Daniel

Ir may be well, first of all, to give the words of the prophet which are more directly the subject of discussion. After sketching the broad features of the four successive empires, — specially of the fourth, and of the little horn that was to arise in it, the prophet thus proceeds, — “I beheld till the thrones were cast down (or ‘set,’ as Mr Brown prefers to render it,) and the Ancient of Days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool; his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire. A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him; THOUSAND THOUSANDS MINISTERED UNTO HIM, AND TEN THOUSAND TIMES TEN THOUSAND STOOD BEFORE HIM; THE JUDGMENT WAS SET AND ae BOOKS WERE OPENED. .I1 saw in the night visions, and behold, oNE LIKE THE SON OF MAN CAME WITH THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN, and came to the Ancient of Days; and they brought him near before him; and there was given him dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.” On this prediction we offer the following remarks.

1. The event or events depicted, occur in the latter times of the Roman empire, and during the tyranny of the “little horn.” That horn must be in existence and strength for some considerable time before this judgment takes place. If so, then the event here described could have no connection with the first advent of our Lord; nay, must have its historical place assigned to it at least many centuries after that advent. This is generally admitted, and Mr Brown’s exposition takes it for granted.

2. The event or events evidently take place before the millennium, for the issue of this judgment is to put the saints in possession of the kingdom, a kingdom which is said to be “under the whole heaven,” that is, upon the earth, embracing in its compass “all people, nations, and languages.” This also is very generally conceded by all parties; and this is evidently

Mr Brown’s opinion. Thus then the position of this

judgment, whatever it be, is in some measure ascertained, at least relatively, or in reference to other well- —

known events. It must take place between the first advent of the Lord and the millennium, after the former and before the latter.

3. The event depicted cannot be the same as that described in the close of the twentieth chapter of the Revelation, for that occurs at the end of the millennium. This of course sets aside any interpretation which would identify these two scenes of judgment. Whatever difficulty may occur in regard to this vision of judgment as given by Daniel, it cannot be solved by postponing it till after the millennium. It is obviously and confessedly a pre-millennial iis ass. whatever its nature may be.

4, The event depicted, though not the same as that in the conclusion of the twentieth of the Apocalypse, is yet described in language equally explicit, emphatic, and particular; nay, we must say, more explicit, more emphatic, and more particular. The Apocalyptic description of the closing scene of judgment is far briefer and less circumstantial, — far more capable of being sprritualized and explained away. Mr Brown admits that “the symbols and circumstances are all borrowed from the characteristics of the last judgment;” and that “the imagery of the trial is that of the last judgment.”* We are inclined to reverse this statement, and say that the Apocalyptic imagery is taken from Daniel; but the point is one of minor consequence, so that we need not discuss it. The question is not, which of the two predictions is borrowed, but which of them is the fuller, clearer, more circumstantial, more unequivocal? Beyond all question that of Daniel. Why then is it to be explained away till its whole strength and point evaporate, while the other is allowed to stand in its unabated integrity? Why is the natural sense to be unhesitatingly affixed to the briefer, the non-natural to the larger and fuller? Why should Mr Brown think it lawful in him to spiritualize Daniel, and think it unlawful in Dr Bush to apply the same process to the Revelation? He rightly calls Dr Bush’s work on the resurrection “an atrocious work;” yet might not the American Swedenborgian turn round and ask, “Why blame me for treating the briefer Apocalyptic vision as unceremoniously as you have treated the fuller and more circumstantial vision of Daniel? My theory required me to do the former, yours required you to do the latter.” It is certainly singular that Dr Bush should have carried out his principles so as to deny the literality of the judgment in the Apoop * Pp. 129-130.

calypse, yet it is just his way. He drives his system right through every text, and through every creed. He found as little difficulty in spiritualizing Daniel as Mr Brown does; and he finds no difficulty in doing the same to the Apocalypse. He carries out his principles consistently and fearlessly. Let him tell his own mind, and expound his own principles in the following extract : —

“The visioning’ is all spiritual; and that no mention is made of a resurrection, or of bodies, arises from the fact so often adverted to, that a resurrection is not predicated of the wicked, i. e. the spiritually dead. They abide in death as their element; and in this condition they are exhibited to our contemplation. As dead they lived, as dead they died, as dead they are judged. The error, we conceive, is illimitably great to suppose the judgment here described a visible judgment in the natural sphere, the subjects of which are men restored to life and reinvested with bodies. There is not, that we can perceive, the remotest allusion to bodies in the present context.”

“We revert again to the ‘judgment of the dead.’ The great purpose of the Spirit is to intimate that a fitting award was to be meted out to the immense multitudes of those who were written as non-living during the lapse of the thousand years. Though dead in the sight of God as to any acting of true spiritual life, yet they had been sufficiently alive to inflict untold sufferings upon the living witnesses of the truth, and to bring them, from age to age, to the bloody block. It was proper, therefore, that they should be judged — men of all grades and orders — the ‘ great’ and the ‘small,’ 2. ¢., the eminent and the mean. For this purpose ‘the books are opened,’ evidently a symbolical expression denoting simply the fact that their ‘ works’ are all registered in the records of the Divine remembrance as well as their own, as the unquestionable ground of the sentence which is to be pronounced. As the ‘books’ then are a mere figure, a part of the costume of the scene, we infer the same as to the ‘throne, and its occupancy by a visible judge. The whole is emblematic and not real. God does not sit upon a throne, nor does he, like earthly monarchs, keep written archives of the affairs of his kingdom. The imagery portrayed is in accordance with our common notions of judicial proceedings, and is thus best calculated to produce the practical effect designed.” Thus Dr Bush has done for one class of passages what Mr Brown has done for another.* Neither of

*Tt is singular that Hug also should have carried out Mr Brown’s idea about the judgment. He sweeps away the “last judgment” in the Apocalypse as easily as Mr Brown does that of Daniel. According to him, that judgment is, like the them seems to us to give adequate reasons for the spiritualization proposed; and we are not inclined to abandon the natural meaning of these predictions to either, without farther reasons than have as yet been adduced. Dr Bush spiritualizes both classes of texts. He sees no more difficulty in the one than in the other. Mr Brown only spiritualizes one of these classes, but leaves the other untouched. Now, what we desire is a good reason for this inconsistency — a sufficient weight of evidence to show that the one class, which is the fuller and more circumstantial, should be spiritualized, and that the other, which is of the same kind, but Jess minute, should be interpreted in the natural way. Perhaps some one may accuse us of unfairness in thus quoting Dr Bush alongside of Mr Brown. We plead not guilty to the charge. We have not the slightest design of insinuating that there is any real sympathy between the two writers. We are fully persuaded that there is not. But still we cite him. And we think our intention both good and fair. Mr Brown has explained away Daniel’s prediction of the judgment, but he admits the reality of the similar vision given us by John. We ask why has he made

others, “figuratively convoked by the prophets for the purpose of executing the punishment of those who have oppressed the people of God.” — Introduction to the New Testament, vol. ii. p. 671.

this difference? It may be replied, “Oh, no one can deny that John’s vision is of a real judgment.” We answer, this is no proof at all, for still it might be denied on the same principles on which the other is denied. Nay, it has been denied. Hug, Eichhorn, and Bush have applied the same principles to the Apocalypse that they apply to Daniel, and they find no - proof of a real judgment either in the one case or in the other!

