HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE.

Without attaching undue importance to vv the opinions of men in relation to the subject before us, it may be well to show that the pre-millennial advent is not novel, as many ignorantly assert, but that it was almost universally held in the earliest days of the Church. Nor can it excite surprise to learn that the first disciples clung to it amid their manifold temptations, before the echo of their Saviour’s solemn and tender admonitions had died away in the din of the world, “Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come,” (Matt, xxiv: 42); “And what I say unto you I say unto all. Watch,” (Mark xiii: 37). They knew, as all can see at a glance, that a state of watching is utterly incompatible with the idea of a long period intervening previous to His return, for the moment a space of a thousand years is put between Christians and Christ’s coming, it is a contradiction in terms to say that they watch for it. They may believe it, they may desire it, but it is worse than foolish, for it is false, to say that they watch for it. Hence to all except those who regard it as possible every day, as not improbable any day, the frequent commands of our Lord to watch for it, and the numerous allusions to it as a mighty motive by the Holy Ghost, drop completely out of the faith of God’s people, unless by a gross perversion of Scripture they substitute in its stead the horrible thought of death.

According to the view now commonly entertained, the universal reception of the true religion must precede the advent of Christ, and therefore it is considered a dangerous delusion and hurtful fanaticism to look for Him before the accomplishment of this great work. That this view is a departure from the standard of orthodoxy revealed in the Scriptures has been abundantly proved; that it is a departure from the standard of orthodoxy usually so much respected by all who may be called churchmen in the various denominations remains to be shown. Reference has previously been made to the late Dr. John Lillie, of whom, in a touching biographical notice, prefixed to Lange’s Commentary on Thessalonians, and written at the request of Dr. Schaflf by the beloved James Inglis who has since followed his friend to be with Christ, it is said, “Professor Pillans in his old age stated to me that John Lillie was the most accomplished scholar of all the pupils who had passed from his care in a professional career, which, at Eton and Edinburgh, extended over more than half a century. Probably any member of the Faculty of Letters in the University of Edinburgh at that day, would have endorsed this testimony. His attainments at the age of twenty-one, were not those of a precociously brilliant or a merely studious youth, but rather those of a vigorous and cultivated mind in its maturity. When from this distance of time I recall them, they seem more wonderful to me now than they did then. He may be accepted, therefore, as a competent witness upon any point that requires to be established by learning.

In a sermon preached before the Synod of New York in 1865, and published at the solicitation of several of the ministers who heard it, he affirms of the opinion now generally held that the world must be converted before Christ’s coming, “It must needs be confessed that this view, common as it is, and however great a favourite on the missionary platform, is at any rate of recent origin. It is very questionable whether, even so late as two hundred years ago, it had yet been heard of amongst good men. Not a trace of it is to be found in the Standards of Westminster, or in the Confessions and other remains of the Reformation period, and quite as little in the writings of the Fathers. It can not, therefore, allege the authority of antiquity in its behalf. On the contrary, nothing could be easier than to adduce from the records of those past times any required amount of repugnant and irreconcilable statement.”

In a note upon this passage he adds, “It is well known, that in the early part of the last century the able and learned Dr. Whitby, ‘conceiving this glorious conversion [of the Jews] . . . might be the very resurrection intended by St. John, (Rev. xx: 4), and the flourishing condition and union both of the Jewish and Gentile Church thus raised from the dead, and so continuing in peace and plenty, and a great increase of knowledge and righteousness, and a return of the primitive purity of doctrine and manners, might be the reign of the saints on earth a thousand. years,’ expressly speaks of ‘this’ as a ‘new hypothesis’ and wrote his famous Treatise on the Millennium for its illustration and defence. Certainly, few men of Whitby’s day were better acquainted than he with whatever had been previously written on the subject; and in our own time the late Edward Bickersteth, whose name is still fragrant and venerable in the churches has testified that he himself was unable to trace the ‘new hypothesis’ any further.

