possible, even if not probable, that God would yet restore to the literal Israel the forfeited theocracy with the mysterious Urim and Thummim, although we have no right to assume that they did not consider such restoration to be probable as well as possible, when, as in the days of David (1 ̊Sam. xxix. 7, 8), inquiry could be made, and an answer be immediately received from the Lord" (Ezra ii. 63; Nehem. vii. 65). Perhaps it is not unfair to suppose, that this speech of Zerubbabel may furnish us with a reasonably probable clue to the view of prophetic interpretation entertained by himself, and Jeshua, and other pious Jews who returned with them. We might thus be led to infer that at the time of the restoration from Babylon, the devout servants of God interpreted of the literal Judah, Jerusalem, Ephraim, and Israel, such portions of the prophetic books as are found in the 11th of Isaiah, the 31st of Jeremiah, the 4th of Micah, and the 37th of Ezekiel. But if we admit this supposition, we can scarcely refrain from advancing a little further. We cannot doubt that Zerubbabel and Jeshua were personally acquainted with Daniel at Babylon, and that they received from that illustrious prophet much counsel and encouragement when on the point of leaving the banks of the Euphrates for the vicinity of Jordan. They would not be likely to hold a theory of prophetic interpretation directly opposed to the mind and judgment of such a man, and such a prophet. We might thus infer that Daniel himself (and, if so, his three friends who were cast into the furnace at the command of Nebuchadnezzar) applied the glorious predictions alluded to above, to the literal Jerusalem, Judah, Ephraim, and Israel. Simeon and Anna would seem to have been of a similar opinion; and the manner and language of Mary to her Son, at the marriage-feast in Cana, leaves us little difficulty in discovering how she understood the words of Gabriel-" And the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David; and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end." The disciples of Jesus, also, continued to hold the expectation that a glorious future was in reserve for the literal seed of Jacob, as distinguished from the Gentiles, even after they had listened to their risen Lord, while, on different occasions, during the forty days which intervened between his resurrection and ascension, he spake to them "of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God." For, on the day of his ascension, "they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou, at this time, restore again the kingdom to Israel?" Did the risen Saviour reprove them for still cherishing, after he had himself

spoken to them so largely of the kingdom of God, a worldly and carnal sentiment? No such thing. "And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. But ye shall receive power after that the Holy Ghost has come upon you and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost parts of the earth.” There is no injunction here to renounce the notion of a restoration of the kingdom of the literal Israel under the risen Jesus; the disciples are told to leave times and seasons with the Father, while their own especial sphere of duty is pointed out. But was no other reply vouchsafed to their important question? We are, perhaps, scarcely justified in peremptorily affirming, that no further notice was taken of it. For we read, that "while the disciples looked steadfastly toward heaven, as Jesus went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel, which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven." May not these two men in white have been messengers sent by the Father, who had placed the times and seasons in his own power, to give to the inquiring disciples the only reply which, in his infinite wisdom, he deemed proper to be vouchsafed at that time-viz., that Christ would one day personally descend to earth in a cloud, as they had just seen him ascend, and that then, and not until then, would the kingdom be restored to Israel? They who are disposed to receive this view, may think it possible to see here a prediction of the Lord's premillennial advent, and the subsequent re-establish

* The late Mr Faber was, we believe, very decidedly opposed to the doctrine of a personal premillennial advent of the Lord Jesus. Yet, in one of his latest publications-"The Revival of the French Emperorship," p. 49-he makes the following admission :-"There is considerable reason to believe, that the final destruction of the irreclaimable antichristian powers will be effected by volcanic agency: and, from some prophecies, particularly that contained in the last chapter of Zechariah, no person can be blamed for expecting a literal,* though only temporary, manifestation of our Lord on the summit of the Mount of Olives."

When commenting on Isa. lxiii. 1-" Who is this that cometh from Edom, with dyed garments from Bozrah?" Mr Scott very properly observes, that "it is remarkable that many have understood it of the sufferings of Christ, and of his being covered with his own blood; though nothing can be more evident than that he is represented by the prophets as covered with the blood of his enemies, and as a mighty conqueror and avenger, and not as a lamb slain for sacrifice." To many it will appear to be not less remarkable, that this pious and able writer should have brought himself to think that the pre

*The italics are Mr Faber's.

ment of the kingdom of Israel upon earth, under himself as the true David.

