resurrection of principles -of the principles of those who did worship the Beast? But let me rather ask, Shall there not be a future resurrection of the wicked, in order that they may stand before God in the judgment; and is it not evident to any man of common sense,

that the plain and obvious, and I may say the necessary, meaning of verse 5 is, that the wicked are raised from the dead preparatory to the judgment which is described in the 12th verse? Most evidently the 5th verse, which says, as a parenthesis, that "the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished," refers to all the dead who had no part in the first resurrection; for, as Bishop Newton observes, this passage cannot be understood as an allegory "without the greatest torture and violence." It is a most absurd perversion of language to say that the 5th verse refers only to a metaphorical resurrection of evil principles in a future generation of men; and if it means a literal resurrection, as it is impossible to prove that it does not, then must the resurrection mentioned in the 4th verse be a literal resurrection also, for the intimate connexion and direct contrast which there is between the 4th and 5th verses fully require and prove that the two resurrections must be understood in the same sense.

And now let us examine the phraseology which occurs in the 6th verse," Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection." This language refers to a person, and speaks of a person as having part, not merely in the life that follows after the resurrection, but in the resurrection itself. It is a person who actually rises again, who exists not only in the state that succeeds the resurrection spoken of, but who is the same person who existed in the state preceding it. And it is added, that "on such the second death hath no power." Now, a second death implies a first death, and both the first and second deaths must be of the same kind, and both the first and second resurrections must be of the same kind, corresponding with the deaths. But if the first death was one of principles, the second death must be one of principles also; but what could be the sense or signification of the passage under such an interpretation? Surely it is quite evident that the phrase on such," in verse 6, means "on such a person ;" and, consequently, the second death spoken of is of a person, and therefore the first death must have been of persons, and the first resurrection must have been a resurrection of

persons.

Again, it is said,-" They shall be priests of God and of Christ." The word "they" evidently means those who have part in the first resurrection, or who are actually the subjects of that resurrection. But if it be principles that are subjects of this first resurrection, how can principles be priests? Persons only can be priests; but those who are the actual subjects of the first resurrection are the priests, and therefore they must be persons.

But I ask, according to the figurative method of interpreting this passage, What is really to become of "those who 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"? Would not the natural impression in the mind of any man, after reading this passage, be this-that the reason why there is such a distinct and full description of the trials and sufferings and the constancy of these persons is to show how justly they were raised to the high dignity of reigning with Christ, and to prove the faithfulness of God in thus distinguishing them. But the proposed figurative interpretation would represent others as receiving the reward of their sufferings and fidelity, as if the principle was not, that "if we suffer with Christ we shall also reign with Him," but that others shall reign with Him, while those who suffered with Him shall still be left to cry beneath the altar, "How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?" instead of their anticipations of reigning with Christ being realized as soon as their fellow-servants also and their brethren that should be killed as they were had been fulfilled.” (Rev. vi. 9, 11.)

Having thus endeavoured to show how impossible it is to explain the passage under consideration, as referring to a merely figurative resurrection of principles in a future generation of men, I would request special attention to the remarks of Bishop Newton on this subject. He most justly observes: "We should be cautious and tender of making the first resurrection an allegory, lest others should reduce the second into an allegory too, like those whom St. Paul mentions 2 Tim. ii. 17, 18, Hymeneus and Philetus, who concerning the truth have erred, saying, that the resurrection is passed already, and overthrow the faith of some." May not the modern Sadducee, the infidel who denies a literal resurrection of the dead altogether, as reasonably adopt the same principle of exposition in explaining all the texts of Scripture which speak of a resurrection at all? We cannot adopt principles of interpretation in order to obviate what we consider to be difficulties in particular passages of Scripture, and prevent others from giving the same principles a more extensive application. If we explain one passage figuratively, another may explain other passages on the same subject figuratively likewise; and thus, by the extension of such a process, the whole Word of God may be explained away, and infidelity erected upon the ruins of revelation. To avoid such a perversion and abuse of Scripture, I would adhere to those rules of exposition which have been always advocated and acted upon by the most learned and sound and judicious theologians. "I hold it," says Hooker, "for a most infallible rule in expositions of sacred Scripture, that where a literal construction will stand, the farthest from the letter is commonly the worst ;" and the

