Sidor som bilder

Heber and Watts, and other sweet poets, have sung in noblest strains of the same bright hope of a fallen ruined world.

The eighteenth century abounds in writers on the subject. Dr. John Gill was very decided in his views. The same* author, from whom we quoted the list of names in the last century, gives the following additional list of later writers, whose views, often differing, and sometimes not confirmed by proof, were more or less millenarian. Bishops Clayton, Horseley, Newton and Newcome. Doctors P. Allix, G. Frank, S. Glass, J. E. Grabe, L. Hopkins of R. I., N. A., J. Knight, F. Lee, S. Rudd, and E. Wells. Among the divines of lesser degree, T. Adams, of Winteringham, R. Beere, J. A. Bengelius, C. Daubuz, R. Heming, J. Hallet, R. Hort, R. Ingram, P. Jurieu, J. B. Koppius, C. G. Koch, P. Lancaster, A. Pirie, R. Roach, J. D. Schæffer, A. Toplady, E. Winchester. Among the laity, Sir I. Newton, H. Dodwell and E. King, Esqs.

The name of Sir Isaac Newton is sufficient to shield the doctrine from the charge of weakness or fanaticism, or of being supported by insufficient evidence. He gave his powerful mind two whole years to the study of the prophecies, and has avowed his belief in the pre-millenial coming of Christ.f

The contests between prelacy and the puritan non-conformist divines, for a time, drove the millenarian doctrine out of the Episcopal church among the dissenters; but, during the last and present centuries, the tide has turned, and among the most zealous advocates of the present day are to be found some of the most pious and evangelical, learned and eloquent,

[ocr errors]

* Elements of Proph. Int., p. 79. † See his Commentary on Daniel, and his Observations on the Apocalypse.

divines in the church of England, such as Bickersteth, Burgh, Fry, Girdlestone, Hales, Hoare, Hooper, Hawtrey, Marsh, the Maitlands of Brighton and Gloucester, Madden, Mellville, M'Neil, Noel, Pym, Sirr, Sabin, Stuart and others, are to be found among the Dissenters, particularly Begg, Cox, Tyso, Baptists ; and among the laity, Frere, Habershon, Viscount Mandeville, T. P. Platt, Granville Peen, Wood, of England, Cuninghame of Scotland, and the late Judge Boudinot, of Jersey, and others in our own country, men of distinction in their profession, though few, comparatively, there is reason to fear, have ever turned their attention to the subject. Robert Hall* regretted, on his dying bed, he had not preached the millenarian views he entertained.

Some circumstances have contributed to throw odium, not only on millenarian views, but on the study of the prophecies-such as the fall of Mr. Irving, whose earlier works have thrown much light on the subject, the rise and extravagance of different fanatical sects, and the erratic conduct of some who have adopted part of the millenarian views. This, however, is no more valid objection against the doctrine of the pre-millenial coming of Christ, than is the same objection when urged by infidels and skeptics, with equal foundation, against Christianity.

Much more decided and influential, however, is the opposition which grows out of the common and current views of the Millenium, assumed so extensively, and used so frequently and laudably, for urging forward the missionary and other benevolent efforts of the present day, so immensely important and invaluable to the world. Anti-millenarian views, as at present entertained in

* El. Proph. Int., p. 82.

[ocr errors]

these United States, are but of recent date. Dr. Daniel Whitby, who died A. D. 1726, seems to have been the first to reduce them into order. He has written a commentary on the Apocalypse, to which he has appended a treatise on the Millenium, denying the distinctive features of the ancient millenarian faith, and spiritualizing the restoration of the Jews, the coming of Christ, and the first resurrection.