We do not wish to extend this paper to an inconvenient length, and hope to have the opportunity of again resuming the subject.

ART. III.-IS THE ADVENT OF CHRIST PREMILLENNIAL?

By evidence truth is discovered. Argument should be to that end, not for victory. On this principle, the following subject of inquiry is directed, Whether Christ is to come again on earth at the general resurrection and final end of the world, or before that period which is called the "millennium?"

If it be true that the literal interpretation of unfulfilled prophecy relative to the restoration of the Jews to their own land, and their future pre-eminence among the nations, is not in accord with the commonly-received opinion in the Church, we believe it to be no less true that the commonly-received opinion is not in accordance with the prevalent belief of the primitive Churches for the first two centuries. The English Church enjoins no precise rule of faith on this subject, excepting so far as the writings of her reformers and divines may incline to, and thence have perpetuated the common opinion, which appears to have taken its beginning and shape from the opposition which the earlier belief encountered from the allegorical interpretations of the Alexandrine school in the the third century.* Fulfilled dictions of Zech. xiv. 1-4 were fulfilled at the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans under Titus the son of Vespasian.

They who have advanced so far as to expect a literal, though only temporary, manifestation of our Lord on the summit of the Mount of Olives, as the yet future time when Zech. xiv. 2-4 shall be fulfilled, will not be long in advancing yet further, and expecting a literal and personal, but not merely temporary, manifestation of their Lord.

* Burnet, in his " Theory of the Earth," says, "St John outlived all the rest of the apostles, and towards the latter end of his life, being banished into the isle of Patmos, he writ his Apocalypse, wherein he hath given us a more full and distinct account of the millennial kingdom of Christ than any of the prophets and apostles before him. Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, and Martyr, one of St John's auditors, as Irenæus (lib. v. c. 33) testifies, taught the same doctrine as St John. He was the familiar friend of Polycarp, another of St John's disciples, and either from him, or immediately from St John's mouth, he might receive this doctrine. That he taught it in the Church, is agreed on all hands, both by those that are his followers, as Irenæus, and those who are not well-wishers to this doctrine, as Eusebius and Jerome." "There is also another channel wherein this doctrine is traditionally derived from St John-namely, by the clergy of Asia, as Irenæus tells us in

prophecy, of which history is the best interpreter, is not, too, made a necessary branch of study and preparation for the ministry; either as one kind of evidence of the truth of Scripture, on which the Church relies, or to serve as a guide to the meaning and bearing of the unfulfilled prophecies; hence individual bent, or opportunity afterwards for the study, appears to be the sole cause of exceptions to the prevailing opinion, and it is worthy of remark, that the exceptions are to be found mainly, if not altogether, among those who have made prophecy their particular study.

the same chapter. For, arguing the point, he shews that the blessing promised to Jacob from his father Isaac was not made good to him in this life, and therefore he says, without doubt these words had a further aim and prospect upon the times of the kingdom (so they used to call the millennial state) when the just, rising from the dead, shall reign; and when nature, renewed and set at liberty, shall yield plenty and abundance of all things, being blessed with the dew of heaven and a great fertility of the earth. According as has been related by those ecclesiastics or clergy, who see (saw) St John, the disciple of Christ, and heard of him what our Lord had taught concerning those times.' This, you see, goes to the fountain-head. The Christian clergy receive it from St John, and St John relates it from the mouth of our Saviour.

"As to the propagation and prevailing of it in the primitive Church, we can bring a witness beyond all exception, Justin Martyr (in his dialogue with Tryphon the Jew). He was contemporary with Irenæus, and his senior. He says, That himself and all the orthodox Christians of his time did acknowledge the resurrection of the flesh, and a thousand years' reign in Jerusalem restored. According as the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others attest with common consent. As St Peter had said before (Acts iii. 21), that all the prophets had spoken of it.' Then he quotes the 65th chapter of Isaiah; and to shew the Jew, with whom he had the discourse, that it was the sense of our prophets as well as theirs, he tells him that 'a certain man amongst us Christians, by name John, one of the apostles of Christ, in a revelation made to him, did prophesy that the faithful believers in Christ should live a thousand years in the New Jerusalem, and after that should be the general resurrection and day of judgment.' Thus you have the thoughts and sentiments of Justin Martyr as to himself, as to all the reputed orthodox of his time, as to the sense of the prophets of the Old Testament, and as to the sense of St John in the Apocalypse.

