demning the very notion of a millennium as a heresy, when she never meant to censure anything but the wild and detestable extravagances of certain 'Latter-day Saints,' who were about as respectable as the Mormonites. As the world goes at present, we must put up with a little partisanship, and if we must have it, certainly the good-humoured and somewhat pressing advocacy of Dr. Maitland is more tolerable than the solemn over-reaching of such an attempt at 'prescription' as Dr. Wordsworth has made in this instance. Its manifest unfairness ought to be a warning to him in future dealings with controversy.

In spite of this prejudice in favour of the millennial hope,' Dr. Maitland's is a real attempt to ascertain the evidence of an apostolic school of interpretation, and one that cannot be pronounced a failure. He has availed himself of the materials already generally known, with no small diligence, and has, farther, pressed into the service a host of writers known only in fragments recently brought to light. The Catena, which had been awaked from the slumbers of the Vatican by the industry of a Maii, still needed a living expositor to make them known and appreciated by the Church of the nineteenth century; and they have found one able and laborious enough to introduce them effectually into notice. They do not, however, bear so much upon the particular question of the millennium as upon some others. It may be worth while to place his summary on this point in comparison with the statements of Dr. Wordsworth, who also professes a certain deference to ancient authority, though he does not distinctly maintain the theory of an original tradition of the true interpretation of prophecy, of which traces are still to be found.

'Before dismissing the primitive writers, we should notice accurately the amount of agreement prevailing among them in reference to, 1st. the thousand years of S. John, and 2d, the last half week of Daniel.

"Those who have recorded their opinion for or against the millennium may thus be classed :

But on which side shall we range S. John? Were he uninspired, nothing could be more decisive than his statement:-"They lived and reigned with

Christ a thousand years." Have we at length come to this, that because we reckon him inspired, the plain sense of his words is to go for nothing? 'The two writers who appear in opposition to the doctrine, are not altogether unexceptionable. The system by which Origen contrived to get rid of the millennium was soon branded with the name of Origenism, having been found to interfere with the belief in the literal resurrection of the flesh. Nor can Dionysius be justified in his method of dealing with the Apocalypse: for, not daring to revile it in his own name, he repeats with satisfaction the saying of "certain persons," that the book itself is devoid of sense and reason: also, that its title is utterly false, since it is neither written by S. John, nor does it, covered as it is with a thick and dense veil of ignorance, deserve the title of a Revelation.'-Maitland, pp. 201, 202.

'A.D. circ. 150.

The defence of Christianity was next taken up by Justin the Martyr. A point at issue between Jews and Christians was the Millennium, on which subject Justin thus states the belief of the Church :

"With all perfectly orthodox Christians, I acknowledge the future resurrection of the flesh. Now the thousand years in Jerusalem, when it shall be built up, adorned, and enlarged, are declared by the prophets Ezekiel, Esaias, and others. For thus did Esaias speak of that thousand years: There shall be a new heaven and a new earth, and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind, &c. . . .

"We know also the saying, that a day of the Lord is as a thousand years. Moreover, one of our own people, named John, an Apostle of Christ, prophesied in the Apocalypse that for those who believe in our Christ there will be a thousand years in Jerusalem; and afterwards there will come the catholic, or universal and simultaneous, resurrection and judgment of all men."

'In this matter of the millennium the Jews and the Christians appear to have changed sides: for the doctrine, first maintained by the Church against the Jews, was soon discarded by the Church as a fiction of Jewish origin. The following slight sketch of the controversy will illustrate the change:

'A.D.

75. Barnabas teaches the millennium.

96. S. John also.

'150. Justin Martyr supports it against the Jews.

'400. Jerome styles it a Jewish fiction.

450. Ammonius launches out against the Jews for expecting another Christ to bring about their millennium: "Vainly do they imagine they will reign with Antichrist a thousand years: he will not flourish longer than three and a half."

'1,000. The book Zoar teaches the millennium; also most of the Rabbinical works.'-Maitland, pp. 137, 138.

'So deeply rooted was this expectation of a temporal reign, even in the hearts of the Apostles, at the very close of Christ's ministry, that the last question which they are recorded in Scripture to have addressed to Him was, "Lord, wilt thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?" Again, this literal mode of interpretation produced another misapprehension concerning S. John himself. "If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?" said our Blessed Lord of him. "Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die." They understood literally what our Lord had spoken figuratively. It was for S. Peter to follow Christ to the cross, but for S. John to tarry till Christ came, and took Him to himself by a natural death and, in a higher spiritual sense, S. John was to tarry in the world, in his Gospel and in his Apocalypse, which reveals the history of

:

the Church even to the end; and thus S. John tarries with us till Christ

comes.