We were struck with finding in Dr Bush’s exposition of the passage in Daniel, precisely the same idea as in Mr Brown’s. Both get over the literal sense of the words in the very same way — viz. by denying that the judgment has any thing to do with persons. We do not say that their interpretations are in all respects the same, but they use the same lever to overturn the natural sense. The coincidence is so striking that we shall bring it out in the words of the writers themselves. First, we give Dr Bush: — “Neither the ‘ coming,’ nor the ‘ reigning,’ nor the ‘judging, can be personal and visible, but must be understood as constituting a spiritual and providential administration. Christ’s sitting at the right hand of God is but his plenary investiture with the dignity and dominion pertaining to his mediatorial office; and this office, in its various departments, he continues to exercise onwards from his ascension through the different ages of the church, in its militant state on earth.” *

Then we add Mr Brown’s.

“As the imagery of the trial is that of the last judgment, it was fit that his end should be represented as a consignment of him to hell-fire. Bred of hell, the engine of hell — to hell it is fit it should be seen to go. Systems, indeed, cannot go to hell, strictly speaking, Yet as the trial of them is real, so the destruction of them is as truly judicial as ever the perdition of ungodly men will be at the great day. Only let it be carefully borne in mind, that the scene has nothing to do with peRsons, as persons. It is the trial and condemnation of a system, and of that alone.” +

“Nothing can be more evident than that the judgment which Daniel saw in his vision, is not the judgment of persons at all (save as they may be connected with the system, and involved in its ruins), but purely that judgment of the system, party, or interest of the little horn, and is, in fact, but a sublime symbolical way of expressing the righteousness of antichrist’s destruction.”

Such are the statements of the two writers, and such the way in which they both disturb, or rather

* Py 2g4ae 4 Plagdy? 9) of Pe 92s

PROOF NEEDED. Oars

destroy, the natural and obvious sense of the passage. There is no attempt on the part of either to prove that there is nothing personal in the judgments. They take this for granted. Yet it seems to us the very thing in question, — the very thing which they required specially to prove. If Mr Brown can prove that this judgment has nothing to do with persons, but only with systems, then we admit that he has established a principle which will not only carry him through this passage, but many others, — probably through many more than he is disposed to use it for. But, till this is done, his statement upon this point is entirely a petitio principii, and is also contradicted by the whole vision from first to last. I ask for his proofs; meanwhile, let me offer, for consideration, the following evidence against him.

first. The whole vision of the four empires is one more of persons than of systems. In the vision of the image, everything pertaining to the first empire is strictly personal. “Thou, O king, art a king of kings, for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom... THOU ART THIS HEAD oF God.” And in the description of the first of the beasts, it is Nebuchadnezzar himself also that is presented to us. In ‘the same way with the others. The personal in each

case is the prominent thing. In no case is it systems.

It may be kingdoms, but it is not systems. If then it is persons, not systems, that are presented to us in the vision of the empires, the likelihood is that in the vision of the little horn it is persons and not systems. still.

Secondly. The language relating to the little horn ‘or antichristian power, is most decidedly personal. Let us look at it. We are told that the fourth beast had ten horns, which cannot be well interpreted ten systems, especially when in a subsequent verse it is said, “The ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise.” This is the interpretation of the vision; and taking the meaning of the passage from this, no one would say that it intimated that the ten horns were ten systems.* Besides, if it meant ten systems, what, we ask, were the ten? Is it possible to discover ten separate systems which these ten horns symbolized? Then it is added, that among these ten horns “there came up another little horn.” Does this mean that among these ten systems, there arose another little system? In this case, what can be meant by the interpretation given us in the 24th verse, regarding this little horn? “The ten horns out of this kingdom

* M‘Laurin seems to have had no idea of Mr B.’s theory of systems. He interprets the passage as referring to “a succession of rulers.” On Prophecy, chap. vi. § 4.

are ten KINGS that shall arise; and ANOTHER shall rise after them; and ux shall be diverse from the first, and lix shall subdue three xinG@s; and HE shall speak great words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High; and think to change times and laws;-and they shall be given into nis hand, until a time and times, and the dividing of a time; but the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his DOMINION, to consume and destroy it unto the end.” Can language be conceived more direct and personal than this? Can words like these mean merely “systems”? Let any one try to substitute the word ‘‘system” in the various places in which “horn,” and “king,” and “he” occur, and they will see at once the absurdity of the idea.

Thirdly. The judgment upon the little horn is evidently a thing that has to do with persons, not systems.* The preparations for judgment indicate this,

* Let me ask, has not God already pronounced his judgment upon the system in the Bible? How can he do it more fully, save by a new revelation? Any such judgment as that predicted by Daniel, must be upon persons, not on systems. How can a solemn act of judgment pass upon abstractions? In what way can it be done save by summoning persons? It is always in and by persons that God condemns systems. The personality of every thing in Scripture, is that which so distinguishes it from other writings. It leaves philosophers to sit in judgment upon systems and abstractions; it deals with the real and the personal, whether in judgment or in mercy.

We read, “The thrones were set down, and the Ancient of Days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool; his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire; a fiery stream issued and came forth from before him; thousand thousands ministered to him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him; the judgment was set and the books were opened.” Does not all this wear the decided aspect of a personal judgment upon persons? Are all these preparations made for sweeping away a system? Mr Brown admits that it is “a judicial assize.” A judicial assize for condemning a system! A throne like the fiery flame created for abolishing a system! A fiery stream issuing forth, in order to burn up a system! Thousands ministering around and before the Ancient of Days, in order to sit in judgment on a system! Books opened, in order to condemn a system! All this appears to us strange as well as unscriptural, in the extreme, The tendency of Mr Brown, in various parts of his volume, to substitute systems and influences for persons and realities, appears to me unspeakably dangerous. Nay more, it is unscriptural. All Scripture, from first to last, deals with persons not things, — with persons, not influences, — with persons not interests, — with

persons not systems. Alike in mercy and in judgment,

God is represented as dealing with persons, with nations, with cities, but never with systems. These abstractions may seem fair enough in man’s writings. They do not exist in God’s, apart from the individuals who composethem. No judgment that has ever burst ‘upon the earth from the avenging hand of God, has come upon systems, but always upon persons, or cities, or nations. When the deluge overflowed the world, it was a judgment upon persons, not upon systems, When the fire and brimstone consumed Sodom and Gomorrha, it was a judgment upon persons, not upon systems. When Babylon was swept with the besom of destruction, it was a judgment upon persons, not upon systems. When Jerusalem perished under the vengeance of Jehovah, it was a judgment upon persons, not on systems. And when the great antichristian apostacy shall be consumed and swept away, it shall be, as heretofore, a judgment upon persons, not upon systems. The truth is, that a judgment upon a system alone, has no meaning.* It may be well enough, in ordinary language, to speak of a judgment upon idolatry, a judgment upon Judaism, a judgment upon Mahometanism, a judgment upon Popery. There can be no