The late Bishop Henshaw of Rhode Island, of whom it is said in the Cyclopædia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, that he “was a man of clear, sound and vigorous intellect,” states in “An Inquiry Concerning the Second Advent,” that “The commonly received opinion of a Spiritual Millennium, consisting in a universal triumph of the Gospel, and the conversion of all nations, for a thousand years before the coming of Christ, is a novel doctrine, unknown to the Church for the space of sixteen hundred years. So far as we have been able to investigate its history, it was first advanced by Rev. Dr. Whitby, the Commentator.”

It becomes, therefore, a question of interest to know something about this Rev. Dr. Whitby, whose ability and influence turned the belief of God’s people from the channel in which it had been running for sixteen hundred years, not only into another but a directly opposite channel, leading their thoughts away from the long cherished hope of Christ’s coming as the end of their toils, to excite within them expectations of the triumph of the Church and the improvement of the race. In the New American Cyclopædia it is said, “In 1710 he published two other works in illustration and defence of Arminianism, ‘Concerning the True Import of the Words Election and Reprobation,’ often reprinted as ‘Whitby on the Five Points,’ and ‘Four Discourses.’ His views gradually diverged still further from the Calvinism in which he had been bred and educated, and under the influence of Dr. Clarke, he became a convert to Arianism.

That he always cherished his Arian principles appears from his ‘Last Thoughts,’ published posthumously with a biography by Dr. Sykes.” The Religious Encyclopædia says, “In his latter days he became an Arian.”

Such was the father of the modern doctrine which teaches us to look for the conversion of the world, instead of looking for that blessed hope, the glorious appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ. Are its advocates, especially the Calvinists by whom it is now so generally received, proud of its parentage? Is it not humiliating to find them the obedient followers of such a man, and at his command diluting their strong theology with the weak delusion that now everywhere prevails about the progress of the Church and of the age? Of course we are not astonished to see an Arian or a Unitarian upholding any humanitarian movement, or scientific invention, however flatly it may contradict the word of God; but it is both surprising and painful to witness the zeal with which those, who profess entire subjection to the authority of that word, defend the “new hypothesis” of one who denied their Lord. Truth fallen in the streets, however, is one of the signs of the times, and the mass of Christians care no longer for the grand old doctrines once spread before the world on the banners of the Reformation. They plume themselves on having outgrown the swaddling bands of these early Confessions, not reflecting that in like manner the Roman empire, tottering to its downfall in its luxury and effeminacy, had outgrown the stern virtues and indomitable courage of the Republic.

But long: before the Reformation, it can be shown, if anything is proved by human testimony, that the theory of the Arian Whitby and his numerous disciples of the present day, was utterly unknown to those who are called the Fathers; and on the other hand that the views of the pre-millennialists held nearly undisputed sway for the first three hundred years of the Christian era. Neander says in his History of the Christian Religion and Church, “The Christians were certainly convinced, that the Church would come forth triumphant out of its conflicts, and, as it was its destination to be a world transforming principle, would attain to the dominion of the world; but they were far from understanding at first the prophetic words of Christ intimating how the Church, in its gradual evolutions, under natural conditions, was to be a salt and a leaven for all human relations. They could at first, as we have before remarked, conceive of it no otherwise than this, that the struggle between the Church and the pagan state would endure till the triumph brought about from without, by the return of Christ to judgment. Now it was here that many seized hold of an image Which had passed over to them from the Jews, and which seemed to adapt itself to their own present situation,—the idea of a millennial reign, which the Messiah was to set up on earth, at the end of the whole earthly course of the world, where all the righteous of all times should live together in holy communion. As the world had been created in six days, and, according to Psalm xc: 4, a thousand years in the sight of God is as one day, so the world was to continue in its hitherto condition for six thousand years, and end with a thousand years of blessed rest corresponding to the Sabbath,” (Vol. I, p. 650).