6

Still further: It is well known that an opinion was entertained by many of the Jewish Rabbis, from whom it was borrowed by some early Christian teachers, that as the world was created in six days, which were succeeded by a seventh of rest, so it would endure for six millenary periods, to be followed by a Sabbatical Millennium. It will appear, from these considerations, that many of the primitive Christians, especially those of Jewish extraction, were predisposed to misunderstand, in a carnal sense, the prophecies concerning the Second Advent: and we shall not be surprised that such an exposition of the twentieth chapter of the Apocalypse should have been adopted by Cerinthus, who is called by the Fathers half a Jew; or by Papias, who was more eminent for zeal than for some other qualities which are requisite in an interpreter of Scripture; or by others, however learned, who passed from the Synagogue into the Church.

Such, then, was the origin of the doctrine of the Millennium.

Papias, by reason of his piety and antiquity, exercised great influence. Eusebius expressly testifies that the propagation of this dogma was mainly due to him. We need not wonder that it should have been embraced by Tertullian, whose Montanistic bias prepossessed him in its favour; nor that it should have been, in some respects, sanctioned by Justin Martyr, when we recollect his Jewish extraction, and his Platonic training; nor that it should have been adopted by Lactantius, who appears to have derived it from the Sibylline oracles; nor even that it should have found, to a certain extent, an advocate in Irenæus, paying, as he himself informs us, a tribute of respect to Papias, the companion of Polycarp, the scholar of S. John. 'Let us pause here to observe two facts.

First; that no doubt was entertained by any of these parties, to whom we have now referred, concerning the genuineness and inspiration of the Apocalypse. They all received it as a work of the Apostle and Evangelist, S. John. And to speak only of one of them, Papias. Whatever may be thought of his authority with respect to a question of doctrine, yet it must be regarded as high, concerning this matter of fact. He might easily, from previous impression, or from defect of judgment, or insufficient care, be deceived as to the meaning of a particular passage in such a book as the Apocalypse. But, living as he did at Hierapolis, in Asia, the country to which the Apocalypse was first sent, and within a few years after it was written, he could not easily have been mistaken with regard to the fact of its authorship. And when we remember that his evidence on this fact is corroborated, as we shall show hereafter, by other witnesses of the same country and age, his testimony appears to prove beyond the possibility of a doubt that the author of the Apocalypse was S. John.

The second circumstance to which I refer is this: No sooner were Millenarian doctrines imputed to the Apocalypse, than the Apocalypse itself declined in repute.

I do not say that it was rejected. But it was felt that these Millenarian doctrines were inconsistent with the general teaching of Holy Scripture; and hence many in the Church began to show symptoms of restlessness and perplexity concerning the Apocalypse, to which these doctrines were ascribed. And it may be added, that the feeling of distrust and anxiety, produced by the same causes, still lingers in the minds of some, even to this day, and operates to the prejudice of this divine book.

The case of the Apocalypse in this respect is similar to that of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Both these books were received as divine as soon as they were written. But doctrines, inconsistent with the plain drift of Scripture taken as a whole, were imputed by some to them both. For example, the Novatian heretics fixed on the sixth chapter of the Epistle to the

Hebrews. Here they entrenched themselves, and planted the standard of their heterodoxy. So the Millenarians thought themselves impregnable in the twentieth chapter of the Apocalypse.

And what was the consequence?

⚫ Both these books of Scripture, being thus misinterpreted, were in danger of being discredited, and were rejected by some even otherwise orthodox writers. Instead of examining whether these two books did or did not teach the erroneous doctrines ascribed to them, the persons to whom I now refer, were unhappily over-reached by the bold assertions of their opponents, and cut short the matter by surrendering these books as apocryphal. Thus, for instance, Caius, a celebrated Roman Presbyter at the commencement of the third century, in his controversy with Proclus, a follower of Montanus, abandoned the Epistle to the Hebrews. And it is remarkable that the Montanists, who built their stern unrelenting discipline of penance on the sixth chapter of that Epistle, based their Millenarian doctrines on the twentieth chapter of the Apocalypse; and that this same Roman Presbyter, who gave up the Epistle to the Hebrews, not only surrendered the Apocalypse, but even was carried so far, in his hatred of the Millenarian doctrines imputed to it, as to ascribe it, either in whole or in part, to the Judaizing heretic, Cerinthus.

