secure, on the one hand, that no conditions be annexed to these grants inconsistent with the entire preservation of her liberty and jurisdiction in the management of her schools; and, on the other hand, that this church do not incur the responsibility of approving of any false and erroneous principles that may be involved in such measures as the government may propose and adopt. "3. That the position of Scotland, in respect of education, is such as to afford peculiar facilities for the adoption of a system of popular education which might be generally acceptable to the community on the one hand, and consistent with sound principle on the other, were Scotland now, as in former days, considered and dealt with as a distinct nation-on the footing of her national standing and attainments; inasmuch as, first, there would seem to be almost a universal concurrence among those of all denominations who are practically carrying on the work in Scotland, notwithstanding important differences in other matters, in the use in all their schools not only of the Holy Scriptures, but also of the Catechisms of the Westminster Assembly; secondly, all such parties agree in the propriety, and adopt the practice, of opening all public schools to those who wish to avail themselves of the merely secular part of the instruction embraced in them, without requiring the attendance at any religious service or exercise, either on week-day or Sabbath-day; and it appears to this Assembly, not only that the people of Scotland have the strongest claim to be treated, in this matter, as a portion of the empire distinct from the rest; but that it would be the highest honour and soundest policy of a wise, Christian, and patriotic government to make Scotland the field for thus exemplifying a plan of national education, evangelical and Scriptural on the one hand, and yet thoroughly catholic on the other. "4. In reference, however, to the present proposal of the government, the Assembly are constrained to record their disapproval of those provisions in the scheme, which, while requiring religious instruction to be communicated, and religious qualifications to be attested, in all the schools aided by public grant, do not appear to discriminate sufficiently between truth and error, and without determining how far, in the embarrassments which the religious divisions, especially in other parts of the empire, occasion, the government might not be warranted in acting upon the plan of giving aid to all schools which profess to furnish the secular branches required, to the satisfaction of the government inspector, without taking any cognisance at all of anything beyond these branches, excepting only in the exercise of its undoubted right to see that nothing contrary to social order be anywhere inculcated: the Assembly cannot but consider as unsound and latitudinarian such a plan as implies that the government make themselves responsible for the schools aided by them being religious, without discriminating between the Evangelical faith of the Protestant churches, and the many vital errors which pass under the name of religion. "5. In accordance with the preceding resolutions, the Assembly instruct their Education Committee to communicate with Her Majesty's government, as they have opportunity, in order to bring under their notice the views contained in the said resolutions, and generally to aim at the accomplishment of the desirable object indicated to them. And in the mean time, the General Assembly being of opinion that there is no valid objection, in principle, in the way of accepting aid from public grants, given unconditionally and freely, for the support of the schools of this church, remit also to the Educational Committee, along with the Presbyteries, to give advice with such parties as may wish to apply for grants.” THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW. No. LXXVIII.-OCTOBER 1847. ART. I.-Christ's Second Coming: will it be Pre-Millennial? By the Rev. DAVID BROWN, A.M., Minister of St. James' Free Church, Glasgow. Edinburgh: John Johnstone. 1846. THIRD ARTICLE. In our last article we were engaged in discussing certain texts, and in stating our objections to Mr Brown's interpretation of them. Our reason for so doing, was not simply that we thought the interpretation given was incorrect and untenable. It was because important issues appeared to us to be involved in it. Not only we, but Mr Brown could not fail to observe that much depended on the meaning affixed to those passages, at least to the two latter. If the common exposition of them be admitted, it is not possible to deny the pre-millennial advent, or at all events the pre-millennial resurrection. For their prophetical position in the order of coming events, is allowed by Mr Brown to be premillennial. The question with him is not, what is the place which the verse in the 25th of Isaiah and the 12th of Daniel occupy. He does not hesitate to assign these predictions their place at the commencement of the millennium. But his inquiry is, what is the meaning of these verses? Do they 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 *To our former extracts on the interpretation of the 12th of Daniel, we add a sentence from Mr Archibald Mason's work. He is a well known divine, and a vigorous anti-millennarian. "That Daniel is speaking of the general resurrection at the last day is evident. It is impossible that Daniel, in these verses, is speaking of the millennial church.” (P. 169.) We do not agree with Mr Mason; but here is an anti-millennarian asserting the very opposite of Mr Brown, and with no less determination and confidence! Mr Mason does not see the consequences of his admission 2 G VOL. XX. NO. IV. 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 need not again discuss; but if it be so, it is time that anti-millennarians 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 millennarian interpretation which can no longer be listened to, though an apostle has set his seal to it? 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? We find that unbiassed writers, who have no system to build up, have taken what we call the natural view of these passages. 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. As a specimen of what we mean, we may refer (among many) to Thomas Boston's Body of Divinity,-to" Marckii Medulla," to "Spanhemii Elenchus Controversiarum," in which the texts in question are quoted and applied in their literal acceptance.* Boston, Banheim, and Marck, seem not to have known, or at least not to have relished the spiritual 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 expositions. Mr Brown may perhaps reply that these writers were not aware of the evil consequences of their admissions; 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 and therefore contends for the natural sense of the words, as pointing to a literal resurrection. Mr Brown sees the consequences of such an admission, and betakes himself to the non-natural sense, to avoid it. * Boston, vol. ii. p. 304. Marck, cap. xxxiv. sect. 15. Spanheim, p. 632. 634. 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 simplehearted 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 and Isaiah (in the passages referred to,) 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 spiritualise these wellknown passages, or admit the truth of millennarianism. They perceive the dilemma; but to explain away or allegorize such explicit texts, (one of them fixed down by an apostle) 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. Bearing these remarks in mind, not only as applicable to the discussion in our former article, but also to what lies before us now, we proceed to examine a few more of the interpretations to be found in the volume under review; as it is upon these that the present controversy must really turn, and as it is upon the soundness of these that the validity of Mr Brown's claims as a controversialist must chiefly rest. We come to his exposition of the seventh chapter of Daniel, as given us in the concluding part of the sixth chapter of the present volume. There are several minuter points on which we would fain have furnished a few remarks, but brevity is in our case absolutely necessary, and we must forego all notice of every thing save what bears directly and prominently upon the main controversy. In his exposition of the four empires we concur, but beyond this we totally differ from him in his understanding of the passage. It 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 THE BOOKS WERE OPened. I saw in the night vision, 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 judgment, 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 |