Thus much, then, in regard to the opposite views prevalent in the Church of this day, as to what constitutes the scriptural doctrine of the second coming of Christ and of the future judgment. But we now deferentially submit, that we have pointed out the fallacy of the various theories:

I. That all that the prophetic Scriptures teach on this subject, were verified by the return of the Jews from the Babylonish captivity.

II. That they were verified by the events which preceded, accomplished, and followed the invasion and destruction of Jerusalem, etc., by the Roman army, in a. D. 70.

III. That they received their accomplishment by the overthrow of paganism and the establishment of Christianity in the Roman empire under Constantine the Great at and after A. D. 323; and also,

IV. Of those who allege, that the kingdom and reign of Christ on earth at His second coming will be spiritual; and that 66 the times of the Gentiles" are identical with the establishment of the Christian Church, the dispensation of which is to continue until the close of the millennial age, etc. And finally,

V. In addition to the inferences derivable from our scriptural arguments and historical and philosophical facts against the second personal coming of Christ as being post-millennial; what we have advanced by way of a direct argument, as demonstrative that, when that event does take place, it will be pre-millennial; we have adduced the scriptural proof, that the ideas and language of the New Testament writers in reference to the second personal coming of Christ and the judgment of the great day as future, were all derived from and founded upon the prophetical statement of the inspired pre-Christian Jewish writers regarding them. This last-named circumstance of itself, unless it can be shown to be fallacious, settles forever the question as to the foundation of the synchronisms of the Gospels, Epistles, and the Apocalypse, with the Book of Daniel, in regard to this great fundamental doctrine of the judgment-coming of the Lord; and it cannot fail to appeal, with a corresponding force and power, to the heart and conscience of every lover of the truth as it is in Christ.

It may, however, be of service here to present the divergence

between the prevailing theory and its opposite, in juxtaposition, thus it is maintained

By the Church at large,

1. That the second personal coming of Christ is post-millennial, and that the day of judgment does not commence until the close of that period.

By us,

That the second personal coming of Christ is pre-millennial, and that the day of judgment commences at the opening of that period.

That then "the dead in Christ are

2. That all the dead, both righteous and wicked, are then to be simultane- | raised first, and the living saints changed ously raised, and being tried, are justified and glorified; while "the rest of the or condemned, the righteous being taken dead" (i. e., the wicked dead) are not to heaven, and the wicked consigned to raised “until the thousand years are endhell. And, ed." (Rev. xx. 5.)

3. That the day of judgment is limited to the short period of a natural day of twenty-four hours.

That the day of judgment runs coeval with the whole period of the millennium of a thousand years.

In conclusion, then, we observe,

First. It is clear that these conflicting views, so absolutely antipodal, cannot both be according to "the mind of the Spirit," as revealed in Holy Scripture. Nor can it be pretended on any legitimate principles of scriptural interpretation, that the voice of the many against the comparatively few, is any evidence of the truth of the popular theory on this subject. To admit this, would be to reverse the order of evidence in proof of any doctrine of Holy Scripture. "VOX POPULI, VOX DEI"-the voice of the people is the voice of God-is not the criterion by which to decide the question, "What is truth?" It was the voice of the people, both Jews and Gentiles, that crucified God's dear Son!' while, except the weeping Mary, and Joanna, and Susanna, etc., who clung around the cross to the last, even the few timid disciples who had followed Jesus during his ministry, "stood afar off!" Indeed, all history shows, that the true faith of the Church, doctrinally, has always been found, not with the many, but with the few. It was so at the time of the flood. It was so in the time of Abraham. It was so in the time of the prophet Elijah. It was so at the time of the first coming of our blessed Lord, and also during His ministry and that of His apostles. And Christ himself declared prophetically, that so it shall be immediately before and at the time of His second appearing: "As

6

1 Acts ii. 23; iv. 10-55. 4 Josh. xxiv. 2, 3, and verses 14, 15.

2 Matt. xxvi. 58; xxvii. 55.

31 Pet. iii. 2).

2 Kings xix. 18.

6 Luke xii. 82.

2

66

it was in the days of Noah," etc., cven so shall it be in the days of the Son of Man." And to this St. Paul prophetically adds that "that day shall not come, except there come a falling away (amoσTaσia) first." While St. Peter, speaking prophetically of the same event, declares, that "in the last day shall scoffers arise, walking after their own lusts, and saying, Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers have fallen asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation." "

Does it not then behoove us to beware, lest we at this day should be found among the "scoffers" of these "last times?" And,

Second. We may see from this subject the error, yea more, the palpable injustice of confounding, as many do, the millenarian system of interpreting the prophetic Scriptures-which is that substantially advocated by us-with that of Millerism. The truth of the matter is, that Millerism differs in nothing from the popular theory respecting the day of judgment as future, except in the single article of anticipating the time of Christ's second coming. Both affirm that Christ is to come at the close of "the times of the Gentiles," with this difference: according to the popularly received views, that event is not to transpire for some 1500 years or more; whereas the Father of Millerism, alleging that "the times of the Gentiles" closed in A. D. 1843, as terminating the 6000 years from the creation and fall, affirmed that Christ would come then, simultaneously raise the dead, both just and unjust, save the righteous, destroy the wicked, and wrap the globe in the flames of the last universal conflagration, etc.; having done which, mankind were to enter upon their eternal state of bliss or of woe.

On the other hand, millenarianism maintains that "the times of the Gentiles," and the millennial period of the Church, are two separate and distinct dispensations; and also, that while Christ's second coming is pre-millennial, the universal conflagration is postmillennial. And hence, that time does not close, and eternity begin, at the termination of the "times of the Gentiles; " but that it continues to run on to the end of the peace, prosperity, universal

1 Matt. xxiv. 37-39.

22 Thess. ii. 1-8. See Note A.

3 2 Pet. iii. 2-4.

righteousness and glory to man, of the mild and benignant reign of "THE PRINCE OF PEACE.”

The way is now prepared, for the discussion of the only remaining topic directly connected with "the great theological question" in reference to the Second Coming of Christ, as indicated by the following chapter.

CHAPTER V.

SACRED PHILOSOPHY, CONSIDERED IN ITS APPLICATION TO THE SCRIPTURAL DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST, AND OF THE RIGHTEOUS AND THE WICKED DEAD, AS DEPENDENT UPON, AND CONNECTED WITH, HIS SECOND COMING.

HAVING, in the preceding pages, agreeably to my original design, discussed at considerable length the various theories which relate to THE SECOND COMING OF CHRIST, whether it is to be pre- or post-millennial; the subject of the mode or manner of that coming calls for additional remark.

The question regarding it involves a more extended inquiry into THE NATURE OF THE RESURRECTED STATE, in its application to our blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and to the dead, both just and unjust.

The question is, Does it consist of a purely spiritual, or of a literal or corporeal resurrection? On this subject we premise,

1. That, whatever was the mode or form of the resurrection of our Lord, that mode or form will characterize the resurrection of "all that are in their graves" generally; and, in respect to the saints in particular, there will be an exact correspondence between it and the resurrected state of CHRIST, in accordance with the explicit declaration of the Apostle John, 1st Epis., chap. iii. 2: “Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be, but we know that when He shall appear, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is." But,

2. The popularly received theory of the Church of this day is, that the righteous, at the instant of death, enter upon a state of