observation of Luther upon this subject is, that "no trope or metaphor should be recognised in Scripture, save where the figureless interpretation involves a palpable contradiction." V And now, I would very briefly examine the passage, in order to ascertain what it does reveal in reference to the condition and prospects of the saints after this life. It has, indeed, been asserted, that on this passage chiefly, and almost exclusively, is founded the doctrine of a personal reign of Christ and of His saints upon the earth. But I maintain that there are an abundance of passages asserting and confirming this great object of the Church's hope. In fact, the only incident mentioned in this passage, which is new, is the length of the interval which is to elapse between the first and the second resurrection. So clearly is the great doctrine of Christ's return to reign over this world, revealed in Scripture, that there was no question about it for the first three centuries. This was the great object of expectation, the blessed hope of the believer during the infancy of the Church, and which sustained, and comforted, and supported its members during the fiery trials and grievous persecutions through which they had to pass.

But what are the leading truths which are involved and contained in the statements which this passage presents to our view?

1. The souls of believers in Christ, after they leave the body, are in a state of peaceful repose, waiting for the return of Christ from heaven to raise those who are dead in Him, that they may reign with Him in glory. The soul never dies. Man may kill the body, the sword of persecution may consign it to the dust and darkness of dissolution, (Matt. x. 28,) but the souls of the faithful, after they are delivered from the burden of the flesh, are in joy and felicity under the tender care and special guardianship of Jesus (Luke xvi. 23; xxxiii. 43; Acts vii. 59; 2 Cor. v. 6-8; Phil. i. 23; 1 Thess. iv. 14.) But though they are in a state of rest and peace, in a more immediate and higher fruition of the spiritual presence of their Saviour than they had ever experienced in this life, they are still in a state of waiting expectation for the glorious appearing of Christ, (1 Thess. i. 10; 2 Thess. iii. 5; Heb. xi. 39, 40; Rev. vi. 10, 11); just as Christ Himself is represented as waiting on the right hand of God (Heb. x. 12, 13); for they shall not be glorified until Christ, having accomplished the number of His elect, shall come again to establish His everlasting kingdom (Rom. viii. 17; Titus ii. 13).

2. The saints shall rise to reign with Christ on the earth, when He shall come again. Their souls shall leave the locality in which they have been waiting, to inhabit incorruptible bodies made like unto the glorious body of Christ (Phil. iii. 21;

1 John iii. 2). They shall be the subjects of a peculiar and special resurrection, which is called the manifestation of the Sons of God (Rom. viii. 19); for there are two distinct resurrections revealed in Scripture. They that are Christ's shall rise at His coming (1 Cor. xv. 23; 1 Thess. iv. 16), when the Lord shall descend from Heaven with a shout, with the voice of the Archangel and with the trump of God. They shall rise to reign with Christ upon the earth, in His kingdom, (Dan. vii. 18, 27; Matt. v. 5; 2 Tim. ii. 12; iv. 8; Rev. iii. 21; v. 10,) first during the millenial age, which is the dawn of the eternal day, the preparatory dispensation during which the Saviour is giving effect to the great purposes of redemption (Rev. xx. 4), and then during the everlasting reign of glory which is to follow after all things shall have been made new, (Rev. xxii. 5,) when Christ shall wield His peaceful sceptre over a ransomed and a renovated world.

Such are the glorious prospects held out to the expectations of the Church in this passage; not to martyrs merely, but to all who have been the faithful followers of Jesus. And the grand object of this glorious consummation of the Saviour's work is, to promote and establish the happiness and holiness of His saints; for these two are inseparably connected together: "Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection."

DANIEL BAGOT, Dean of Dromore.

RECOLLECTIONS OF WILLIAM WILBERFORCE.

Recollections of William Wilberforce, Esq., during nearly Thirty Years. By John S. Harford, Esq., D.C.L., F.R.S. London: Longman & Co. 1864.

WE thank Mr. Harford for his volume. It is true that it does not add materially to our information, and gives but few traits of Wilberforce which we did not know already; but this could hardly be avoided, when the author had already communicated to the sons of his friend, for their Memoir, the information which he possessed. Then his recollection was fresh; now he recalls, after the lapse of many years, incidents which have somewhat faded from the mind. Still, we thank Mr. Harford for taking us back to stirring days, and to men of whom there are now few survivors. The stream of life runs so fast, that it soon carries us far away from banks which once were busy with living figures, and fragrant with their words and deeds. Our bark glides so quickly down its course to the eternal ocean, that we soon lose sight of those from whom but