Mosheim in his Church History, although opposed, like Neander, to the view advocated in these pages, is still more explicit, and says in speaking of the doctrine of the Church m the third century, “The most famous controversies 'that divided the Christians during this century were those concerning the Millennium, or reign of a thousand years; the baptism of heretics, and the doctrine of Origen. Long before this period, an opinion had prevailed, that Christ was to come and reign a thousand years among men, before the entire and final dissolution of this world. This opinion, which had hitherto met with no opposition [observe, it had hitherto met with no opposition], was variously interpreted by different persons: nor did all promise themselves the same kind of enjoyments in that future and glorious kingdom. But in this century, its credit began to decline, principally through the influence and authority of Origen, who opposed it with the greatest warmth, because it was incompatible with some of his favorite sentiments. Nepos, an Egyptian bishop, endeavored to restore this opinion to its former credit, in a book written against the Allegorists, for so he called, by way of contempt, the adversaries of the Millennarian system. This work, and the hypothesis it defended, were exceedingly well received by great numbers in the canton of Arsinoe; and among others by Coracion, a presbyter of no mean influence and reputation. But Dyonisius of Alexandria, a disciple of Origen, stopped the growing progress of this doctrine by his private discourse, and also by two learned and judicious dissertations concerning the divine promises,” (Vol. I, p. 89).

Dr. Schaff, whose History of the Christian Church has received the warmest commendations of the leading theological journals, says, “The most striking point in the eschatology of the ancient Church is the widely current and very prominent chiliasm, or the doctrine of a visible reign of Christ in glory on earth with the risen saints for a thousand years. The Jewish hope of a Messianic kingdom, which rested on carnal misapprehension of the prophetic figures, was transplanted to the soil of Christianity, but here spiritualized, and fixed on the second coming of Christ instead of the first; and this earthly Sabbath of the Church was no longer regarded as the goal of her course, but only as the prelude to the endless blessedness of heaven. The Christian Chiliasm, if we leave out of sight the sensuous and fanatical extravagance into which it has frequently run, both in ancient and modern times, is based on the unfulfilled promises of the Lord, and particularly on the apocalyptic figure of his thousand years’ reign upon earth after the first resurrection; in connection with the numerous passages respecting glorious return, which declare it to be near, and yet uncertain and un-ascertainable as to its day and hour, that believers may be always ready for it. This precious hope, through the whole age of persecution, was a copious fountain of encouragement and comfort under the pains of that martyrdom which sowed in blood the seed of a glorious harvest for the Church.”

Then, after referring to Barnabas, Papias, Irenæus, Justin Martyr, Tertullian and others, as teaching that Christ will come at the beginning of the Millennium, he adds the following significant statement: “In the age of Constantine, however, a radical change took place in this belief. After Christianity, contrary to all expectation, triumphed in the Roman empire, and was embraced by the Caesars themselves, the millennial reign, instead of being anxiously waited and prayed for, began to be dated either from the first appearance of Christ, or from the conversion of Constantine, and to be regarded as realized in the glory of the dominant imperial State-church,” (Vol. I, pp. 299-301).

In Hagenbach’s History of Doctrines it is said, “The disciples of Christ having received from their Master the promise of his second coming (parousia), the first Christians looked upon this event as near at hand, in connection with the general resurrection of the dead and the final judgment.” After placing in a foot-note the striking statement from Dorner, “the Christian hope in the Christ that was to come grew out of faith in the Christ who had already come,” he adds, “Justin, writing at the time of Papias, says that it was the general faith of all orthodox Christians; and that only the Gnostics did not share in it. Still further, he quotes the following remarkable admission from Giesler’s Church History, the italics being his own: “In all the works of this period (the first two centuries), millennarianism is so prominent, we can not hesitate to consider it as universal in an age, when such sensuous motives were certainly not unnecessary to animate men to suffer for Christianity” (Vol. I, p. 215).

