be dissolved. This world of necessity is limited in its duration, because sooner or later it must be burned up, with all that is therein. Christ, therefore, cannot reign in it forever and ever, no more than a king can reign, in a kingdom which was to last but an hour, a million of years. Nor could the saints possess this world forever, even forever and ever, any more than they could possess a temple eternally, which to-morrow was to be consumed in the flames. The eternity of the reign, therefore, of Christ, and the possession of the saints, of necessity excludes mutation, or change, and both are stamped with immortality, or there is an end to all just biblical interpretation. The words can only be applied to the "new heavens and new earth, "which are to remain. As certainly, therefore, as the present world is doomed to decay, and God has spoken the passages quoted; so certainly they must be applied to an ETERNAL STATE-"the world to come." Where, then, it may be asked, is the "thousand years" of St. John? I answer, not in time; but his thousand years is the commencement of eternity. It is the porch without an inside door, so to speak, to that ineffable place-but firmly attached to the house eternal in the heavens. The thousand years merely mark the distance between two resurrections. The saints reign in a peculiar sense, perhaps judge, with Christ a thousand years. Know ye not

that ye shall judge angels?" Yet that thousand years have in them the essential elements of immortality. Beyond this, I know nothing; nor need I know till the day dawn and the day-star arise. G. F. COX.

Portland, March 28th, 1842.

[No. XI.]

THE MILLENNIAL KINGDOM OF CHRIST-REV. D. D. WHEDON.

"But I must confess I find nothing in the sacred writings distinctly enough marked to support the opinion of the millennium or thousand years' reign, (before Christ's coming, and the general judgment,) nor can I conceive any important end that can be answered by this procedure."-Adam Clarke.

I WRITE not for victory; I think my sole object is truth. Did I write for victory, I should pursue a very different course with my esteemed brother than I now intend to. I should notice some things that might give me an advantage; but I intend only to notice what may be required to set the truth on which we may differ in a clear light. I do not intend, however, by this remark, a reflection upon brother Whedon. He is entitled to my thanks for the urbanity with which he has hitherto conducted the matter; and the two articles particularly on the Messiah's kingdom, are highly creditable to

any man; and if he fail in the argument, it will not be on account of the advocate, but of the cause he has espoused. His article on some of the fathers I cannot speak so highly of, if he have read them a fact which I ought not to doubt; and yet I cannot conceive how he should represent them in the light he has, unless he has read without much examination the remarks on the fathers, of Dr. Middleton, who most grossly, as Bishop Newton justly observes, mis-represented them. It is as palpable as the sun in the heavens, that the fathers did not believe in a terrene millennium. And if Br. Whedon will hazard his reputation as a scholar upon the question that they didthose quoted by me of course- -I will join issue with him on this question alone. Br. Whedon must know that the three hundred witnesses at the council of Nice, in A. D. 325, all bishops of the church, from all parts of the world, testified that the millennium was not terrene; or, in other words, that it was to be a new heaven and earth. Did they contradict the fathers? Did not Barnabas and Lactantius witness the same? Barnabas expressly declares that the "sun, and moon, and stars," shall be destroyed first; and then the thousand years.* These

*I think it best to add the words or exact language of some of the fathers. Barnabas, who, it will be recollected, was the fellow-laborer of St. Paul, who doubtless learned much from him, says, "In six thousand years" (refer

all unite with Justin Martyr in placing the millennium in conjunction with the New Jerusalem, the New Jerusalem of St. John, or a new earth, at Christ's coming, and in conjunction with the first resurrection. With these remarks I dismiss the article, regretting that I was obliged to differ from Br. Whedon, in a matter of plain, palpable history. If Br. Whedon wishes a terrene millennium, surely he must find it somewhere else besides in the fathers. Will he re-read Bishop Newton's remarks upon this subject in his Dissertation on Prophecies, p. 588, and on ward?

Before proceeding further I wish to ascer

ring to the six days of creation) "the Lord God will bring all things to an end." "For with him one day is a thousand years." "He rested on the seventh," he continues, and says this means, "that when his Son shall come, and abolish the season of the wicked one, and judge the ungodly, and shall change the sun, and moon, and stars, then he shall gloriously rest in that seventh day." "Behold, therefore," he continues, "he will then truly sanctify it with blessed rest, when we, having received the righteous promise, when iniquity shall be no more, all things being RENEWED by the Lord, shall be able to sanctify it, being ourselves first made holy." And he adds, "The eighth day will be the beginning of the other world."

Irenæus says, "The just, rising from the dead, shall reign, and nature," the material world, RENEWED and set at liberty," referring as I suppose, to the passage in Romans, which speaks of the creation groaning for liberty, "shall yield abundance of all things."

Justin Martyr says, that "All the saints should be raised in the flesh, (a) and reign with Christ in Jerusalem."

(a) "Raised in the flesh," appears to be a phrase peculiar to early writers, and means, as I judge, the resurrection of the just. Tha

tain the true point of difference between Br. Whedon and myself, so as not to beat the air.

We agree, as I understand Br. Whedon, 1. In the fact of a millennium.

2. That in the millennium, Christ is king, (de facto,) that is, he is king in fact, and by possession of the throne and kingdom.

3. We agree that Christ was not king (de facto) at his first coming, but was inaugurated king, (de jure,) or, as he will allow me to state it, he was publicly thus acknowledged at the banks of the Jordan: remarking on my own part, that his baptism was

What Jerusalem? Not the old one, surely. For he adds, "That a certain man among 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," (of all ages, I suppose it must mean,) "should live a thousand years in the NEW JERUSALEM, and after that, should be the general resurrection and judgment." Now, he must have meant the New Jerusalem of St. John, "the holy city," which John evidently makes the final abode of the saints.

The council of Nice state, "Why. efore, we expect new heavens and a new earth, according to the holy Scriptures, at the appearing and kingdom of the great God and our Savior 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, holy, the land of the living, not of the dead."

Is Br. Whedon prepared, in view of the above, to say that the fathers believe in a terrene millennium? I think if he is, he will enjoy his opinion alone.

phrase is found in the creed of the apostles, as late as A. D. 600. The creed then read, "I believe in God, the Father," &c.-" and the resur rection of the flesh." See Mr. Justice Baily's edition of Common Prayer. G. F. C.