The facts and doctrines of Holy Scripture have been allegorized into shadowy parables by the wild and destructive licentiousness of some expositors; but, on the other hand, the literal interpretation of what is spoken figuratively in Holy Scripture, especially by the Prophets, has been one of the most prolific sources of error. It generated the carnal notions current among the Jews in our Saviour's age, concerning the Messiah's temporal reign on earth; and so it was one of the most powerful hindrances to the reception of Him Whose kingdom is not of this world2. It suggested the question of St. John himself, and of his brother, St. James: Grant, Lord, that we may sit, the one at Thy right hand, and the other on Thy left, in Thy kingdom; and it is remarkable that our Blessed Lord appears to have given in the present chapter, the twentieth, of the Apocalypse, rightly understood, a correction of those earthly notions concerning Himself and His kingdom-a correction so much the more striking, because it is supplied by St. John, who, as we know from the petition just quoted, once entertained the Jewish notion of a millennial kingdom of

errorem allegoricis loquendi modis Prophetis et Joanni cumprimis in Apocalypsi usitatis deceptus, imbibit.

1 See Rosenmüller, Hist. Interp. iii. 41-52, and Bp. Marsh on the Interpretation of the Bible, Lect. vi. and ix.

2 John xviii. 36.

3 Matth. xx. 21, Mark x. 37.

the Messiah on earth, and aspired to fill a place of eminence and dignity in it'.

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 Israel2? Again, this literal mode of interpretation produced another misapprehension concerning St. John himself. If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? said our Blessed Lord of him3. Then went this saying

1 Very excellent are the observations of the learned Dr. Solomon Glasse on this subject, and very necessary to be considered in the present times-Philol. Sacr. Amst. 1711, Præf. p. 23. Si tropicus sermo proprie fuit intellectus, absurdissimarum opinionum monstra peperit. In ipsâ Christi scholâ ruditatem discipulorum ejus, et præconceptam de regno terreno opinionem inter alia ortum ex eo sumpsisse certum est, quod vaticinia Prophetarum quibus illi regnum Messiæ magnificè admodum describunt, et ad illustrandam ejus amplitudinem spiritualem metaphoris utuntur, ut propriè dicta cum vulgo Judæorum intellexerunt. Eandem originem Chiliastarum error obtinet, in ipsis statim Ecclesiæ incunabulis, et sequentibus, quem et nostro hoc avo a nonnullis Christi de nomine gloriantibus revocatum novimus: dum scilicet ea quæ a Prophetis de Ecclesiæ gloriâ et pace verbis a rebus terrenis desumptis sunt prædicta, propriè accipiuntur, atque ex iis, per suave somnium, Ecclesiæ status formatur ejusmodi, ut triumphos meros agat, et pace temporali sine afflictionum obturbantium nube fruatur, atque ita iter ad regnum cœlorum afflictionibus consecratum præcluditur, aliâ apertâ viâ quam neque Christus instituit neque suos docuit.

2 Acts i. 6. Compare Luke xvii. 20. 3 John xxi. 22.

abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die. They understood literally what our Lord had spoken figuratively. It was for St. Peter to follow Christ to the cross, but for St. John to tarry till Christ came, and took Him to himself by a natural death and, in a higher spiritual sense, St. 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 St. John tarries with us till Christ comes.

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

1 See the passages in Cornel. à Lapide, Wetstein, and Vitringa, in Apoc. xx.; and the recent observations of Abbé Gaume, in his Preface to his Histoire de la Société, pp. 132-137. The remark of St. Augustine, that the other six days (Gen. i.) are said to have consisted of a morning and evening, but that evening is not mentioned in the case of the seventh day (De Civ. Dei, xx. c. 7), ought to suggest a more spiritual application of the history.

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

4

3

1 Epiphan. hæres. 28. Philastr. hæres. 36. Damascen. hæres. 28. Verisimile est (says Gerhard, l. c. xxxii.), hoc suum Millennii dogma ex Synagogæ mammillis suxisse.

Euseb. iii. 39. Cf. Gennad. (flor. 480) de Eccl. Dogm. c. 25, ap. S. August. tom. viii. p. 1699. Appendix, ed. Paris, 1837. The following is from Fleury Hist. Eccl. Liv. iii. c. 15:-" Papias enseignoit qu'après la résurrection des morts, J. C. régneroit corporellement sur la terre pendant mille ans. Ce qui venoit de quelques traditions qu'il avoit mal entendues, ayant pris au pied de la lettre des expressions figurées. Car il avoit l'esprit fort petit. Cependant son antiquité et son amour pour la tradition lui ont acquis une telle autorité que de grands hommes l'ont suivi dans cette erreur des Millénaires.”

3 See Tertullian c. Marcion, 24, where he appeals to "apud fidem nove prophetia Sermo."

4 Plato de Rep. x. p. 761, E. Phædr. p. 1223, D. Virgil. Æn. vi. 748.

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 St. John 2.

1 Inst. vii. 24 and 26; vide Betul. ad loc. Cf. Casaubon Exerc. Baron. i. n. xviii.

2 Iren. v. xxxiii. ταῦτα Παπίας, Ἰωάννου ἀκουστὴς, Πολυκάρπου δὲ ἑταῖρος γεγονὼς, ἀρχαῖος ἀνήρ.

What is stated above in these Lectures seems to me to be a sufficient answer to the argument drawn from the authority of Irenæus and Papias. But, if some should think it improbable that any persons living near the age of St. John, and associates of his scholars, should not understand correctly a passage in the Apocalypse; and that later expositors should interpret it more accurately, let them be desired to observe,

1. That St. John's office in the Apocalypse was that of a Prophet, and not of an Interpreter: and that as Daniel did not understand the meaning of his own visions (Dan. xii. 8. viii. 27), so St. John himself was called to see and to write, but not to explain, except so far as the Angel enabled him to do so.

2. It may seem strange to some, but it is certain that even in some matters of fact, St. John was better understood by the fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries than by his own scholars and their associates. Irenæus himself says (Lib. ii. c. 39), that our Blessed Lord's ministry, which commenced in his thirtieth year, extended to the fiftieth year of his age; and he adds, “that all his own predecessors who had associated with St. John in Asia, bear witness that St. John himself delivered this tradition to them." Could he say more than this on this point? does he say so much concerning the Millennium? If now we turn to the writers of the fourth and fifth centuries, we find Eusebius (H. E. i. 10) rightly affirming that the duration of our Lord's ministry was not four years ; and Theodoret (ad Dan. ix. tom. ii. p. 1250, ed. Hal. 1770) asserts, that it was three years and a half; which he justly argues from the four passovers in St. John's own gospel.

This is another striking proof, may we not call it a providential one