* Who ever heard of a bench of judges condemning systems or principles? It is with persons that judges have to do. It is upon gersons that they pronounce judgment, harm in such a form of speech when not overstretched. But when, under cover of these abstract terms, it is at= tempted to be shown that the judgment so circumstantially described in Daniel, is a judgment upon systems, not persons, it is time to point the illegitamacy of such an application of language. Mr Brown seems to have felt this, for he remarks, “systems cannot go to hell, strictly speaking”! Of course not. Persons can go to hell, but systems cannot. Persons can be consumed by the fiery flame issuing from the Judge’s throne, but systems cannot. Persons may be judged out of books that are opened, but systems cannot. Persons can speak great words against the Most High, but systems cannot. Persons can wear out the saints of the Most High, but systems cannot. Persons can change times and laws, but systems cannot. The saints may be given into the hands of a person or persons, but not into the hands of a system. All this comes out with far greater force in reference to the Apocalyptic description of the downfall of Babylon, which is confessedly the same as that of Daniel. How any one can say that the 17th, 18th, and 19th chapters of Revelation describe a judgment upon systems, and not on persons, it passes us to comprehend. The concluding verses of the 19th might settle the whole controversy ; — “These both (systems or persons?) were cast ALIVE into the lake of fire, burning with brimstone.” How can a system be cast alive into a lake of fire? The judgment in Revelation is so full, so circumstantial, so territorial, so thoroughly personal, that it is difficult to see how the systematic or abstract judgment could ever come to be substituted for the direct, the-individual, the real. Is the seven-hilled city a mere system? Is the mother of harlots a mere system 1?

Do we then deny that Popery isa system? By no means. Popery is a system. But it is a system not composed of abstractions, but exhibited in living men. And what we maintain is, that it is upon these living men, (without whom the system is a mere web of air,) that the judgment sits and the vengeance descends. We do not deny that Judaism was a system, — but it was a system worked by living men. Take away the persons, and the system becomes a form of words, We may speak of Judaism being swept away when Jerusalem falls; but when we do so, we refer to the judgments that overtook the persons who composed it, and the desolation that swept over the city and temple where they worshipped. An abstract “sitting in judgment” upon Judaism as a system, apart from the actual outpouring of vengeance upon the Jews, is

what we cannot comprehend. So an abstract sitting. R

in judgment upon antichristianity as a system, apart from the infliction of judgment upon antichristian persons, we do not understand, And certainly this passage of Daniel does not deal in abstract systems, but in personal realities throughout. Yet Mr Brown says —

“Nothing can be more evident than that the judgment which Daniel saw in his vision, is not the judgment of persons at all (save as they may be connected with the system, and involved in its ruins,) but purely the judgment of the system, party, or enterest of the little horn, and is, in fact, but a sublime (?) symbolical way of expressing the righteousness of antichrist’s

destruction.’*

* Ts Mr Brown prepared to say with Dr Arnold, “with the exception of those prophecies which relate to our Lord, the object of prophecy is rather to delineate principles and states of feeling which shall come, than external events”? (Life, vol. i. p. 77,) or again, “if you put, as you may do, Christ for abstract good, and Satan for abstract evil, Ido not think that the notion is so startling, that they are the main and only perfect subjects of prophecy; and that in all other’ cases the language is hyperbolical in some part or other; hyperbolical, I mean, and not merely figurative, Nor can I conceive how on any other supposition the repeated application of the Old Testament language to our Lordynot only by others, but by himself, can be understood to be other than arbitrary,” (vol. ii. p. 218.) Can any thing be more dangerous than this? Is it not the very germ of Straussianism, that Christ is not a person, but an idea? Of course, then, antichrist is not a person or persons, but an idea, a system; and his destruction, ris God’s condemnation of an erroneous idea or system!

Fourthly. If this judgment mentioned in Daniel can be proved to have only to do with systems, then why may it not be proved that the “judgment of the great day,” described in Revelation, is one of systems, not of persons? On Mr Brown’s principles, and with his admissions, it might be proved that there never shall be a real and literal judgment.* And if it is admitted that in the one case there is to be a literal judgment, why should it not be admitted in the other? Dr Bush has set himself to prove that it is inadmissible in both. Mr Brown must show us why it is admissible in the one case, and not in the other. Dr Bush does not hide his chief reason for his opinion. It is simply this, that his theory of the resurrection will not admit of it. But we are persuaded that Mr Brown has more reverence for Scripture, than to give as his reason for his opinion, that his theory for the ‘millennium will not admit of any other interpretation. We expect of him something more than this. We cannot suppose that he will be content with merely saying, “nothing can be more evident,” (p. 132,) for to us it does not appear evident at all; but the very reverse. We have aright to look for the statement

* “When an interpretation will not go through with, it is worthless,” says Mr Brown, p. 225. Mr Brown has not ventured to go through with his.

of some Scriptural reasons why systems, not persons are to be understood. We have endeavoured to give our reasons for thinking the opposite.

This is all the more necessary in Mr Brown, because many sound commentators, who are not millennarians, do not agree with him. Boston, for instance, in his Body of Divinity, quotes the passage in question as one of his Scriptural proofs of judgment to come. “When our Lord comes, (said he,) the whole frame of nature will suffer the most fearful convulsions, and at last be rolled up in an universal flame;” and he quotes as one of the proofs of this Dan. vii. 9,10. Again he writes, “at his coming he will be attended with a splendid

‘retinue of ten thousand times ten thousand glorious angels;” and in proof of this he cites Dan. vii. 10.* Calvin also quotes Dan. vii. 10, in conjunction with Rev. xx. 12, as referring to “the last day when the books shall be opened.”+ Pearson also cites the same two passages in the same connection more than once, as if he did not conceive them capable of another meaning than that which refers them to the literal judgment. Munster, a Reformation divine, says, “signatur adventus Christi ad judicium,” and he adds,

* See his Body of Divinity, vol. ii. p. 99. + Inst. b. 3. chap. ii. § 41. t On theyCreed, Art. vii.

