"the

as

and honour and glory at the appearing of Christ, and who are consequently, excluded from all 'part in thefirst resurrection." Some read this "first resurrection "resurrection of the first fruits." No doubt, those who rise then are "the first fruits unto God and unto the Lamb,' 19 but this is not a translation of John's words. John wrote first resurrection," ή αναστασις ή πρωτη. Whichever way this is treated, it implies another resurrection besides itself. Understood as first in rank, it points to another lower in rank. "Resurrection of the first fruits " would refer by implication to resurrection of harvest. First in order would necessitate another or others in order. So that no sublimation or modification of the phrase can dispense with the conclusion that John contemplated another resurrection besides the one represented before his eyes in the enthroned multitude of accepted saints.

A true construction would combine all these ideas, and point to the resurrection that takes place at the coming of Christ as the one that will exceed in blessedness all other resurrections. It will introduce those who have part in it to the highest honour in store for mortals -the honour of leading mankind from their present miseries to the blessedness promised in Abraham. As Christ will always be the head of his people in the endless ages, so, doubtless, the saints that govern the millennial age will always occupy a position of glory and dignity over the ransomed multitudes that will by their means enter into eternal life at the close of the thousand years. Rev. xxi., first four verses, introduces to view the post-millennial blessedness on earth, when death is abolished. "No more sea points to this, whether taken symbolically or literally. There will be both literal ocean and 66 many waters of nations during the thousand years. After the thousand years, there is no more sea of nations, for there is then

"

but one nation, and that the immortalised multitudinous Israel of God. But even supposing these verses were held to be descriptive of what takes place at the beginning of the thousand years, they could not be used to sanction the idea that there is to be no resurrection at the close of the thousand years. The proclamation "There shall be no more death!" could in that case only be understood as an intimation that the abolition of death would be the ultimate effect of the New-Jerusalem government of men. The cases already cited of death during the millennium, and above all, the wholesale infliction of death on myriads at its close-(see Rev. xx. 8-9)-would preclude the absolute significance which the argument in question would seek to attach to it. It would in that case be on a par with the proclamation of the angels at the birth of Christ; "Peace on earth, goodwill to men !" which, taken by itself, would seem to intimate that peace was to begin immediately Christ was born; but, as experience has taught us, it only meant that peace would come on earth at last through the Deliverer then cradled at Bethlehem. Bnt the wording of the glorious verses in question clearly relates to a time when "the former things " of sin and sorrow shall have passed for ever from the face of the earth.

We have to note another feature of the change that takes place at the end, indicated by Paul in the following words

"Then cometh the end, when he (Christ) shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father, when he shall have put down all rule, and all authority and power; for he must reign till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be des troyed is death and when all things shall be subdued unto the Son, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto Him that put all things under Him, that God may be all in all" (1 Cor. xv. 24-28).

From this we learn that Christ at the end of the thousand years is to abdicate the position of absolute sovereignty, which he occupies in

LECTURE XI.

CHRIST THE FUTURE KING OF THE WORLD.

Trove that the time is coming

HE object of this lecture is to

when the Son of God, now in the heavens, shall return to the earth in visible person, to dispossess all human governments of their power, secular and ecclesiastical, and establish himself in their stead as the universal ruler of mankind. The essential constituent of the Messiahship of Jesus Christ, and the most prominent element of his character, as pourtrayed in all the Scriptures in his KINGSHIP. Therefore, any faith which ignores this phase of his character, is vitally defective, to which let every one see for himself, as a matter of the highest individual

concern.

There is a great deal more said in the Scriptures about the kingship of Christ than anything else. In the Old Testament, particularly, we find very little mention of the shame and the suffering to which he was to be subjected on account of sin. His sacrificial character is kept pretty much in the background.

That

which stands out in brilliant prominence is the glory which is to cover the earth when he shall reign in righteousness. This is true also of the New Testament, though it tells us more of "the man of sorrows and acquainted with grief" than the other.

