reasonings. Instead, he conducts his discussion throughout in as complete independence and disregard of them, as he could, had he been treating a question in agriculture, or a theory in geology. Beyond its omission, moreover, he exhibits the most ample proofs that he is altogether unacquainted with the subject. He manifestly has not studied it, at least with any success; as he perpetually falls into mistakes and absurdities, which no one would commit who had become in any tolerable degree familiar with it. He has no conception, for example, of the first great law of symbols, that representative agents denote agents, not qualities, acts, or conditions; and that acts represent acts, and effects effects. Nor has he any suspicion that expressions, in order to be figurative, must involve a figure of a specific kind that can be identified and defined; and that the nominative of a figurative expression, or the subject to which it is applied, is always used in its literal sense. These and the other fundamental laws of interpretation, lie as completely out of the sweep of his vision as the truths and principles of any other branch of knowledge to which he has never given any attention. This fact is alone sufficient to shew that his work is not of any critical value. His pretence that he has confuted pre-millennialism is a sheer absurdity. He might as well affect to confute a proposition in Euclid, without a knowledge of the laws of geometry. If pre-millennialism is false, the principles by which it is to be refuted must be wholly different from those on which he proceeds. How can he refute a doctrine when totally ignorant of the criteria by which its character is to be determined? His book is, accordingly, what a work would be on astronomy, written in ignorance of gravitation and the laws of the planetary movements, and professing, on the theory that facts accord with appearances, to demonstrate that the earth is at the centre of the universe, and stationary, and the seeming motion of the heavens real, and their revolution round the earth the cause of the succession of day and night.

Proceeding as he thus does, in entire disregard of the proper means of determining the question, it results of necessity that he resorts to methods that are inappropriate and deceptive. His principal expedient is by assumption, speculation in regard to what befits the Almighty, and deduction from passages of Scripture that relate chiefly to other subjects, to establish a theory of the divine administration that contravenes the doctrine of Christ's premillennial advent; and then by the use of that theory as a law of construction, to set aside the prophecies that directly treat of Christ's coming, the

resurrection and reign of the saints, and the other subjects in question. Nearly two-thirds of his volume are devoted to that task. The method he pursues accordingly, instead of being legitimate, is like that of Universalists, the deniers of the resurrection of the body, the rejecters of God's foreknowledge, and the asserters of the independence of the will, who first gratuitously assume some proposition involving their doctrine, or deduce it by a process of false logic, and then use it to wrench plain and emphatic passages that contradict it, from their true meaning, and force them into harmony with their pre-established scheme.

"The means, also, which he employs to demonstrate his theory, are as exceptionable and untrustworthy as the general plan of his discussion. His chief expedient is the employment of testimonies to sustain his propositions, that yield them no support whatever. No characteristic of his work is more indubitable and conspicuous, than the deceptibleness and sophistry of its reasonings. He states his propositions with sufficient clearness, and goes through the form of demonstrating them but the passages which he alleges as proofs, usually present no ground whatever for the results he deduces from them, and answer no other end than to enable him gratuitously to assume them with an air of demonstration. Thus to prove that all who die are to be raised at the same time, he quotes passages that simply teach that all are to be raised; and to demonstrate that all are to be judged at the same epoch, offers texts that merely show that all are to be judged. This is so usual, that no reliance whatever is to be placed on his mere assertion, or logic. Antecedently to examination, the proba balities may generally be safely assumed to be ten to one against his accuracy. The means, also, which he customarily employs to convince his readers of the truth of his conclusions, are as deceptive and preposterous as his logic. It is the mere assumption or bold and positive assertion that the meaning of the passages which he quotes is what he claims it to be; not a critical evolution of their import, and demonstration by their proper laws, that they teach that which he employs them to sustain. There is scarce an example throughout the whole course of his discussion of the use of anything else than mere dogmatical asseveration, to demonstrate the truth of the constructions he places on his proof texts. He acts the oracle on all occasions, and settles questions of all sorts by mere authority.

"Unfortunately, however, these are not his only faults. Not content with endeavouring to confute premillennialists, he attempts also, by unworthy arts, to render them the objects of

suspicion, prejudice, and contempt to his readers. One of his favourite expedients for the purpose, is the exhibition of the different constructions they have placed on prophetic passages, and display in the most piquant form of the errors and extravagances into which they have run; and treatment of those faults, as proofs that their whole views are altogether erroneous; or that they are so deficient in knowledge, judgment, or taste, as to be entitled only to ridicule and contempt. We shall not apologize for their errors or absurdities; they are unquestionably very numerous. But numerous and great as they are, it is to speak with moderation to say that they are not greater, either in number or importance, than those of their antagonists on the same subjects, nor than may be culled on other themes from the writings of men highly respectable for their talents, learning, and piety. There is not a doctrine or fact of Scripture that may not be run down and disgraced with equal effect, by such raillery and banter as Mr Brown employs in nearly every chapter, to render those whom he assails the objects of laughter and scorn.