"To these three witnesses, Papias, Irenæus, and Justin Martyr, we may add two more within the second age of the Church-Melito, bishop of Sardis, and St Barnabas, or whoever was the author of the epistle under his name. For these authors do not set it down as a private opinion of their own, but as a Christian doctrine, or an apostolical tradition. 'Tis remarkable what Papias says of himself, and his way of learning, in his book, called 'The Explanation of the Words of the Lord.' St Jerome gives an account of it; he says, in his preface, he did not follow various opinions, but had the apostles for his authors, and that he considered what Andrew, what Peter said; what Philip, what Thomas, and other disciples of the Lord; as also what Aristion, and John the senior, disciples of the Lord, what they spoke; and that he did not profit so much by reading books, as by the living voice of these persons, which resounded from them to that day.

"For there is not extant either the writing, name, or memory of any person that contested this doctrine in the first and second centuries. I say that

I would here express my unqualified dissent from that objective opinion I have known to have been urged against the study of unfulfilled prophecy, which would escape from the difficulties of its position by maintaining that prophecy was intended only to shew the truthfulness of God after the event had come to pass. It is the abuse, not the right use, which is to be deprecated. Prophecy is a stimulus to hope by a prospective view, as well as a stimulus to faith by a reflex view. St Peter writes, "We have also a more sure word of prophecy, whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as to a light that called in question this millenary doctrine, proposed after a Christian manner, unless such heretics as denied the resurrection altogether, or such Christians as denied the divine authority of the Apocalypse.

"We proceed now to the third century. Where you find Tertullian, Origen, Victorinus, bishop and martyr; Nepos, Ægyptius, Cyprian, and at the end of it, Lactantius, all openly professing, or implicitly favouring, the millenary doctrine.

"But, however, the fathers of the Nicene Council, about the year 325, are themselves our witnesses on this point. For in their ecclesiastical forms, or constitutions, in the chapter about the providence of God, and about the world, they speak thus: The world was made meaner, or less perfect, providentially; for God (did) foresee that man would sin. Wherefore we expect new heavens and a new earth, according to the Holy Scriptures, at the appearance and kingdom of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ. And then, as Daniel says (chap. vii. 18), the saints of the Most High shall take the kingdom. And the earth shall be pure and holy; the land of the living, not of the dead, which David foreseeing by the eye of faith, cries out (Ps. xxvii. 13), I believe to see the good things of the Lord in the land of the living. Our Saviour says, Happy are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth (Matt. v. 5); and the prophet Isaiah says (chap. xxvi. 6), The feet of the meek and lowly shall tread upon it.' So you see, according to the judgment of these fathers, there will be a kingdom of Christ upon earth; and, moreover, that it will be the new heavens and the new earth. And in both these points they cite the prophets, and our Saviour in confirmation of them.

"The Christian millenary doctrine was not called in question, so far as appears in history, before the middle of the third century, when Dionysius Alexandrinus writ against Nepos, an Egyptian bishop, who had declared himself upon this subject. But we do not find that this book had any great effect; for the declaration or constitution of the Nicene fathers was after; and in St Jerome's time, who writ towards the end of the fourth century, this doctrine had so much credit, that he who was its greatest adversary yet durst not condemn it, as he says himself Which things or doctrines (speaking of the millennium), though we do not follow, yet we cannot condemn, because many of our churchmen and martyrs have affirmed these things.'

"And when Apollinarius replied to that book of Dionysius, St Jerome says, That not only those of his own sect, but a great multitude of other Christians, did agree with Apollinarius in that particular, that I now foresee how many will be enraged against me for what I have spoken against the millenary doctrine.'

"We may therefore conclude that, in St Jerome's time, the Millenaries made the greater part in the Church; for a little matter would not have frighted him from censuring their opinion. St Jerome was a rough and rugged saint, and an unfair adversary, that usually run down with heat and violence what stood in his way."