of the visible Church's visible triumph over Satan's power; as well as some more consistent solution of the Beast as premillennial. Such a commencing epoch presented itself in the Constantinian triumph over Paganism early in the 4th century; and in that alone of all the events of past ecclesiastical history. And it was accordingly fixed on by one and another expositor, from soon after the Reformation, as the commencing epoch of the Apocalyptic Millennium :-first, I believe, by the Romanist Genebrard;1 then afterwards by Grotius and Hammond, whose names are more famed as its authors. According to them the Apocalyptic Beast, (alike the ten-horned and the two-horned,) instead of figuring the then future Antichrist, so as all the ancient Fathers supposed, meant in fact only the then persecuting power of Rome Pagan: the destruction of which, through Constantine's instrumentality, these interpreters expounded to be the event symbolized in the preceding (i. e. the xixth) chapter of the Apocalypse. The Millennium of triumphant Christianity, thus and then begun, was made by them to extend through the period of one thousand years thence following; i. e. from the 4th to the 14th century at which latter time they considered the rise of the Othman Turks from Scythia, and their attack on Christendom, to have fulfilled what is said in the prophecy about Gog and Magog coming up and encompassing the camp of the saints. Upon the destruction of which Turkish Mahommedan power, whensoever it might take place, they looked for the fulfilment of what was figured by the great white throne, and the standing of the dead before it, (verses 11, 12, &c.,) in the universal resurrection, final judgment, and subsequent heavenly and eternal blessedness of the saints. This millennial view, which followed naturally on Grotius' view of the Beast as the symbol simply of Rome Pagan's persecuting power, presented itself as one fit and easy of adoption to various Roman Catholic expositors of a later æra. With regard to really Protestant expositors, So in his Chronograph. Lib. iv. p. 688, as referred to by Malvenda, Vol. ii. p. 217. Genebrard was Professor of Hebrew at Paris, in the latter half of the 16th century, and a zealous anti-Hugonot. His Chronographia was published in 1567. I know not whether he propounded the Grotian view of the Beast. 2 A.D. 1650. such as explained either the ten-horned or the two-horned Beast of the Roman Papal power, they could of course only adopt it imperfectly, and by supposing the vision of Apoc. xx. to be retrogressive. Such was the martyrologist Foxe's idea. And then as to the loosing of Satan at the end of the millennium, they gave a Protestant turn to the symbol by supposing it to have had fulfilment not only in the Othman Turks' invasions of Christendom in the xiiith and xivth centuries, but in the then rising to its acme of power of Papal arrogance, impiety, and tyranny. The fourth chief theory of solution is what we may call the ecclesiastical theory of the future. It was first fully propounded, I believe, by Whitby,' then advocated by Vitringa soon afterwards, at the opening of the xviiith century; and from that time down to the present has continued to be perhaps the most prevalent and favourite of all the millennial theories, at least among English Protestant expositors. Among its later and living advocates Mr. Faber has long been eminent; and more recently Mr. Brown. It explains the first resurrection in question to signify a resurrection of the cause, principles, doctrine, spirit, and character too of the Christian martyrs and saints departed; being thus in part spiritual, in part ecclesiastical: and indeed in part too, as I should add, national; inasmuch as it is supposed that the Jews will be then nationally restored, as well as converted, to take a share in it. The time they consider as still future; and that it is to begin, agreeably with Apocalyptic order, after the destruction of the Beast, the Papal Antichrist-that then, the delusions alike of Popery and Whitby speaks of this in the Preface to his Treatise as a discovery of his own: "Conceiving that I have.. found out the true sense of those words Apoc. xx. 4, which usually are alleged as the foundation of the supposed Millennium, &c." Vitringa however, who alludes to Whitby's as a work just published (p. 1141), makes brief citations from two earlier writers, Conrad of Mantua and Carolus Gallus, as expressive of the same general view. Conrad; "Credimus hic describi resurrectionem quandam cujus aliquoties fit mentio in Scripturis et est cùm hi qui mortui putabantur vivi adhuc reperiuntur; cum vero sic reperti fuerint non minore