In that treatise, Dr. Whitby explains the manner in which his mind was led to the views he originated, of an allegorical Millenium. He confesses it to be, and calls it a

NEW HYPOTHESIS.” It was excogitated by him, wholly by means of the allegorizing or spiritual. izing interpretation. The treatise was written to support his “hypothesis,” or, as he says, " framed according to it.” He proposes in it-tó state the true Millenium of the ancients—how far and by whom received and opposed in the first four centuries—to show the reasons of his own hypothesis-to answer the arguments in favor of a literal resurrection before the Millenium-and to offer some arguments against it.

We are not concerned to review this treatise. It has been most ingeniously arranged and written, but its arguments are exceedingly sophistical, and it abounds in bold assertions without proof.

We take notice of it, only in so far as it is brought forward to invalidate the testimony we have submitted. The only fathers whose writings Dr. Whitby quotes, in order to set forth the ancient view of the Millenium, are Irenæus and Justin Martyr. The admission of Justin Martyr, that many Christians of pure and pious judgment did not adopt the views he con. fessed to Trypho, Dr. Whitby fully claims to be proof that Justin's orthodoxy was of his own asserting. The criticism of Mede and Daillé, who very plausibly and


forcibly attempt to prove that the word not, before acknowledge, is an interpolation, he rejects, confirming, as he thinks, the reading by the admission of Irenæus. The reader will find an examination of this point in Brooks' Elements of Prophetical Interpretation, who refers to N. Homes, as having actually seen some copies of Justin's Dialogues, according to the amended reading of Mede and Daillé. It is entirely on this foundation that Dr. Whitby endeavors to prove that the orthodoxy of the Christian church on this subject, was different from the opinion of Justin.

It behoved him, however, before hastening to such a conclusion, to account for the fact, that all the writings of the early fathers, which are extant, contain the idea. Barnabas, Papias, Polycarp, Clement, Ignatius, have been referred to, and directly or indirectly quoted by us. Dr. Whitby has not noticed them, except that he extracts, as from Papias, out of the thirty-fifth chapter of Irenæus, certain extravagant attempts-surmised, with great plausibility, by Mr. Greswell,* to have been incorrectly translated, and to be nothing but a general indefinite number, used hy. perbolically—to illustrate the fertility of the new earth. This he has done, very unfairly and sneeringly, to shake our confidence both in the judgment and veracity of Papias.

The authorities that he quotes, in opposition to millenarian views, and by which, to prove that the orthodoxy of the carly church was not coincident, on this subject, with the views of Justin Martyr and Irenæus, are Origen, a noted heretic, who taught the eternity of the world, and the universal restitution of the

* Greswell on the Parables, vol. ii. p. 296.

wicked ; Dionysius of Alexandria, who, according to his own historical account of the efforts he made in Egypt to suppress millenarian views, labored, by the most winning and flattering arts, to shake the faith of the churches in Egypt on this subject; Eusebius, suspected of Arianism, and who lived after the Platonic philosophers had begun to corrupt the church, and who was himself, by no means, a candid, impartial, and competent judge on this question ; and Epiphanius, who opposed the views of Apollinarius, of which we shall have occasion to speak hereafter.

The arguments which Dr. Whitby has framed against millenarian doctrines, by attempting to trace them up to the Jews, and to the sybilline oracles, and by noticing the differences between certain of the ancient Millenaries, and Millenaries of a later date, of the Mede school, are by no means conclusive. He does not fairly state the ancient millenarian views. Beside, endless shades of difference may be traced, on other subjects, among those who, nevertheless, agree in the leading and substantial truth.

Equally inconclusive, too, are the objections founded on the sensual descriptions in which some indulged, who believed in the Millenium of the Chiliasts. Dr. Whitby himself has been surpassed by those of his own school, and we might just as well trace the difference between them, and found as good an argument against his spiritual Millenium, as he has done against the Millenaries. He believed and taught the conversion of the Jews, their ascendant influence in the church, and their probáble return to Jerusalem. He differed, as he seems by way of apology to confess, from the ancient Millenaries, only in denying the personal reign of Christ on the earth, the re-establishment of the theocracy, and the literal resurrection of

« FöregåendeFortsätt »