13: 14, and in many other passages cited in the remarks on Rev. 1: 8. Any other exegesis here would seem to be incongruous; for the writer does not mean to say that the souls of martyrs were dead before this period, and now would come to life, after he has, throughout the whole book, represented them as already being in heaven and praising God and the Redeemer there. Nor can he mean here, that now they begin to be happy, (which is a tropical sense of Ca∞); for happy they had long been, because "the dead who die in the Lord are blessed anaoti." Still less can he mean that they become immortal now, or live forever; for they were immortal from the first moment of their existence. There would seem to remain, therefore, only one meaning which can be consistently given to your, viz. that they (the martyrs who renounced the beast) are now restored to life, viz. such life as implies the vivification of the body. Not to a union of the soul with a gross material body indeed, but with such an one as saints will in general have at the final resurrection-a spiritual body, 1 Cor. 15: 44. In no other way can this resurrection be ranked as correlate with the second resurrection named in the sequel; for in naming this the first resurrection (v. 5), John has developed such a correlation. How can the mere bestowment of happiness be all that the writer intends here by noar, since all saints live, in this sense, from the moment when the body dies; yea, from the time when they are regenerated? If mere advancement to a higher grade of happiness be meant by your, then may we ask: Will not all saints be made happier by the augmented prosperity of the church on earth? What then is peculiar to martyrs? It is quite plain, indeed, that neither regeneration, nor happiness in heaven after the death of the body, can be placed by the side of the last resurrection as a correlative in the way of contrast. In the phrases first resurrection, and second or last, a discrepance in regard to time is implied, while in other respects the things compared appear to be essentially the same. Any great change from a degraded and wretched condition, temporal or spiritual, may indeed be figuratively called a resurrection, a restoration to life, i. e. to happiness; but it would be out of question to name it a first resurrection. This implies of necessity a comparison with a second, in which the first must be like the second in kind, but must precede it in the order of time. So in 1 Cor. 15: 23. 1 Thess. 4: 16, Paul in giving an account of the general resurrection, declares that "the dead in Christ shall rise first," i. e. before the wicked, who will also be raised. And thus it seems to be here, when John compares the two resurrections of saints; the words first and second mark the respective periods of time. For a further consideration of this exegesis, and also of objections and difficulties in respect to it, I must refer again to Exc. VI.

Until the thousand years shall have been completed. But what ensues,

after this? A dethronement, an essential change of state, rank, or condition? This is not of necessity implied. Should one say: 'God will reign as long as the world continues,' this would not imply of necessity that he will reign no longer. It merely affirms the certainty of his reign during all that period; which is the simple object of the speaker. Yet in most instances of such declarations, a change of some kind is indicated after the terminal period named. So here. After the thousand years, Satan will reappear, and Gog and Magog will come up and invade the territory of the saints. The undisturbed dominion and prosperity of the church, which the enthroned martyrs had seen and rejoiced in during the Millennium, is now once more interrupted. And so their reign becomes relatively changed. Their joy receives as it were a check. But to suppose an implication here that they are to be dethroned and reduced to their former state, is not necessary. No such implication is intended; at least, such a degradation seems incompatible with the views of the author. The description of their continued and uninterrupted reign, is one of the indications of the continued prosperity of the church during the long period mentioned. Viewed in this light, we can find no good reason to urge the meaning of the words employed, beyond the natural and easy sense which they afford.

As to the notion of a descent to the earth by Christ and the martyrs, and their visible reign here, there is not a word in the text, nor even an implication; at least I can find none. What a gross conception it would be, to mingle celestial and terrestrial beings in one common mass! The glorified Saviour, and the glorified martyrs, mingling with material and perishable beings, and becoming subject again to the laws of matter! If it be said, that the earth is itself to be changed entirely, at the beginning of the millennium, and to be fitted by this change for the abode of such glorious beings raised from the dead; where then, I ask, are Gog and Magog to live during this period, and nurture their hosts "like the sands of the sea for multitude?" And other men-are they still mortal beings, or not? If they are, then a material world, however Eden-like, is their place of residence; for flesh and blood can inhabit no world of a different character. How then are the glorious Saviour and the glorified martyrs literally to mingle and commune with material and fleshly and perishable beings? The thing is impossible, because it is against the fundamental law of our spiritual nature. If it were not impossible, moreover, still it is utterly improbable, on any ground, that the triumph and exaltation of the matyrs are to consist in their being sent back to the earth, in order to resume a terrestrial existence, surrounded with sufferings and sorrows. Besides all this, there is not a word from the Apocalyptist, as yet, respecting the so much talked of renovation of the earth. It is only at the period of the general judgment, that this reno

vation takes place; Rev. 21: 1 seq. The material worlds pass away when this judgment comes; but not before. It follows then, that the idea of spiritual beings, as descending from the heavenly world to this, and spending a thousand years in a material world whose organization is not substantially changed, can have no foundation but in the phantasy of the brain. It is as incongruous as to say, that God has material eyes, hands, and other organs of sense. See further in Exc. VI.

(5) And the rest of dead revived not, until the thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection.

Who are the rest of the dead? This question has been anticipated in the remarks made upon the preceding verse. The phrase seems naturally to include all who had not suffered martyrdom or persecution from the beast, i. e. had not suffered with patience and fortitude. Not that merely those who suffered by the Romish beast are included among the martyrs here; for, from the nature of the case, all who had been persecuted or slain on account of true religion, at any time or in any place, provided they had borne their trials and sorrows in a becoming manner, would seem to be included in the first resurrection.