admiratione excipiuntur ac si ab inferis resurrexissent:" said in reference to those “qui, evangelii causâ, Papæ indignationem incurrerant." Carolus Gallus: “Vaticinatur de singulari adeoque mirandâ ecclesiæ resurrectione et renovatione: quod nimirum illa, novissimâ hâc ætate, ex Judæis et Gentibus, vivis ac mortuis, conspicua erit; et mirum in modum, gloriosius quàm unquam antea, ex mortuis.. reviviscet, innovabitur, restaurabitur, et reflorescet." Vitringa, p. 1159. Conrad's Treatise on the Apocalypse is dated Basle 1574. Car. Gallus, I believe, wrote a little later. Mahommedanism having past away, and Satan been restricted from any more deceiving mankind, the doctrine of the martyrs long branded as heretical will triumph, their characters be appreciated, and their spirit revive afresh, as did that of Elias in John the Baptist; the Church founded on their principles thenceforth flourish universally; the earth enjoy for 1000 years paradisiacal blessedness; and the separate spirits of the martyrs and saints in heaven sympathize with its joy. Thus far, for the most part, the advocates of this view agree. On the sequel of the vision, however, there are important differences among them. Thus, as regards the implied second resurrection, while Vitringa, like the advocates of all the three other theories already sketched, supposes it to be the resurrection of the literal dead, small and great, connected with the judgment of the great white throne, Dr. Whitby, Mr. Faber, and Mr. Brown explain it as the uprising again of antichristian principles, immediately at the end of the Millennium, in the persons and confederacy of Gog and Magog.-Besides which there is a difference also in their explanations of the New Jerusalem. Alike Vitringa and Whitby would have this to signify the blessedness of the earthly Church, now enlarged and purified, the bride of Christ during the Millennium. But Mr. Faber and Mr. Brown 'explain it as post-millennial supposing it to include the whole company admitted to heaven and life eternal from among men; that is, as settled by the judgment of the great white throne, after the general resurrection. Such are in brief the four most famous solutions of the Millennial prophecy that have been offered in the Christian Church, from the time of the publication of the Apocalypse 1 So Whitby. "As John the Baptist was Elias because he came in the spirit and power of Elias, so shall this be the Church of martyrs, because the spirit and purity of the times of the primitive martyrs shall return."-So too Archbishop Whateley, in his Chapter on the Millennium in his Essays on a Future State. "It may signify not the literal raising of dead men, but the raising up of an increased Christian zeal and holiness-the revival in the Christian Church, or in some considerable portion of it, of the spirit and energy of the noble martyrs of old, even as John the Baptist came in the spirit and power of Elias; so that Christian principles shall be displayed_in action throughout the world in an infinitely greater degree than ever before." He adds; "And this for a considerable time before the end of the world; though not perhaps for the literal and precise period of 1000 years." down to the time now present. To which I must add yet a fifth, first suggested by the late Mr. Gipps, and which may be called distinctively and explicitly the witness-resurrection of the past;-making the vision, as it does, to retrogress to the commencement of the Beast's or Papal Antichrist's reign; and those who lived and reigned with Christ to be men endowed with the spirit of the early anti-Pagan martyrs, now revived as it were to testify for Christ against Papal falsehood: after which, and the end of the Beast's as well as witnesses' concurrent (!) millennial reign, the second and glorious resurrection of the rest of the dead is to be fulfilled, he thinks, in the Jews' conversion and restoration.1 This has made no way, however, in the credence of the Christian public, and therefore needs no such prominent place in any sketch of millennial theories as the four others. As regards these theories it will now be my object to show that to all but the first there exist objections such, and so decisive, as to set them aside from the arena; and so to leave to that first and earliest (that is, the literal view held by the primitive Christians) possession of the field. 