shall succeed this I know not particularly, further than that I do not believe that the earth shall be annihilated, but that rectified and beautified it shall last forever, as the happy abode of the saints."-Anderson's Apol. for Millen. Doctrine, part i. p. 1, 2. Glasg. 1830.

That the sentiments of modern millennarians are, in their leading features, but the revival of the ancient doctrine as held by Justin Martyr, Irenæus, and Lactantius, is rendered indubitable, we think, by the foregoing extracts. And if, as we have endeavored to show, the doctrine of the fathers was merely a transplantation of the Jewish tenet into the Christian church, it follows that the modern hypothesis can claim for itself no other origin. We are aware indeed that there are two passages of scripture which are pressed into the service of this theory," and upon which great reliance is placed as containing all but a positive demonstration of its truth. The first is Ps. 90: 4, 'For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.' The second, which is supposed to be a quotation of the former, occurs 2 Pet. 3: 8. "Beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." How this language is understood in connection with the millennarian notion will appear from the following comment, although the author does not in other points agree with that school.

"He says, 'Be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.' By this expression, 'this one thing,' he plainly shows that it is not used as a general expression; for in that way it is as true, and might as well be said, that one day is with the Lord as a million of years. To show that he used the expression in a very particular sense, the apostle repeats it, 'that a thousand years are as one day.' It is highly probable, that it is in reference to some such division of time as the ages of the world into seven millennaries, and the seventh of these a sabbatism, that six days were spent in the

creation of the world, and that the seventh was sanctified for a sabbath. The Almighty Creator could have made the world in a moment, as easily as in six days; and for anything which we know, another day or another proportion of time might have been as fit for a sabbath as the seventh."Johnston on the Revelation, vol. ii. p. 326.

Mede speaks to the same effect. After giving the following as a correct paraphrase of the words:

"But whereas I mentioned the day of judgment, lest ye might mistake it for a short day, or a day of few hours, I would not, beloved, have you ignorant, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day"-he observes :-" Thus I expound these words by way of a preoccupation or premunition; because they are the formal words of the Jewish doctors when they speak of the day of judgment or day of Christ, as St. Peter here doth; viz. 'Una dies Dei Sancti Benedecti sunt mille anni '--' A thousand years are one day of the Holy Blessed God.' And though they use to quote that of the ninetieth Psalm, ('Mille anni in oculis tuis sicut dies hesternus '-'A thousand years in thy sight are as yesterday,') for confirmation thereof, yet are not those words formally in the Psalm. So that St. Peter in this passage seems rather to have had respect to that common saying of the Jews in this argument, than to the words of the Psalm, where the words, 'One day with the Lord is as a thousand years,' are not, though the latter part of the sentence, 'a thousand years as one day,' may allude thither as the Jews also were wont to bring it for a confirmation of the former. 2. These words are commonly taken as an argument why God should not be thought 'slack in his promise' (which follows in the next verse); but the first fathers took it otherwise; and besides it proves it not. For the question is not, whether the time be long or short in respect of God, but whether it be long or short in respect of us; otherwise not only a thousand but an hundred thousand years are in the eyes of God no more than one day is to us, and so it would not seem long to God if the day of judgment should be deferred till then."-Mede's Works, Book iii. p. 611.

Of the interpretation of this passage given by the writers now cited it may be said, that the allusion to the tradition

ary hebdomadal division of time, if it do exist in the words, is so extremely covert that it will ever be liable to be questioned or denied. The evidence by which such an interpretation is to be demonstratively shown to be the true one is and always must be wanting. One man may be firm in the belief that such is indeed the very drift of the apostle's words, but as he can bring no argument but the conviction of his own mind or that of other men, to affect the credence of another, he ought not to deem it surprising if he does not succeed in gaining his assent to an opinion which cannot be proved to be true. All that can be said of it is, that while on the one hand it cannot be shown to be true, on the other it cannot be proved to be false.

But even admitting the justness of the millennarian construction of this passage, it still leaves the main point as unsettled as before; viz. the identity of the seventh millennary of the world with the millennium of John in the Apocalypse. This is a point which all the writers of the millennarian school have uniformly taken for granted without requiring or advancing the least shadow of proof. In this respect therefore the whole theory labors under a radical, and we fear a fatal, defect of evidence. But we proceed to state the opinions—

II. Of those who deny the personal, but maintain the spiritual, reign of Christ on earth, for the period of a thousand years.