“hune locum citavit Christus in Hvangelo cum ad Caiapham diceret,” &c.*

President Edwards’ remarks on this passage are worthy of our notice. He was no millennarian, nor does his interpretation entirely agree with ours. Still he seems to have no idea of Mr Brown’s. In his Wotes on the Bible, he throws out some hints as to the meaning of Daniel vii. 13. He thinks that the expression, “coming with the clouds of heaven,” refers both to his ascension into heaven, and to his coming again in glory at the last day. He does not suggest any intermediate spiritual coming. His words are, that the expressions above quoted “are equally applicable to his ascension into heaven, and to his last coming at the day of judgment, which is called his coming in his kingdom: and doubtless includes both, for one is like the other, and both might very well be spoken of under one;... in both he comes with the clouds of heaven; in both he comes attended with hosts of angels;... in both he comes to the Ancient of days, and is brought near before him he shall then (at the day of judgment,) in the most glorious manner of all, receive a kingdom from his Father. Both these are remarkable epochs of the commencement of the kingdom of heaven, of which

* Munster upon the place. See also Clarius on the place,

Messiah is the king, and are so spoken of in the New

Testament. This prophecy, doubtless, has respect to

Christ’s ascent into heaven; it also, doubtless, has respect to his coming to judgment; for that coming to

judgment seems often, in the New Testament, spoken

of with reference to this prophecy. With reference to this it is called his ‘coming in his kingdom,’

with reference to that, it seems often to be spoken of in the New Testament, as the Son of Man’s coming

in the clouds of heaven.”*

John Bunyan also in one of his sermons dwells upon the passage in the same way. In his discourse upon “the resurrection of the dead, and the eternal judgment,” he enters on a description of the great assize. After speaking of the resurrection, he thus proceeds: — “when every one is thus set in his proper place, the Judge on his throne, with his attendants and the prisoners coming up to judgment, forthwith there shall issue forth a mighty fire and tempest from before the throne, which shall compass it round about, which fire shall be as bars and bounds to the wicked, to keep them at a certain distance from the heavenly majesty. 9, at length. He then goes on with his description, referring in proof to Dan, vii. 10, and as a parallel * Works, vol. ii. p. 784.

After quoting Psalm 1. 3, he then cites Dan. vii.

— — passage to Rev. xx. 11,12. He seems to have had no idea of spiritualizing the prophecy, but took it as he found it, — took it as a description of a real judgment of persons by the Son of Man in person. Dr Carlile also, in the following sentence, evidently identifies Daniel’s description with the day of judgment. “Daniel carries them (his prophecies) down to what is manifestly the day of judgment, the final and eternal reign of Christ over the whole earth, and the restitution of all things.”* Why then should Mr Brown say so confidently respecting his own view, “nothing can be more evident”?

At this stage, we may briefly notice Mr Brown’s view of the manner in which Antichrist is to be destroyed. In consistency with his idea, that it is merely a system, and not its living upholders, that the prophet has to do with, he denies that in the destruction of this system any thing like physical force is set to work. We shall quote the whole passage.

“Here let the reader carefully mark what kind of conflict this is between Christ’s kingdom, and the kingdom of this world. -It is in their antichristian character alone that the church comes into collision with them. As kingdoms simply — as a mere succession of civil monarchies — the vision has nothing to do

eee ens with them! and the kingdom of Christ has no quarrel with them; for civil government, as such, whatever be the form of it, is a divine ordinance. The mission of the church is not to supplant, but to impregnate and pervade it with a religious character, and to render it subservient to the glory of God. Christ’s kingdom is not of this world. It has no form of civil polity to fight for. But in so far as the kingdoms of this world are hostile to the church of the living God, it is and must be opposed to them. And it is in this and this only light — as conspirators against the interest, and the people of God in this world — that the antichristian kingdoms are seen, and that they are doomed in Nebuchadnezzar’s vision. It is in this sphere of malignant influence and action, and this only, that the kingdom of Christ is destined to take their place. In short, the battle is between Christ’s interest and that of the god of this world, in so far as the one is embodied in the church or kingdom of Christ, and the other in the kingdoms mentioned in the vision. And if so, then the fail of them must be viewed in the same light. As the stone which smites the image is not physical or political, so neither is the blow inflicted by it. Nor does it light upon those antichristian kingdoms, save in their antichristian principles and character. And, consequently, their fall can only

- — be considered as the fall of them in that hostile character, to be re-constructed upon Christian principles, and for Christian objects.:

“If these views of the triumphs of Christ’s kingdom over the kingdoms mentioned in this vision be correct, it is just the triumph of Christianity — not of Christian truth merely, and still less of a mere party, but of embodied, organic, and vital Christianity — over an organized system of deadly opposition to it by the kingdoms of this world. The church, says this vision, is destined to crush that gigantic antichristian confederacy, and thereafter to carry all before it. It is just a conflict of interests — a life and death struggle between Christ and Belial on the theatre of this world, in which Christ is to carry the day, and his ‘kingdom to fill the earth.’”

On this paragraph we offer a few observations.

1. We are told “it is in their antichristian character alone that the church comes into collision with them.” We do not understand this. What is meant by the church coming into collision with the antichristian character of a kingdom? We know that the fourth beast, and especially the little horn, persecute the church. But of course this means that the persons who composed the fourth beast, persecuted the persons who composed the church, Such is the com-

mon sense of the matter. The use of abstract terms only mystifies and confuses. If we were speaking of Stephen being stoned, it would be absurd to say that it was only in their character of hardness that he

came into collision with the stones. Or when we

speak of Isaiah being sawn asunder, it is absurd to.

say that it was only in its character of sharpness that he came into collision with the saw. Or if we were speaking of Satan tempting Job, it would be absurd to say that it was only in his character of evil that he came into collision with him. When Nebuchadnezzar threw the three Hebrews into the fiery furnace, in what character did they come into collision with him? When Darius cast Daniel into the den of lions, in what character did he come into collision with him? When Herod persecuted the church, in what character did they come into collision with him? In these three cases was it not just with these three kings, as civil rulers, that they came into contact? It was because they were civil rulers that they had the power and exercised it: and they exercised it not upon systems, but upon men. We may say, speaking figuratively, that it was a system in the person of Daniel

that was persecuted. We may say that, speaking in

a figure, it was Christianity in the persons of the church at Jerusalem that Herod persecuted. But it still was men, not systems, that were put to death; and it was men, not systems, who used the sword. So we may say it was Christianity in the persons of the martyrs that was burned and beheaded, but this is a figure; for it was men, not systems, that suffered death. We may say that it was Popery in the person of Queen Mary that put to death the English martyrs, or Popery in the person of Charles the Second that murdered our Scottish Covenanters. But still this is a figure. It was in reality men, not systems, that were burned at Smithfield; and it is men, not systems, that lie buried at Airsmoss and Pentland.

2. “As kingdoms simply,” Mr Brown adds, “the vision has nothing to do with them.” It is strange that the first three kingdoms are spoken of simply as kingdoms, and in their civilactings. Nebuchadnezzar and his kingdom are described, yet simply as a kingdom. The kingdom of the Medes and Persians is described, yet simply in its character of a kingdom, subduing other kingdoms like itself. Alexander and his empire are next painted; but simply as a kingdom, — winged in speed, and of far-ranging dominion.