'For such reasons as these, doubts were entertained in the Church of Rome concerning these books. And let us observe, in passing, that if the Church of Rome had really been, as she professes to be, the sole Guardian of Scripture, and if Scripture depended upon her for its authority, as she pretends, then Christendom would have been in great danger of losing two Books of the New Testament,-the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Apocalypse.

Next, let us remark the subtlety of the Arch-Enemy of man in his aggressions against the Word of God. He not only inspired heretics to compose false books, and to propagate them as Scripture, but he tempted them to pervert Scripture by false interpretations; and thus he made Scripture itself appear to be heretical. Nor was this all: he tempted even such pious men as Papias unwittingly to abet their artifices by an overweening zeal for oral tradition; and he tempted such learned men as Caius to abandon portions of Scripture, because they had been perverted by heretics! Let us observe, also, the striking fact, that this very chapter-the twentieth of the Apocalypse-in which Satan is represented as a captive, bound by the chain in the hand of Christ, and as cast by Him into the bottomless pit, was perverted by Satan into an occasion of triumph to himself against the Church, in causing thereby the temporary and partial rejection of the book in which the prophecy of his own doom is contained.

'Behold here, my beloved brethren, a most striking proof of Satan's craft and of human weakness!

'But, now, mark the glorious operation of God's Providence in vindicating His own Word!

The manner in which the Epistle to the Hebrews was retrieved has engaged our attention in a former Lecture. We speak now of the Apocalypse.

The same person was employed by Almighty God in maintaining the inspiration and genuineness of both these Sacred Books-the learned teacher of Alexandria, Origen. He showed that the Apocalypse had been misinterpreted. He gave its true exposition, and so restored it to the Church.

The school of Origen gave birth to Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, one of the greatest Doctors of the Church, in the third century; distinguished alike by learning and charity.

It appears, that in his age Millenarian doctrines had spread themselves widely in Africa. Inspired with zeal for the souls committed to his care,

he repaired in person to the Churches in which these opinions prevailed. and summoned the Clergy of his diocese to a conference, at which many of the laity also were present. A book, in which those tenets were promulged, was made the subject of patient discussion for three days. The Bishop tested each of its propositions by Scripture, and carefully examined the allegations of the Millenarians. The result was most gratifying. The Clergy thankfully acknowledged the benefit they had derived from their Bishop's fatherly care; and the principal champion of Millenarianism among them ingenuously retracted his opinions, and acknowledged that they had no foundation in the Word of God.'—Wordsworth, pp. 8—17.

He proceeds to quote S. Jerome and S. Augustine—

Perhaps no more valuable commentary on any portion of Scripture, certainly no more interesting one, can be found, than that which was written on the twentieth chapter of the Apocalypse, amid the storm of arms, by the aged Bishop of Hippo. It will be found in the twentieth book of his work on the City of God. Let me commend it to your careful perusal.

In it S. Augustine taught, as Origen, Dionysius and Jerome had done before him, that the Apocalypse is the Word of God; and that the doctrine of the Millennium is not in the Apocalypse.

'The question seemed now at rest. It was generally regarded as heretical, either to reject the Apocalypse, or to believe a Millennium.

'And such was the case for a thousand years from that time. But, alas! after their expiration, amid the many extravagances which marred the beauty, and crippled the power, and damaged the success, of the Reformation of Religion in certain parts of Europe, in the sixteenth century, the doctrine of the Millennium was revived. It soon bore its fruits. It showed itself not only in religious fanaticism, but also in civil licentiousness. Some who held it in that age, and in the next century, affirmed that the era of a fifth Monarchy had now dawned on the world; that all other governments must be overthrown to make way for the reign of the Elect; and that they themselves were the Saints, the glories of whose Millennial reign were predicted in such glowing colours by S. John in the Apocalypse.'-Pp. 20-22.

Of course this subject occupies so large a place in both works, that it would be hardly possible to give a full view of the arguments and testimony on both sides. While, however, it must be confessed that we can have no certainty of an actual apostolic tradition on the subject; nor, indeed, of the fact of the Apostles having understood their own prophecies and visions beyond the very words and symbols they have transmitted; some weight must still be allowed to the absence of any appearance of an anti-literal tradition in this matter, and the early prevalence of a literal interpretation. It is true there are

anti-literal conclusions, and those brought out by men of weight, in opposition to the extravagances of certain carnal literalists. But these would not be solitary instances if we were to suppose them to have been over-refinements, ably devised to meet a particular error, but not really necessary to the defence of truth. The writings, even of great Fathers, abound in such statements, which any tolerable judgment can discern from their actual delivery of doctrine, as handed down to them in the Church by uniform and undoubted tradition.