model Christianity, according to their own fancy, or their favorite system of philosophy, or pre-conceived notions, have run into this mode of interpreting Scripture.

There is no reason to wonder, that in the thick cloud of darkness, which he drew over the word of God, he should have lost sight of a Millenium altogether, and made the church on earth the mystic kingdom of Heaven. The opposition of Nepos to his views, and the influence of Coracion in Arsinoe, in preserving, for a season, the ancient faith on the subject, have already been noticed. It was left, however, for Dionysius of Alexandria, a disciple of Origen, to establish the authority and system of his master. Eusebius has an extract from Dionysius's works, in which he gives an account of his oral discussion with the presbyters and teachers of Arsinoe, and how he induced Coracion, and, as he says, with “him all the rest, to promise that they would no longer adhere to the millenarian view, nor discuss it; neither mention nor teach it," having, as he not very modestly says of himself, "been fully convinced by the opposite argu

ments."*

Yet this same Dionysius, while he professed not to do so in reality, rejected the book of Revelations, and gives a long argument† founded on the comparison of the style of the Apocalypse with that of the three Epistles of John, the absence of John's name in the latter and its announcement in the former, and what he calls idiotisms or odd peculiarities of expression, to prove that the book of Revelations was not the production of John the apostle. After stating how

Euseb. Ecc. Hist., p. 278.

† Which Dr. Lardner has examined and refuted in his Credibilia, vol. ii.

some attributed it to Cerinthus, and set it aside altogether, pronouncing it without sense or reason, he says: "For my part I would not venture to set this book aside," and then states the reason, not because he believed it to be canonical, but from mere policy; "because," says he, "there are many brethren that value it much; but having formed a conception of its subject as exceeding my capacity, I consider it also containing a certain concealed and wonderful intimation in each particular. For though I do not understand, yet I suspect, that some deeper sense is enveloped in the words, and these I do not measure and judge by my private reason; but allowing more to faith, I have regarded them as too lofty to be comprehended by me, and those things which I do not understand, I do not reject, but I wonder, the more I cannot comprehend." This all seems very humble and pious; yet it is obvious, that he was much more disposed to be skeptical, and to act the part of a critic in reference to the book of Revelations, than to study and prize it as a divinely inspired work. For, after having said many things to prove, that the apostle John was not its author,—all of them mere presumptions founded on his criticism, he remarks, as though the truth might be suspected as to his skepticism, "neither would I have any one suppose, that I am saying these things by way of derision, but only with the view to point out the great difference between the writings of these men, that is, the apostle John who wrote the Epistles, and another John, who Dionysius persuaded himself was the author of the book of Revelations."* In concluding this chapter, the following facts are worthy of being recapitulated.

* Euseb. Ecc. Hist., p. 276.

1. That while the primitive church retained her greatest simplicity of faith, and purity of life, and spirit of martyrdom, the pre-millenial coming of Christ for the establishment of his kingdom on the earth, was extensively and generally received, and used for the purposes of holy living.

2. That the very first evidences of dissent from it, appear among those who attempted to unite philosophy with Christianity, and to adapt the truths of Scripture to the decisions of human reason.

3. That it was not till Cerinthus, and other heretics, had perverted and given a sensual gloss to the millenarian doctrine, and the notions of Origen and of other converts from Platonism as to the nature of holiness, had undergone a very important change, that opposition to millenarian views began to find favor. In the first and second centuries, holiness was understood to be, as it is in truth, the love of God and of man, regulating the feelings of men and all their senses, appetites, and actions. There was nothing felt to be sinful in the senses and appetites, but only in their illicit and excessive exercise. But the Platonic notions of the nature and origin of evil, led the wise and learned to suppose that sin sprung from the contact of spirit with matter, and therefore to regard the appetites themselves as sinful, and to make holiness to consist in sexual chastity, celibacy, virginity, and only to be perfectly attained by the extirpation of the appetites, and liberation from the body. It was a false philosophy, therefore, against which the apostles warned the church, and which they predicted would corrupt it, that excited prejudices against the millenarian doctrine, and prepared the way for its rejection.

4. That even when those prejudices, engendered by a false philosophy, had been excited, still success did

not crown the attempt to get rid of millenarian doctrine, till a style of interpretation was introduced, sanctioned, and worked into a system, which actually rendered the Sacred Scriptures useless to common people, and prepared the way for their becoming the exclusive possession of the priests.

5. And that it became necessary, on the part of the first opposers, to deny or to doubt the canonical authority of the book of Revelations, or practically and skeptically to reject, and to undervalue a portion of the Word of God, from the beginning admitted to be genuine and of divine authority, and especially commended to our study and valuation.

CHAPTER IX.

TRADITIONARY HISTORY.

IN pursuing the history of the views entertained in the primitive church, relative to the coming and kingdom of Jesus Christ, we have found but one unbroken chain of testimony in favor of the personal pre-millenial advent and appearance of the Saviour until the close of the second century. The opposition first publicly raised by Caius, against what was called the orthodox faith on this subject, became subsequently much more formidable, as prosecuted by Origen, and his disciple, Dionysius of Alexandria. It was not, however, till an entire new system of interpreting the Scriptures had been excogitated, and received the sanction of the wise and learned, that the millenarian views began to fall into disrepute.

In speaking of this method of interpretation, wrought into a system by Origen, Milner says, "No man, not altogether unsound and hypocritical, ever more hurt the church of Christ, than Origen. From the fanciful mode of allegory introduced by him, uncontrolled by Scriptural rule and order, arose a vitiated method of commenting on the Scriptures, which has been succeeded by a contempt of types and figures altogether, just as his fanciful ideas of letter and spirit, tended to remove from men's minds, all right conception of genuine Christianity. A thick mist, for ages, pervaded the Christian world, supported by his absurd allegorical mode. The learned alone