And so with the fourth or Roman empire. In short, it is only when we get to the little horn that any other elements are introduced. Yet Mr Brown says, “As kingdoms simply, the vision has nothing to do with them”!! This will appear still more obvious if the reader will glance over Daniel’s other visions. They all refer to individuals, not systems, and the kingdoms predicted are in general spoken of ‘simply as kingdoms. ‘Take the vision of the ram and he-goat. It is almost entirely occupied with kings, as kings, and with kingdoms, as kingdoms. “The ram which thou sawest, having two horns, are the kings of Media and Persia; and the rough goat is the king of Grecia, and the great horn that is between his eyes is the first king.” Or take the eleventh chapter. What can be more personal either as to the kings or kingdoms than the prediction there? “There shall stand up yet three kings in Persia, and the fourth shall be far richer than they all, (Xerxes,) and by his strength, through his riches, he shall stir up all against the realm of Grecia.” But we need quote no more. Mr Brown has certainly mistaken the nature of Daniel’s visions. No doubt his method of using abstract and figurative language enables him somewhat to disguise both from himself and his readers, the violence done to Scripture in the denial of personality to the judgment of the seventh chapter. But still though it thus veils the difficulty, it does not in the very least remove it. Strip his language of figure, turn the abstract terms of the commentator into the concrete terms of the prophet, and the difficulty presents itself unabated and unchanged.

3. Mr Brown remarks that “as the stone which smites the image is not physical or political, so neither is the blow inflicted by it.” We are again at a loss as to Mr Brown’s meaning. Are there to be no judgments upon Antichrist? and are these not physical? If not, what are they? If Mr Brown means to say that Antichrist is not to be destroyed, but converted, — that the adherents of Babylon are not to be visited with the vengeance of Jehovah, but saved by his grace, — then we understand him. But is it possible that he means this? Are there to be no wasteful, exterminating judgments upon Babylon the Great? — Does the millstone that falls from the angel’s hand signify her conversion? Do the horrors and convulsions under which she is represented as going down to the abyss laden with the blood of saints signify her conversion? If not, what can Mr Brown mean by saying that the “blow inflicted” is not physical or political? Setting aside abstract and metaphysical

, terms, will he tell us what is to be the doom of Antichrist? Will he tell us how the ruin described so terribly by Daniel and John, is to be accomplished without anything physical as its cause?

4. Mr Brown says, “the mission of the church is not to supplant but to impregnate and pervade it with a religious character.” The church has only one mission to Antichrist recorded in the Word of God. She isto proclaim, “Come out of her, my people.” It is not by the church that Babylon is either to be supplanted or impregnated. God’s purpose is to destroy her utterly. All that the church has to do is to sing the hallelujah of triumph as she sees the smoke ascending. Let any — one read the 17th,18th, and 19th chapters of Revelation, and he cannot fail to be amazed at such a statement as the above.

Before we can concede Mr Brown’s interpretation, we should like to see him consistently upon his principles expound the several clauses and verses of the passage. If we take the vision as a scene of literal judgment inflicted by the Judge in person, all is plain and natural throughout. And we just ask Mr Brown this question: — Had a literal judgment been intended, could any stronger language have been employed? What do the “thrones” mean? What means the “sitting of the Ancient of Days’? What means the “fiery flame” and the “fiery stream”? What mean — “the thousand thousands” that ministered unto him? What mean “the ten thousand times ten thousand” that stood before him? Are they not persons? What means the “setting of the judgment”? What means the “opening of the books” 2 What means the “coming of the Son of Man”? What means the “clouds of heaven”? Have the words no connection with Matt. xxvi. 24, “Hereafter ye shall see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven” ?*

We are quite aware that many commentators do spiritualize this vision of Daniel. They all notice the similarity of the language to that used in depicting the “judgment of the great day.” But still they refuse to take the words in their natural sense, and in doing so they honestly state their reason. It is just this — that if they admit the literality of the judgment, they must concede the truth of pre-millennialism. The scene described by the prophet evidently takes place at the destruction of Antichrist, and beforethemillennium, If then the judgment be a literal

* Mr Brown admits that Christ was here referring to Daniel. He holds that the words in the 24th chapter are figurative, but that those in the 26th chapter are literal. Why this difference? The words are precisely the same. Why then should they have one meaning in the 24th chapter and another in the 26th, one meaning on the Mount of Olives and another in the hall of the high priest? Would this difference be devised were it not that literality in the 24th chapter would be fatal to post-millennialism? Is this a valid reason? And then, if Christ refer to Daniel in the 26th chapter, and if the expression in that chapter must be literally interpreted, as Mr Brown admits, how can Daniel be figurative? Have we not thus our Lord’s own declaration, that Daniel was predicting his literal second coming?

one, by Christ in person, millennarianism is demonstrated. Therefore, to avoid such a conclusion, they take the liberty of denying the literality of these expressions of the prophet. This is the sole ground for departing from the plain meaning of the words, But is this right or fair? Must we square the Word of God by our systems? Had there been no system in the way, would any one have thought of denying that the passage before us was intended to predict a literal judgment? And is the fact of a system being in the way a valid reason for turning aside from the natural signification of the words? We cannot find in any commentator, so much as an attempt to prove that the passage does not predict a literal scene of judgment. They give their interpretation; but they furnish no reasons in support of it. This does not look as if their ground were very solid. Still we do not find that any one, save Mr Brown, ventures on so strong an observation as “nothing can be more evident.” They could not but feel that there were many things much more evident than this.

The only appearance of an attempt to prove the — figurative view of the passage, is the statement of some, that the 22d and 27th verses, which are explanatory, do not assert any thing about the coming of the Son of Man, but merely about the saints taking the wide Se. i -S oo

kingdom; and, therefore, we ought to reckon the “coming of the Son of Man,” in the 13th verse, as a mere symbol for the world’s becoming Christian. On this we remark,

1. This does not amount to a proof, or even a probability.. It is simply a possibility. The utmost force of this proof is, that the 13th verse may have that general meaning.

2. It is a proof upon the opposite side. The 13th verse contains one statement as to the coming of the Son of man with the clouds of heaven, and the 18th, 22d, and 27th verses contain another statement, that the saints possessed the kingdom. But does it not seem. far more natural to suppose that the latter verses were intended to add to the information contained in the former, not to neutralize or explain it away? This becomes very obvious, when we observe that the 22d verse is not explanatory. It is a simple re-statement, with additions; but it is not an interpretation, as is evident to any one that reads the passage. The 18th and 27th are explanatory, but the 22d, which contains the same expressions, is not. The 22d is intended to repeat, not to explain. Yet in repeating, it omits one of the former statements, (relating to the

Son of Man,) and it adds another relating to the saints, This takes away the whole force of the argument of those who insist on spiritualizing the 13th verse, because the 18th and 27th, which are explanatory, do not contain any reference to the Son of Man. It would be as fair to argue that the clause in the 18th, regarding the Son of Man, is a spurious reading, because it is not contained in the 22d, which is designed to repeat it.

