will constitute the happy state of the world for a thousand years, so, when that period shall have expired, Satan, being “loosed out of his prison,” (ch. xx. 8,) will deceive the nations as before, and during the “little season” of liberty, will succeed in raising from the dead as it were, a multitude of the same character as those who killed the witnesses,—­“Gog and Magog.”  This maybe called the second resurrection, and there will never be a third of that kind, for the Lord will destroy them for ever, (ch. xx. 9.) The character of the witnesses and their unparalleled conflicts with Antichrist sufficiently identify them in the Apocalypse throughout the 1260 years, as also during the thousand years of their reign; and the character of their enemies identifies them in the time of conflict for 1260 years; but during the succeeding period of righteousness and peace for a thousand years, they will not be permitted to lift up the head.  And so soon as they are organized under the conduct of Satan, and like Pharaoh, most confident of victory, (Exod. xv. 9,) then “sudden destruction cometh upon them, and they shall not escape.”

THE IDENTITY OF THE TWO WITNESSES.

The late Rev. Alexander M’Leod, D. D., who had the works of learned predecessors before him, has successfully corrected many of their misinterpretations in his valuable publication, entitled “Lectures upon the Principal Prophecies of the Revelation.”  At the time when he wrote that work, he possessed several advantages in aid of his own expositions.  He had access to the most valuable works which had been issued before that date, (1814.).  He was then in the vigor of youthful manhood; and he was also comparatively free from the trammels which in attempts to expound the Apocalypse, have cramped the energies of many a well-disciplined mind, political partialities.  At the time of these profound studies, he occupied a position “in the wilderness,” from which as a stand point, like John in Patmos, he could most advantageously survey the passing scenes of providence with the ardor of youthful emotion, and with unsullied affection for the divine Master.  With all these advantages, however, the dispassionate and impartial reviewer may discover, in the rapid current of his thoughts, that the active powers of the expositor some times took precedence of the intellectual.  Two special causes may be assigned for this, hereditary love of liberty, and the actual condition of society at the time.  Born in Scotland, the cradle of civil and religious liberty from the days of John Knox, Dr. M’Leod’s traditions and mental associations were necessarily imbued with the atmosphere of such surroundings.  To such causes may be attributed occasional declamation, extravagant verbosity and unconscious inconsistencies, not well comporting with the solidity and self possession so desirable on the part of an expositor.  Yet even in such outbursts of impassioned