fact of a distinct interval between the appearances of the Risen Saviour. We have the same words again in

Mark iv. 17, "afterward when the affliction or persecution ariseth;" and verse 28 "first the blade, then the ear,

after that the full corn in the ear." In all these cases there is necessarily a definite interval.

In our text there are more than 1850 years between "Christ the firs tfruits" and "they that are Christ's at His

coming." Why then should any difficulty be raised when Rev. xx. distinctly states that 1000 years will elapse

between the Resurrection of the first of these two great divisions and the second.

Let us read Rev. xx. 4-6 together:--

"And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them and judgment was given unto them.  17

"And I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus and for the word of God.18

"And (I saw those) which had not worshipped the beast nor His image, neither had received his mark upon

their foreheads, or in their hands.19

"And they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

"But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the fist Resurrection.

Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first Resurrection; on such the second death had no power, but

they shall be priests of God, and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years."

Some persons interpret this "first" resurrection as a spiritual quickening of those who are dead in sins, and

the second as a real and literal resurrection. But surely this cannot be done, for in one and the same context

we have two resurrections mentioned, and they are so blended and so spoken of in exactly the same terms,

that the meaning of the one must fix and settle the meaning of the other. It would be far easier to take them

both as being spiritual, than to take one spiritually and the other literally. For you first have the spiritual

resurrection, then the literal, and then the spiritual again. Yet the language used, and words employed are

the same in each case, and the Holy Spirit has not given us the slightest hint that there is any such

transition in the use of the same words; and not the slightest indication, or ground for supposing that

identical expressions are used in the same passage in opposite senses. And if the Holy Spirit has not done

this, surely we may ask "by what authority" are we told that we may do so?

Rather let us see how the Spirit Hims elf interprets to us this solemn and important Scripture.

These already enthroned appear to be the Church (I Cor. vi. 2) which, like Christ Himself, is "a kind of

firstfruits of His creatures" (Jas. i. 18), and is hence called the "church of the first-born," i.e.-- the first-born

from the dead. The term first-born cannot be used in opposition to the unsaved, but to others were are born,

though not "first-born."

These are the souls seen slain in Rev. vi. 9, but are now seen resurrected, for it says xx. 4 "they lived."

These are their fellow-servants and brethren who in Rev. vi. 11 were alive but were yet to be killed as they

had been; and were killed in Rev. xiii. 7, 15, xiv. 12, 13, and seen raised in vision xv. 2.

Thus they appear to be three sub-divisions of this great "first" division; and though the definite acts of

such Resurrections from among the dead, and ascensions of living ones are not mentioned, they are more

than implied, if not necessitated, by the various visions of the apocalypse. Those raised in Matt. xxvii. 52,

53, must also be included in this "First Resurrection."