3. This gives no explanation at all of the expression, “coming with the clouds of heaven.” Hven granting that the words, “Son of man” might be spiritualized so as to mean nothing personal, what can be made out of the “Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven”? What does this mean? Of what is it the figure? Nay, where is the necessity for resorting to a figure at all? These very words are elsewhere used in a literal sense; what reason can be given for changing the meaning here? Had they been words occurring nowhere else, or occurring elsewhere only in a figurative sense, we could understand the propriety of their being spiritualized here. But when elsewhere they are

not spiritual,when they are capable of a literal if

sense, — when that literal sense is the natural one, when the only reason for departing from it is that it would

damage a theory, can we hesitate what meaning to

OS

SR

affix to the passage? We all admit that when Christ

comes the second time, he is to come with the clouds

of heaven. Does it seem then an unlikely or an unnatural conclusion, that these words of the prophet here refer to that advent? In Rev. i. 7 we read, “behold HE COMETH WITH CLOUDs, and every eye shall see him.” In Acts i. 9, it is written, “a cLoup received him out of their sight;” and in verse 11th, it is added, “this same Jesus which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so coME AS YE HAVS SEEN HIM GO INTO HEAVEN.” In Matt. xxiv. it is said, “then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven, and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn; and they shall see the Son oF MAN COMING IN THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN with power and great glory.” In Matt. xxvi. 64, where we have shown that the Lord expressly quotes Daniel, and was recognised as quoting him, we read, “hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting

on the right hand of power, and coMING IN THE CLOUDS

OF H&AVEN.” Putting these passages together, can -any inference be more natural than that Dan. vii. 13

-ts to be understood literally as pointing to the second

advent? And may we not call any other inference a

most unnatural one, which would never have been

thought of, had not the demands of a system suggested

it; and which would never have been listened to, had

not the bias of system blinded the eyes to the violence done to Scripture.*

4, This gives no explanation of the 10th verse, where the minute description of the jadgment is given. “A fiery stream issued and came forth before him; thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him; the judgment was set, and the books were opened.” This surely is no mere figurative judgment. Its minuteness renders that impossible. If we make this merely figurative, we may turn any thing into a figure. It does require some boldness to deny that this is a picture of a real judgment upon persons, and by a person.

A neologian does not find it more difficult to spirit-

ualise the first three chapters of Genesis.

The prophet seems to heap word upon word, and figure upon figure, in order to prevent any attempt to deny the literality of the scene. If then we connect all this description, and throw together its different

* I find in Hagenbach the following statement, “‘ the rationalasts sought to explain away the Scriptural doctrine of the Second Advent of Christ, and to shorten the duration of the punishments

of hell,” (7st. of Doct. vol. i. p. 461.) In proof of his assertion,

he quotes a passage from Henke, explaining away the doctrine of a judgment by Christ in person, non omnia, ut sonant, verba capienda; multa ad similitudinem formz judiciorum humanorum et pomp regize expressa esse, Xc. It is evident that Henke explains away all the passages which refer to a judgment, and a coming, just as Mr Brown does this of Daniel.

parts, we shall see still more the force of the above statements. The thrones are set, — the Ancient of Days sits, — his throne is like fiery flame, — a fiery stream issues from before him, — thousand thousands minister unto him, — ten thousand times ten thousand stand before him, — the judgment is set, — the books are opened, — one like the Son of man comes with the clouds of heaven, — he comes to the Ancient of Days, — there is given to him a kingdom, — this: kingdom he shares with his saints, — these very saints that had just been described as persecuted and destroyed by Antichrist. How clearly does all this bring before us the advent, and the judgment, and the kingdom of the Son of man. Yet Mr Brown asks, with singular confidence, “who does not see that this has nothing to do with the second personal advent of Christ?’* “It is simply the advancement and recognition of his claim to rule the world clothed in state forms, in the. symbolic drapery of an august installation or inauguration.”+ No reasons are attempted to be given for these strong and unhesitating statements.

Mr Faber is much of a mind with Mr Brown, only he carries his figurative interpretations somewhat further. “The similarity of the two judments,” says

he, “in regard to principle, could not be overlooked,

* P. 133; + Ib.

hence in a mode of composition which specially affects

hieroglyphical grandiloquence (/) we shall not wonder —

to find all the solemnities of the future literal day of judgment, &c., employed to represent the temporal judgment of awickednation...... The literal future judgment and second advent are poetically, though appropriately, used as a symbol or hieroglyphic of any eminent judgment,” &c.* Again, he speaks of such images as being “well known to the pupils of the Hebrew prophetic school to be nothing more than mere conventional hieroglyphics.””+ Does Mr Brown, or do anti-millennarians approve of such a mode of speech? Yet Mr Faber is merely carrying out Mr Brown’s figurative principles, only he uses less cautious and reverend language than Mr Brown would have done.

5. What do anti-millennarians make of these expressions, “the saints shall possess the kingdom for ever, even for ever and ever.” How is their idea of the millennial kingdom consistent with its being everlasting? Do they believe that the earthly imperfect state, — so imperfect as to be described by the wheat

and tares,t is to be “for ever, even for ever and ever”?

?

* Sacred Calendar of Prophecy, vol. i. p. 226. + Ib. p. 228. t Mr Brown, p. 120, and elsewhere.

ee oe ES eS

How can such a kingdom be everlasting? We have no difficulty on this point, for we have very considerably higher ideas of the millennial state, and look upon it, notwithstanding the fierce outbreak at its close, as the first stage of the eternal kingdom. Our opponents must have considerable difficulty regarding this. To say, as Mr Brown does, that it simply means that ‘the tables are never again to be turned,” is an unnatural, as well as a meagre view of the subject. The question is not as to the turning of the tables, but as to the nature of the kingdom. The prediction evidently means, that the kingdom which began with the beginning of the millennium is (in its main features, though perfected at the close) to abide for ever, Can that be the kingdom of the wheat and tares (*.

When the kingdom and dominion and greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven are given to the saints of the Most High, can there be such a very imperfect state of things as Mr Brown affirms the millennial to be? Can there be still five foolish virgins out of the ten? Can three parts out of

* A commentator on the prophecies tells us, that the expression above referred to means, “that all true Christians shall endure to all eternity.” — Commentary on the Prophecies, by J. W. Cole, vol, i, p. 219.

the four bear no fruit from the seed sown? Can the church still be “miserable,” — an afflicted, persecuted widow, after the “beast” that persecuted has been destroyed? Can the good and bad fishes, the wheat and tares,

still equally abound? Is this a blessed millennium? Is it such a state as Daniel describes? Whence this lowering of millennial blessedness? Why this anxiety to show that that state is simply an improvement on the present? Shall I say here of Mr Brown as le does of us, that the necessities of his system have driven him to it?

§ 2. Cuaprer xu. 2.

