Preface to the Second Edition

In revising this volume for a second edition, I have refrained from any material alteration. A few verbal changes have been made, and some notes added in different places, chiefly in the way of quotation from writers of note, such as that in p. 124 from Dr Owen, respecting Christ’s intercession.

Objections have been taken to some expressions in my preface, as if I had misstated the position and arguments of Post-Millennialists. I am not persuaded that I have done so. I did not mean to assert that they have not gone beyond a “may be” in their conclusions; or that they have not come to a “must be” in regard to their system. Nor did I mean to suggest that they did not think their position stable, or their arguments conclusive. I merely maintained, and do still maintain, that in order to reach this conclusiveness and certainty, they have to call in the aid of general systems and inferences from systems, and that it is by mea.ns of these that they raise their “may be” into a “must be,”

XXV111 P^FACE TO SECOND EDITION.

Take, as an example, the twentieth chapter of the Revelation. I have no doubt that Post-Millennialists have come to the conclusion, that the prediction there must refer to a spiritual, and not to a literal resurrection. But how did they reach this inference? Was it by the simple examination of text and context? No. The examination of these brings them only to this, that the passage admits of a figurative interpretation. In order to demonstrate that the words cannot be understood literally, general conclusions from systems and doctrines are brought to bear upon them; so that the “must be” is not educed from the language itself, but from other sources entirely, which are made use of in order to make the prophet speak in a more decided (not to say a different) tone than he seems to do of his own accord.

Or take the prediction in Isaiah xxv. 8, “He will swallow up death in victory.” The words, in their natural sense, distinctly point to the resurrection; and the Apostle Paul quotes them in this sense. So that we have two things determining the literality of the promise, — first, the words themselves, — and secondly, an apostle’s interpretation of them. But, then, if this be admitted, the Pre-Millennial advent and resurrection must be admitted too. In order, therefore, to avoid this, a figurative meaning is sought for these words; and it is maintained that the passage may point to a figurative resurrection. Here, again, it is plain that the natural sense of the passage is the literal one; but the attempt is made to shew that it may admit of a figurative one; and then when this “may be” has been proved, it is elevated into a “must be” by means of inferential considerations.

Or take the prediction in Daniel xii. 2, “Many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.” This seems very plainly to refer to the resurrection of the body, like the previous passage from Isaiah. The words themselves are so explicit, that it is difficult to fasten another meaning upon them. A figurative meaning, however, has been foimd for them. But, then, all that can be said is, that such may be the meaning of the words. In order to arrive at the “must be,” various collateral inferences, apart from the passage itself, must be made to bear upon them. And is not this just saying, that, but for the danger of Pre-Millennialism, the literal meaning of the prophecy ought to have been adhered to?

Or, lastly, take the expression in the fifth chapter of the Revelation, “We shall reign on the earth.” Post-Millennialists think the figurative meaning of these words the only true one. But the question is, How did they arrive at their “must be “here? Not from the words themselves; for the utmost that can be said of them is, that they may admit of a figurative sense. The w must be” is derived from other quarters, and is the result of general conclusions from systems and doctrines.

But can this be called a safe and warrantable procedure? Are we not to take the words of Scripture just as we do the words of our Confession of Faith, in their natural sense? And is it not wrong to bring in our own inferential difficulties as a reason for preferring the non-natural sense? Why should we not do with the words of God just as we do with the words of man ?*

Kelso, December 1847.

* In using the term Millennarian, as descriptive of the opinions of those who hold the literal advent and reign, I do not mean to cast reflections upon our opponents, as if they did not believe in a millennium. I merely use the word in the sense in which it has been almost universally used for the last half century, and in which the Fathers used Chiliasm. Indeed, both of these words seem to have been originally terms of reproach, (like Methodism,) given by their adversaries, and afterwards finding their way into general use.