Chiliasts, or Millennarians, is a name which, from an early period, has been bestowed upon such as have been looking for a seventh millennium, in which our Lord Jesus Christ should personally appear and reign with his people on earth. But others also, not so denominated, have expected, and do expect, a spiritual reign on earth for a thousand years. This class embraces a large majority of the Christian world at the present day. They agree with the former for the most part in regard to the time of the

Millennium, but differ essentially in their views of its character. They declare themselves with equal confidence as to the fact of this happy period being yet future. "Nothing," says Bishop Newton," is more evident than that this prophecy of the Millennium and of the first resurrection hath not yet been fulfilled, even though the resurrection be taken in a figurative sense." Dr. Bogue expresses himself thus:- Why spend a moment to prove that the millennium does not now exist, and from the representation which has been given of the past periods of the church, has not yet commenced its joyful course? Prophecy confirms this reasoning, for it describes the Millennium as reserved for the last days (quere, where ?) to form the graceful close of the divine dispensations to the kingdom of the Redeemer." As far therefore as the Millennarians in fixing upon the seventh chiliad as the sabbatism of the world, are, as Jerome terms them, the 'heirs of a Jewish tradition," the advocates of the other opinion are entitled to a share in the Rabbinical legacy. For ourselves, we deem them both, in this respect, to be equally in error; but before attempting to prove them so, we shall lay before the reader some fair specimens of their opinions.

The first is that of Whitby.

"Having thus given you a just account of the Millennium of the ancients, and of the true extent of that opinion in the primitive ages of the church; I proceed now to show in what things I agree with the assertors of that doctrine, and how far I find myself constrained, by the force of truth, to differ from them.

I believe, then, that after the fall of Antichrist there shall be such a glorious state of the church, by the conversion of the Jews to the Christian faith, as shall be to it life from the dead; that it shall then flourish in peace and plenty, in righteousness and holiness, and in a pious offspring; that then shall begin a glorious and undisturbed reign of Christ over both Jew and Gentile, to continue a thousand years during the time of Satan's binding; and that as John the Baptist

was Elias, because he came in the spirit and power of Elias; so shall this be the church of martyrs, and of those who had not received the mark of the Beast, because of their entire freedom from all the doctrines and practices of the antichristian church, and because the spirit and purity of the times of the primitive martyrs shall return. And therefore,

1. I agree with the patrons of the Millennium in this, That I believe Satan hath not yet been bound a thousand years, nor will he be so bound till the time of the calling of the Jews, and the time of St. John's Millennium.

2. I agree with them in this, That the true Millennium will not begin till the fall of Antichrist; nor will the Jews be converted, the idolatry of the Roman church being one great obstacle of their conversion.

3. I agree both with the modern and the ancient Millennaries, That there shall be great peace and plenty, and great measures of knowledge and of righteousness in the whole church of God.

I therefore only differ from the ancient Millennaries in three things:

1. In denying Christ's personal reign upon earth during this thousand years; and in this both Dr. Burnet and Mr. Mede expressly have renounced their doctrine.*

2. Though I dare not absolutely deny what they all positively affirm, that the city of Jerusalem shall be then rebuilt, and the converted Jews shall return to it, because this probably may be collected from those words of Christ, 'Jerusalem shall be trodden down till the time of the Gentiles is come,' Luke 21: 24, and all the prophets seem to declare the Jews shall then return to their own land, Jer. 31: 38-40, yet do I confidently deny what Barnabas and others of them do contend for, viz. that the temple of Jerusalem shall be then built again; for this is contrary not only to the plain declaration of St. John, who saith, 'I saw no temple in this New Jerusalem,' Rev. 21: 22, whence I infer there is to be no temple in any part of it; but to the whole design of the epistle to the Hebrews which is to show the dissolution of the temple service, for the weakness and unprofitableness of it; (and) that the Jewish tabernacle was only a figure of the true and more perfect tabernacle which the Lord pitched, and not

6

This may be questioned. These writers have modified the creed of the ancients on this subject, without renouncing it.