Mr Brown is not slow to observe that much depends

on the meaning affixed to this passage. If the common exposition of it be admitted, zt ¢s not possible to

deny the pre-millennial advent, or at all events the

pre-millennial resurrection. For its prophetical position in the order of coming events is allowed by

Mr Brown to be pre-millennial. The question with him is not, what is the place which this verse of Daniel occupies. He does not hesitate to assign it a place”

at the commencement of the millennium. But his

inquiry is, what is the meaning of the verse? Does it point to a literal resurrection? So all interpreters: unite in affirming. No sound expositor has doubted this. Not observing the consequences of their admission, they have taken the natural meaning of the words as undoubtedly the true one. In doing so, they have admitted far too much for the safety of their system. ‘They have, in truth, admitted what is fatal to it. Mr Brown knows too well the various bearings of the controversy not to be alive to this. Accordingly, he sets aside the united voice of critics and commentators in favour of the simple and obvious sense, in order to make room for one of his own. How far this novel sense is the true sense, we shall see immediately; but if it be so, it is time that anti-millennarlans were reconsidering their views. Are they prepared to concede that they have hitherto been as far wrong as we have been? That they have been giving currency and credit to an untenable millennarvan interpretation which can no longer be listened to? They must either do so, or else show reasons why, retaining the old interpretations, they can still refuse to concede the pre-millennial advent. And is it not a strong proof against their whole theory, that they have been all along, in their simplicity, adopting the pre-millennial sense of such passages;

and that it is only the startling discovery of the pre-millennialism that is inevitably involved in their accustomed interpretations, that leads to their abandonment?

I find that unbiassed writers, who have no system.

to build up, have taken what we call the natural view of this passage. They do not seem to have imagined that any other was admissible, for they do not enter into any discussion as to the true sense, but fix unhesitatingly on one, as being obviously the mind of God. Asa specimen of what we mean, I may refer (among many) to Thomas Boston’s Body of Divinity, — to Marck Medulla, to Spanhemii Elenchus Controversiarum, to Bunyan’s sermons, in which the text in question is quoted and applied in its literal acceptance.* Boston, Spanheim, and Marck, seem not to have known, or at least not to have relished the spirttwal sense adopted by Mr Brown. Indeed, we question much whether, out of a hundred

sound expositors, ancient and modern, Mr Brown

would be able to secure the concurrence of even one, in his novel exposition. Mr Brown may perhaps reply that these writers

were: not aware of the evil consequences of their ad-

* Boston, vol. ii. p. 304. Marck, cap. xxxiv. sect. 15. Spanheim, p. 634. Bunyan, Sermon on Resurrection and Judgment.

missions; that they did not see the incompatibility of such interpretations with the post-millennial system. But what does this amount to? Just to this; — that these worthies took the word of God as they found it, and interpreted it with all guilelessness and simplicity, and that, in doing so, they stumbled into millennarian meanings, out of which nothing could have kept them, save the power of human systems. Following the unbiassed dictates of their own mind, they were, unconsciously, millennarian in their expositions. So long as system did not warp them, nor lead them to seek a circuitous meaning, they could not help understanding the Bible after the millennarian fashion. We confess it seems to us more likely, that had these simple-hearted but learned men seen the consequences of such admissions, they would have gone forward, not backward. They would have said, — “well, if our understanding these passages in their natural sense commits us to chiliasm, let us be committed; better far to bear that name, odious though it be, than to turn aside from what appears to us the plain meaning of the word.” And such, we conceive, must be the feeling of the simple readers of Scripture in our own day. They have hitherto understood Daniel to speak of a literal resurrection of the body, nor can they conceive of another sense. They are told that such an interpretation is a surrendering of the whole cause, — that they must either spiritualize the passage, or admit the truth of millennarianism. They perceive the dilemma; but to explain away or allegorize such an explicit text, they dare not.. They must become pre-millennialists; seeing they cannot maintain their ground without thus making havoc among. passages that always have seemed, and still seem far too plain to be either mystified or mistaken.

The sense which Mr Brown puts upon this passage is quite peculiar.* He speaks of it evidently as de-

* So also is the sense he puts on Isaiah xxvi. 19; “Thy dead men shall live... awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust .-. the earth shall cast out the dead.” This he spiritualizes, In opposition to most commentators. (See M‘Laurin on the Prophecies, chap. v. § 4.) In the same way he spiritualizes many others. In short, he treats so many passages thus, that he leaves few enough to prove a resurrection at all. An ingenious objector, arguing on his principles, might logically push him to the denial of any literal rising of the dead. It would turn out to be the mere re-fiourishing of an extinct party. A first-rate critic of the last century, having finished his exposition of the above passage in Isaiah, sums up with this ironical remark, “TI shall only add, that if any one be inclined to think, after all, that the prophet in this passage speaks only of a metaphorical resurrection, he may compare it with the passages of the New Testament, where the same doctrine is delivered; and perhaps with a very little stretch: of fancy, he will think these are to be understood in a metaphorical — sense likewise.” Peters on Job, p. 369. See also Rankin’s Inst. of Theol. p. 528-9. He, though no millennarian, does not seem. to imagine that the passage can have any but the literal. meaning. Of the passage in Daniel which we are discussing, he

noting no literal resurrection of the body; but as the up-rising of the extinct party or system, as “the church’s getting up its head.” He takes it to mean merely the church’s getting honour, and the church’s enemies being put to shame. ‘To avoid the charge of excessive spiritualization, and cover the novelty of the exposition, he tells us that still it is a “literal resurrection of both righteous and wicked” — yet that it is “intelligible on the principle of a jigurative resurrection,”” — that it is the “millennial resurrection of the two opposite parties:” yet, that after all, the “real personal resurrection is seen looming through it, and almost absorbing it”! How a passage can be both literal and figurative at the same time — how it can be the mere figurative resurrection of two systems, and yet refer to the ultimate and literal resurrection, we do not know. The truth is, we scarcely understand the passage, and do not see how it is to be reconciled with itself or with some of Mr B.’s other statements. We shall give it to our readers, merely inserting a few italics.

“Here the same principle comes in, to which we

have so often referred in the previous chapter, as alone

took the literal view. Even Gesenivs remarks, “‘ that this passage really contains the doctrine of the resurrection of the body the words undoubtedly show.” — ( Quoted by Hengstenberg on Daniel, p. 126.)

adequate to explain such passages. Doubtless the literal resurrection of both righteous and wicked is here; — and the very next verse, telling us of the everlasting reward which shall be conferred on the wise and soul-converting believers, brings it out very clearly. But the pre-millennialists are perfectly right, in saying that the passage as a stands — in connection with the foregoing and succeeding context — relates to the ‘ time’ of unparalleled ‘ trouble’ which is to usher in the millennium. Well, here is the simultaneous millennial resurrection of the two opposite parties — righteous and wicked. The one rise to ‘life,’ in the Christian sense of the term; the other rise to ‘shame’ and contempt. In both cases it is everlasting, because the tables are never again to be turned.* Now this is intelligible on our principle of a figurative resurrection in both cases. The one party live, and are alone had in honour and credit; the other live too,t but live only to be hissed and hooted down, and so covered with a world’s ‘shame and contempt, as no more to be able to lift up their heads. I appeal to the reader, if this is not the very spirit of the Bible representations of the latter day,

* Ave the tables not to be turned at the end of the millennium?