Every professed believer in Christ is prepared to admit that he is a king. It must be obvious, however, that this admission is only valid in so far as it recognises the true idea of that office. If a man say that Jesus

is the Christ, or anointed one, while having an entirely erroneous idea of what the statement means, his

words are empty sound. When words do not mean the things they properly stand for, they have no value. That this is the case with the popular recognition of the kingship of Christ will certainly appear. The popular recognition of the kingship of Christ both expresses a view which is untrue, and ignores the view exhibited in the Scriptures. By the kingship of Christ, it means the present exercise by him of a spiritual authority in heaven; therefore, it is no recognition of Christ's Messiahship at all, in the true sense, as we shall presently see.

It is admitted that the Jewish expectation of the Messiah was that he should appear upon the earth in person, and visibly exercise the power of a king over all nations: and it is also admitted that the disciples themselves shared the same view. The real controversy is as to whether this view is right. Our religious teachers take upon themselves to say that so far from being right, it was a mistaken view of a gross and carnal nature. They severely condemn the idea of a visible kingdom on earth as opposed to the very spirit of Christianity, calling it Judaical, grovelling, "earthly, sensual, and devilish;" and as the teachers teach, so the people believe: so the untruthfulness of the Jewish national hope and the expectation of the disciples, has passed into an unquestioned article

"I will make them (the Jews) one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one King shall be Ring to them all" (Ezekiel xxxvii. 22).

"The Lord hath sworn in truth unto David; He will not turn from it; of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne " (Psalm cxxxii. 11).

"The Lord said unto my Lord, sit thou on my right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool. The Lord shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion. Rule thou in the midst of thine enemies" (Psalm cx. 1, 2).

"I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession " (Psalm ii. 8).

"He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth. Yea, all kings shall fall down before him; all nations shall serve him" (Psalm lxxii. 8, 11). (See also Daniel vii. 14.)

These are a few out of many testimonies of a common import, and the question for us to consider is whether they do not amply justify the expectations which the Jews are admitted to have built on them. Nay, could they have consistently professed a belief in such testimonies, and not have entertained such expectations? It is not possible to conceive of language more designedly adapted to express the one idea of Christ's visible manifestation as a king on earth; and if the Jews were wrong in looking for such a manifestation, it was no fault of theirs. It was not because they were carnally minded; but because the language of the holy men of old, who spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit, was so framed as to preclude every other but the one idea which they derived from it.

It may be suggested that New Testament interpretation throws another light upon the statements of the Old Testament, and deprives them of the warranty which they seem to afford to the Jewish doctrine of the Messiah's kingship. It is customary to assume that this is the case; but the result of an examination will prove that a more unfounded assumption could not be entertained, and that the New Testament unmistakably corroborates the teaching of the prophets on the subject. We are met on the very

threshold by the message delivered by the angel Gabriel to Mary, in announcing the birth of Christ

"And behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son and shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God shall GIVE UNTO HIM THE THRONE OF HIS FATHER DAVID; and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of HIS KINGDOM there shall be no end' (Luke i. 31, 33).

Here is a distinct New Testament intimation that it is the purpose of God to give to Jesus "the throne

of his father David." If we would apprehend the import of this statement, we must know what is the throne of David. Of David we He know something. was the most renowned of Israel's Godanointed kings, holding sway over the twelve tribes of Israel in the Holy Land, and ruling many tributary nations. He was a mighty warrior, a distinguished prophet, and a poet of the highest type. He was the progenitor of Christ, through Mary, who was descended from the royal house; and was a fitting type of his illustrious son, whom he acknowledged as

'My Lord' (Matt. xxii. 43). But what of his throne? Peter said, in his address to the Jews, on the day of Pente

cost

"Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his (David's) loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ TO SIT UPON HIS THRONE" (Acts ii. 30).

There is, therefore, a connection between Christ's mission and David's throne. Had David a throne? He had. In what did it consist? Not in the material structure which he occupied as a seat in dispensing justice; that has long ago crumbled into dust. The throne of a kingdom is not the literal seat occupied by When royalty on state occasions. we speak of the throne of England, we mean the office or position of monarch in this country. Hence, we believe that the Prince of Wales will, when he succeeds his royal the throne of mother, ascend