"Another favourite artifice to which he resorts to inflame his readers with disgust at their doctrines and detestation of their character, is the gratuitous and calumniatory imputation to them of infamous dispositions and principles, and representation of their system as leading to false and mischievous results, to which it not only has no tendency, but is irreconcilably hostile. Sensuousness, Judaism, a denial of the efficacy of the gospel, a disparagement of the influences of the Spirit, a hostility to missions, a subversion of the great doctrines of grace, a tendency to universalism, are among the accusations with which he thus attempts to brand and disgrace them. This is not simply unjust towards them, it is discreditable also to him; as having himself once been a premillennialist, and of an ultra school, it is equivalent to an acknowledgment and profession that he was himself tinged with those antichristian doctrines, and felt those fatal tendencies while he was under the dominion of the system. How, unless he was himself conscious of them, can he, without a particle of ground for it, except what he affects to find in the system, treat them as indisputably obnoxious to those infamous imputations? It could only be in utter recklessness. If sincere, therefore, they are to be taken, for aught we see, as confessions, virtually, of what he himself then believed and felt, and should consign him to the discredit of which he aims by them to make others the objects.*

"Mr Brown calls the premillennial, a 'giddy theory.' We think he

"Such is the work of this champion of anti-millenarianism, which is regarded by his party as a triumphant defence of their system, and confutation of those who look for Christ's coming and the resurrection of the saints at the commencement of the thousand years. That we have not misjudged its character, or overdrawn its faults, the reader will have the most ample proofs in the examination to which we are to subject it. Several replies have been published in Great Britain, but we have only that already quoted at hand, and shall not think it necessary to refer to them. Our object is not to vindicate the writers whom he assails, nor to show that no views held by millenarians are obnoxious to objection; but simply to try the great questions treated by him by the indisputable laws of language and symbols, unfold and demonstrate the truth, and show the inappropriateness and deceptiveness of the means by which he attempts to confound and overwhelm it. We shall not deem it necessary to refute all his misrepresentations, or notice all his mistakes. It will be enough to show that all the great elements of his system are false.

"After explaining in his introduction, the object of his work, pointing out the importance of the question, and stating his views of the theory entertained by millenarians, he proceeds to allege what he denominates the Scripture evidence against it,' in a series of propositions, of which the following is the first:

should have paused before he applied such a term to a view which has been held by such men as Twiss, Mede, Thos. Goodwin, Gill, Toplady, Milton, Hailes, Newton, Horseley, and Cowper,-not to mention others now living, of whose names the Free Church of Scotland, at least, has no need to be ashamed. But giddy or not, we understand that Mr Brown was himself at one time a staunch advocate of these very principles. We are inclined to think, from the articles now before us, that having at that period gone the whole length of the more intemperate views which have been promulgated on this subject, and having discovered that these were untenable, he has rejected the whole doctrine with as little consideration as he adopted it at first. He seems not to understand how any one can entertain more sober principles on this subject than he himself did at one time; and this may account for the constant reference he makes to the more crude theories which have been put forth.”—An Affirmative Answer to Mr Brown's question, Will the Second Advent of our Lord be Premillennial? By the Rev. Walter Wood, Minister at Elie, Fife. Edinburgh, 1846. Pp. 32, 33.

"This indicates the reason, probably, that he takes no notice of the errors of the late Mr Irving. On perceiving that a main object of his volume is to disgrace millenarians, we expected to see the absurd extravagances and lamentable delusions of that gifted being presented in their full dimensions. Not a solitary allusion, however, is made to him in the work! Were Mr Brown of a temperament that could be instructed, he would naturally, after so humiliating an experience, have become in some measure distrustful of himself. He is still, however, as unbounded as he can then have been in his self-confidence, and as heated in his zeal. He has only changed his object."

"Proposition first.—The Church will be absolutely complete at Christ's

coming.

"If this can be established, the whole system falls to the ground. If all that are to be saved will be brought in before Christ comes, of course there can be none to come in after his advent.

"The difficulty here is not to find proof of the point, but anything like evidence to the contrary. No plain reader of the Bible ever doubts that the church will be completed ere Christ comes; not a few even of the pre-millennialists themselves have been constrained to admit it-with what effect upon the sobriety of their own views we shall by and by see; and even those who deny it, give evidence of the extreme weakness of their ground, and virtually concede the point by admitting that the Bride' of Christ will be complete, though they contend that the whole number of the saved, whom they distinguish from the Bride.' will not."-Pp. 53, 54.

"This is certainly boldly asserted. What now are the considerations by which he attempts to demonstrate it? It will indicate but little skill, if, with such an amplitude of proof, and nothing like evidence to the contrary,' he neither sustains nor even alleges anything that has a bearing on it. Of a series of passages which he quotes, and pronounces quite decisive, the following is the first :

"1 Cor. xv. 23. 'But each party—êkaσTos dè—in his order, Christ the first fruit; afterwards, they that are Christ's at his coming.'

"Any one who even glances at this sublime chapter, will see that the burden of it is the resurrection of BELIEVERS in general-of 'them that are Christ's,' considered as the second Adam. As their death is deduced from their federal relation to the first Adam, so their resurrection is argued from their federal connexion with the second. 'As in Adam (they) all die, even

so in Christ shall (they) all be made alive.' And it is immediately after this that the apostle says, 'But each (party) in his own order'—that is the federal head, and those federally related to him-' Christ the first fruits; afterwards they that are Christ's-(the full harvest of them) at his coming.

"Can anything be more decisive than this? What commentator explains it otherwise? What unbiassed reader ever understood it otherwise? Is it not then a very bold liberty with the word of God, to say that only a fractional part of them that are Christ's are here spoken of?-Pp. 54, 55.

"His construction, however, is altogether untenable. In the first place, he is mistaken in assuming that the argument from which it is quoted, refers solely to the resurrection of the holy. He may, indeed, find respectable commentators who regard it as treating only of that class of the dead; but it is inconsistent both with the question in discussion with the apostle, and the import of his terms. The subject in debate between him and the false teachers whom he was opposing, is the resurrection of the dead, without consideration whether they are holy or unholy. The doctrine taught by them was ὅτι ἀνάστασις νεκρῶν οὐκ ἐστιν, that there is not a resurrection