1 The mode in which Mr. G. educes this from the sacred text is this. He premises (pp. 133, 134) that the word πρoσεкνvηøɑv, being in the aorist, must have the sense of the imperfect, "Whosoever were not (at that time) worshipping the Beast; and hence argues the synchronism of this millennium of the saints' reign with the Beast's reign. Which premised, his explanation of the first resurrection as the rising up of the spirits of the martyrs slain under Pagan Rome's persecutions, (Apoc. vi. 9.) in the persons and preaching of Claude of Turin, the Waldenses, the Wicliffites, Hussites, &c., and other witnesses for Christ throughout the period of Papal supremacy (p. 148), follows not unnaturally. The second resurrection he considers to be implied in the Apocalypse, as one of the same character. So (ibid.) it naturally follows with him to explain it of the Jews' conversion, according to the prophecies in Ezek. xxxvii. and Rom. xi. 15; as well as of that of the multitude of the Gentiles with them, at the close of the millennium of the Beast's reign. After which event he supposes that Gog and Magog will attack the converted Jews; so the prophecies of Ezek. xxxix. and Apoc. xx. on this point be alike fulfilled; and then the literal resurrection, and judgment of the great white throne, follow. 2 The American Prof. Bush, indeed, quite independently, as it seems, has also constructed a very similar theory. He supposes the binding of the Dragon in this xxth Apocalyptic Chapter to have answered to Theodosius' utter overthrow of Paganism: this binding vision being in fact, not a sequel to that in Apoc. xix., but a resumption of the broken-off history of the fallen Dragon in Apoc. xii. (p. 94-97.) The thrones in Apoc. xx. he makes to mean the new thrones of the ten Romano-Gothic kingdoms; (p. 127;) and the first resurrection, and living of martyrs with Christ, to signify the vigorous life of those that were witnesses for Christ, in opponency to the Dragon's successor, or Popes of Rome (139): herein agreeing with Mr. Gipps. The invasion afterwards of Gog and Magog he supposes (p. 155) to be that of the Turks under which Constantinople fell, A.D. 1453, or 1000 years after Theodosius. And Bishop Waldegrave too, in his later Bampton Lectures, has also propounded a Millennial witness-theory essentially similar to that of Mr. Gipps. And in respect of three out of the four spoken of, I mean Augustine's, Grotius', and Gipps', it will not, I think, need any lengthened criticism to convince us of their total inadmissibility.-1. As to Augustine's theory, it may suffice to observe that the millennial vision is in the Apocalyptic narrative essentially and necessarily subordinated to, and consequent upon, those of Apoc. xiii. and xix., which describe the Beast's reign and destruction, seeing that among the partakers of Christ's millennial reign those "that had not worshipped the Beast" are expressly specified: and, as to any view of the Beast not worshipped by the enthroned ones, such as Augustine fancies in aid of his theory, as if the world, or anything other than the 3 years' Beast or Antichrist of Apoc. xiii., it is utterly out of the question. Just agreeable with which is the inference from Daniel's vision of the enthroned ones. For the Apocalyptic millennial enthronization of the saints with Christ is plainly identical with that which Daniel there describes: which latter is spoken of as taking place upon, and after, (not before,) the destruction of the Little Horn of the fourth Beast, i. e. the Antichrist.3-Yet once more it must be considered, by Protestants at least, as a direct historical contradiction to this theory, that for above 1200 out of the 1800 years during which it would represent Satan to have been bound and restricted from deceiving the nations, and Christ with his saints to have been reigning, I say that for above 1200 years of this period there should have prevailed over both 1 Οίτινες ου προσεκύνησαν το θηριον. The circumstance of the verb being in the aorist, not the pluperfect, does not at all invalidate this argument; the aorist being often so used in the Apocalypse. See p. 145 Note 2. 2 I might argue from Christ's bridal also, mentioned Apoc. xix. 7; "Let us rejoice and be glad, for the marriage of the Lamb hath come, and his wife hath made herself ready." And indeed Vitringa, from whom I have copied the arguments in this case, considering the New Jerusalem to be the bride spoken of, and the time of its manifestation the Millennium, does argue from it. But I prefer to pass it over for the present; because the chronological position of the New Jerusalem vision is a point much disputed, and perhaps doubtful. It will however be remarked on, and my views given of it, in the next chapter. The following tabular comparative view of the two prophecies is copied from Mede by Vitringa. Dan. vii. 2. Thrones placed (positi). 12. Judgment given to the saints. Ap. xx. 4. I saw thrones. |