Until the thousand years shall have been completed. Is the general resurrection to follow immediately upon the completion of this chiliad of years? This is not a necessary implication; see remarks on the same phrase above, under v. 3. Besides, from the writer's own showing, the end of the world is not contemporaneous with the end of the thousand years; for Gog and Magog invade the holy land after this, v. 7-8. All which the phrase above declares, is, that neither before, nor during any part of the thousand years, would the resurrection of the rest of the dead take place.

First resurrection, so called in distinction from the second. Of course it is one which precedes it in respect to time; it is not necessary that the two resurrections should differ in other respects. Indeed, the obvious implication here is, that they do not substantially differ; for what else can the οἱ δὲ λοιποὶ τῶν νεκρῶν οὐκ ἔζησαν mean, except that the rest of men must wait until the second resurrection, before they would be raised up in like manner as those had been who were partakers of the first resurrection? But the subject has been already discussed, in the remarks on v. 4.

(6) Blessed and holy is he who hath a part in the first resurrection! Over such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

Blessed and holy must be emphatic here, for they can hardly bear the simple and ordinary meaning. All saints of every age are blessed and

holy in reality and to a certain extent, let them live or die where or when they may. The phrase in our text, therefore, must be employed in an emphatic sense, in a sense which drew the writer's special attention, and which he intended should also be specially noted by the reader. Moreover, all this is not only compatible with the interpretation of the preceding verses, but helps to confirm it. The resurrection of the body is everywhere held out, in the N. Testament, as the condition and precursor of a higher degree of perfection and happiness to the saints. So here; the first resurrection brings those who are partakers of it, sooner than others, to the perfection of their nature. Ewald explains ayos here, by iɛpsis in the sequel, i. e. these, like priests, shall be henceforth consecrated to the service of God. But why should we thus separate yios from pazágios? The interpretation given above seems more probable.

Over such, or these, the second death hath no power; i. e. they are secure against all possible future evil. The preceding clause exhibits their actual condition or positive state of happiness; the present clause, their freedom from all danger that their condition will be changed. The second death, according to v. 14, is the being cast into the lake of fire. -Priests of God and Christ, see on Rev. 1: 6. Here it means: They shall be near to Christ, and most honorably employed in his service; the sequel shows, that they shall be advanced to the highest honours, i. e. shall, like kings, be enthroned; comp. Rev. 3: 21.

(7, 8) And when the thousand years shall have expired, Satan shall be loosed from his prison, and he shall go forth to lead astray the nations who are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together for war, whose number is as the sand of the sea.

Here then are nations accessible to the wiles of Satan, nations who live beyond the boundaries of the great empire which has so long been under the peaceful reign of the Messiah. They live, as we express it in common parlance, out of the world, i. e. out of the great civilized and christianized world, or in the four corners of the earth. Of course the earth is here, as throughout the Scriptures, conceived of as an extended plain, the four corners of which are the most remote from the centre; and the centre, moreover, is regarded as the holy city. Their number too is great, like the sand of the sea. Not an intimation is given that they become apostates from a former profession of Christianity, or that Christianity had ever spread among them. Every thing in the description wears the appearance of a meaning the reverse of this. Satan does not deceive the elect, in this case, but leads astray those who had never been converted to the Christian faith. That this is so, appears from the face of the narrative; for how comes it that Satan finds no

access to men any-where, except in the four corners of the earth? Had those living there been Christians, like the rest of men, what reason can be given why they should, all at once and in such immense numbers, be seduced from their Christian allegiance, while no inroads are anywhere else made upon the domains of Christianity? I see no way in which this question can be satisfactorily answered.

Inquiry respecting Gog and Magog.

Why does John name this third and last formidable and persecuting power, GoG and MAGOG? To answer this question we must go back to the prophecy of Ezekiel, which is the prototype of the author in the present case. In Ezekiel 37: 1—14, the prophet gives us a most graphic description of the apparently desperate state of the Jewish nation in their exile, under the image of an immense valley full of dry bones. These he sees in a vision to become reanimated, and learns from this, that Israel will again be restored, and will live and flourish, vs. 11-14. He then predicts a union of the ten and of the two tribes in one nation; and, finally, the coming of the Messiah and his reign over them; vs 15-28. At some future period, for so the vision represents it, Gog of the land of Magog and his confederates come up against the holy land and people; but they are slaughtered with immense destruction, and Israel is troubled no more; chap. xxxviii. xxxix. Then follows the flourishing state of the land, the rebuilding of a magnificent temple and city, and a new and perpetual apportionment of the holy land; chap. xl-xlviii. Nothing can be plainer, than that the Apocalyptist had all this picture in his eye, when he wrote the verses before us; and, in my apprehension, he has rightly understood and explained the main purport of Ezek. xxxvii-xlviii, which certainly tallies, in all its leading features, with the description now under examination.

With these views respecting the ultimate period of the world agree the representations in Zech. xiv; also Joel 3: 9-21; and perhaps Dan. 12: 1 -3. At all events, no satisfactory account of the real meaning of these passages of Scripture, which has its basis on other ground, has yet been given.

Thus John, under imagery borrowed from Ezekiel, describes the third and last great effort of the enemies of the church to destroy her. That the names of these enemies will literally be Gog and Magog, and that they are literally to come from the four corners of the earth, and besiege the literal Jerusalem, no one versed in the language of the prophecy will attempt to contend. Enough that the names of old enemies are employed to designate new ones, as yet without a name. Enough that they come from the bosom of the unconverted heathen, and that they oppose and persecute Christians wherever they meet them. These are the things signified; all the rest is costume.

Something more needs to be said, however, in order to give the reader a fuller view of Gog and Magog, so that he may know what impression the mention of these names by John would naturally make upon his readers. In Gen. 10: 2, Magog is mentioned as a son of Japhet. Elsewhere the word is found only in Ezekiel, xxxviii. xxxix.; in which passage it means a land