+ Is it not said, “the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years’’ were finished? How then can both live at the same time?

and every way accordant with what we found to be the ‘ binding of Satan,’ at the close of our last chapter. And, to complete the interpretation, the real resurrection, I mean the personal one — which, though it be Surther forward in the Divine scheme than this one, is seen looming through it, and almost absorbing it — this real resurrection answers to owr view of the final resurrection as being the rising of both parties simultaneously — the righteous and the wicked; and so furnishes the Saviour’s description of it when he tells us of ‘the hour,’ when ‘they that have done good shall come forth to the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil to the resurrection of damnation.’” “Thus consistentLY does the figurative interpretation explain this passage in Daniel, in respect both of the millennial and of the final resurrection.”*

What does Mr Brown really understand this passage to mean? We cannot extract from it anything definite. It puzzles us thoroughly, and calls for clearing up. In one sentence, the passage is said to denote a literal resurrection; in the next a figurative one! In one sentence it is said to refer to the time of trouble that

?

is to “usher in the millennium;” in another it is said to refer to the end of all things! In one sentence it is said to be intelligible only on the principle of a

* Pp 342,343. F

Jigurative resurrection; in another, we are told that the real ultimate resurrection of the body is seen “looming through it,” and “almost aBsorBina it”! So that it is hard to say what Mr Brown means.

The text itself is plain and clear — not so this exposition of it. It appears to us both contradictory and obscure. Yet this is the result of those principles which Mr Brown pronounces “immoveable.” Surely the passage must mean either one thing or another. It must either be literal or figurative. It must either refer to the “reviviscence of extinct parties,” or to the literal resurrection of the body. It cannot include both. Or of it do, why may not the fourth verse of the twentieth of the Apocalypse include both? Mr Brown is ata loss. His system has entangled him, and he knows not which way to turn. He sees and admits that the words point to the time immediately before the millennium. But admitting this, he cannot admit also that it is a literal resurrection of the body, else the millennarian doctrine of the first resurrection is established. He must then spiritualize it — though it is difficult to know how “sleeping in the dust of

the earth” can be spiritualized. But after having

spiritualized it sufficiently, he feels that it is very unsatisfactory after all. He knows that all commentators are against him. He feels that this spiritual meaning is not the veal meaning of the words. So he concludes with telling us, that the true resurrection of the body may be seen “looming through it,” and “almost absorbing it”!* Is this dealing fairly with the passage? Can all this be the natural meaning of the words? Is it not forced and non-natural in the extreme y

Mr Thomas Scott, the commentator, says, “It seems obvious to interpret them of the general resurrection.” Calmet says, “Nothing is more express than these words to prove the resurrection of the dead; this is the simple, literal, and natural sense of the place.” “There is no ambiguity,” says Calvin, “in the words of Daniel, ‘many of them, d&c., since he does not bring new matter from the four elements to compose men, but calls forth the dead from their graves,” “The words themselves evince the contrary,” says Turrettine, refuting those who denied that the literal resurrection was spoken of here, “because they treat about a resurrection, said to be from the dust of the earth, and which is to issue either in everlasting life, or everlasting shame.” Howe cites this passage as if there could be no doubt about its reference to

the resurrection.t Tremellius, Junius, and others

3 * We have an idea of the “looming through;” but as to the * absorbing,” we are unable to attach any definite idea to it, + Principles of the Oracles of God, p. 1220. T expound it in the literal sense. M‘Laurin says, “this passage contains a direct and plain assertion of the resurrection of the dead.”* The Dutch Annotators say, “this must be understood of the general resurrection of the dead at the last day.”+ Mr Arch. Mason, a well-known divine, and a vigorous anti-millennarian, says, “that Daniel is speaking of the general resurrection at the last day is evident..... Itisimpossible that in these verses he is speaking of the millennial church.”{ Ridgely thus writes regarding this passage, — “the words are so express that it will be very difficult to evade the force of them;; therefore this sense (the metaphorical) has such difficulties attending it that every person who is not prepossessed with prejudice must give in to the literal sense of the text.”§ And Hengstenberg seems to take for granted that the reference is to the resurrection.|| These are the testimonies. of impartial witnesses, who had no end to serve. And along with them, there is a host of others, all bearing witness to the same interpretation. They declare that there is “no ambiguity” in the passage. They concur in one sense, as the only one possible. Yet Mr Brown, with-

* On the Prophecies, ch. ii. pp.-77, 78.

+ Vol. ii. in loc. See also Peters on Job, p. 390. t Py ¥69:

8 Vol. ii. pp. 185, 186; also pp. 194, 195.
On the Genuineness of Daniel, pp. 126 — 7.

AMBIGUITIES. 27)

out guuing one reason for departing from the plain meaning of the words, and the unanimous sense of sound interpreters, attaches to it a meaning, which we are very certain he will find himself totally unable to defend.* If he does succeed in defending it, he must at least come to some definite conclusion, as to what he would have it to mean. He must either make it figurative or literal. Both it cannot be. We cannot help thinking that this is another of those passages, of which it may be truly said, that it is their plainness, not their obscurity, that perplexes commentators. No sound expositor has hitherto found any difficulty in understanding this prophecy, and the effort which Mr Brown exhibits in evolving his view, is a sure proof that he has gone astray, and that it is his system that has misled him.

If these are the principles on which Scripture is to be interpreted, how can we ever be sure of its meaning If the very plainest and most literal passages, passages regarding which such men as Calvin and Turrettine

*We say sound interpreters, for some unsound ones do take another view, though none have stumbled upon Mr Brown’s. Dathe, a neologian, writes thus: — ‘ contextus plane docet hunc locum non agere de resurrectione mortuorum. Intelliguatur ale gue propter persecutiones sese abdiderant in speluncis et locis subterraneis. Hi prodibant,” &c., referring (after Grotius,) to the

state of things at the death of Antiochus. — On the Major Prophets, p. 551.

say “there is no ambiguity,’ — if these passages are to be thus robbed of the very zdea for the expression of which they were written — if ambiguity is to be thrust upon passages, which are simplicity all over, — on what solid footing can we rest in the exposition of the word, or how can we ever hope to discover the mind of God, or arrive at the true sense of any part of inspiration? We are by no means surprised at Mr Brown’s effort to explain away this passage, for its testimony is quite decisive against the possibility of a millennium before the advent. The last verse of the previous chapter foretells the doom of Antichrist; the first verse of the 12th describes the tribulation of the last days, and the deliverance of Israel. Then without any interval there follows the resurrection, “many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake,” &c. Then comes the glory of the saints, the time when they shall shine as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. But, if pre-miilennialism be not true, then there surely must be some better, some safer, some sounder way of evading the difficulty which the passage presents than that of Mr Brown.

JORLCI ewe oe.

bo
~F
~I