The celebrated Chillingworth says, in an argument against the Infallibility of the Roman Church, “The doctrine of the millennarians was, ‘That before the world’s end Christ should reign upon earth for a thousand years, and that the saints should live under him in all holiness and happiness.’ That the doctrine is by the present Roman Church held false and heretical, I think no man will deny. That the same doctrine was by the Church of the next age after the Apostles held true and catholic, I prove by these two reasons. The first reason: Whatsoever doctrine is believed and taught by the most Fathers of any age of the Church, and by none of their contemporaries opposed and condemned, that is to be esteemed the catholic doctrine of those times; but the doctrine of the millennaries was believed and taught by the most eminent Fathers of the age next after the Apostles, and by none of that age opposed or condemned; therefore, it was the catholic doctrine of the Church of those times.” Further, in quoting these Fathers, he says, “That Irenæus grounded it upon evident Scripture, and professes that he learnt it (whether mediately, or immediately I can not tell) from presbyters who saw John the Lord’s disciple, and heard of him what our Lord taught of those times (of the thousand years); and also, as he says after, from Papias, the auditor of John the chamber-fellow of Polycarpus, an ancient man, who recorded it in writing. . . . Lastly, that Justin Martyr grounds it upon plain prophecies of the Old Testament, and express words of the New. He professeth, That he, and all other Christians, of a right belief in all things, believe it,” (Vol. Ill, p. 369).

The testimony of Gibbon is worthy of special attention, for although he cared nothing about the Millennium, nor for the divine book which teaches it, yet in preparing materials for his History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, he was obliged to become familiar with the writings of the Fathers. “The ancient Christians,” he says, “were animated by a contempt for their present existence, and by a just confidence of immortality, of which the doubtful and imperfect faith of modern ages can not give us any adequate notion. In the primitive Church, the influence of truth was very powerfully strengthened by an opinion, which, however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, has not been found agreeable to experience. It was universally believed, that the end of the world, and the kingdom of heaven, were at hand. . . . The ancient and popular doctrine of the Millennium was intimately connected with the second coming of Christ. As the works of the creation had been finished in six days, their duration in their present state, according to a tradition which was attributed to the prophet Elijah, was fixed to six thousand years. By the same analogy it was inferred, that this long period of labor and contention, which was now almost elapsed, would be succeeded by a joyful Sabbath of a thousand years; and that Christ, with the triumphant band of the saints and the elect who had escaped death, or who had been miraculously revived, would reign upon earth till the time appointed for the last and general resurrection. . . . . The assurance of such a Millennium was care- • fully inculcated by a succession of fathers from Justin Martyr, and Irenæus, who conversed with the immediate disciples of the Apostles, down to Lactantius, who was preceptor to the son of Constantine,” (Vol. I, pp, 532-534).

The next witness is the Arian Whitby himself, the author of the “new hypothesis” now so commonly received in the Christian Church. In his “Treatise on Tradition,” as quoted in the London Quarterly Review and elsewhere, he says, “The doctrine of the Millennium, or the reign of saints for a thousand years, is now rejected by all Roman Catholics, and by the greatest part of Protestants; and yet it passed among the best Christians for two hundred and fifty years for a tradition apostolical; and as such is delivered by many fathers of the second and third centuries, who spake of it as the tradition of our Lord and His Apostles, and of all the ancients that lived before them; who tell us the very words in which it was delivered, the Scriptures, which were then so interpreted, and say that it was held by all Christians who were exactly orthodox. . . . It was received not only in the eastern parts of the Church by Papias (in Phrygia), Justin (in Palestine), but by Irenæus (in Gaul), Nepos (in Egypt), Apollinarius, Methodius (in the west and south), Cyprian, Victorinus (in Germany), by Tertullian (in Africa), Lactantius (in Italy) and Severus, and by the Council of Nice.”

Perhaps it is going too far to say that the Council of Nice formally proclaimed the doctrine of the Millennium as now believed substantially by pre-millennialists, for the subject was not fairly before them. But what is equally to the purpose, they found it everywhere existing, and they did not condemn it, nor did they utter a word that looked toward the support of the modern theory, while all that was said, having even a remote reference to the topic, showed that their faith and hope reached onward to the appearing and kingdom of Christ at His advent, as the object of their longing expectation, according to the views of those who had preceded them. The learned Greswell, in his first volume on the Parables, quotes a number of Fathers favoring the pre-millennial view, who lived from the days of the Apostles down to the very time of the Council of Nice, A. D. 325, and as the Council suppressed the Arian heresy, and settled other disputed questions that had agitated the bosom of the Church, it is certain that they would have borne testimony against this view, if it had not commanded their cordial assent. Dr. Stanley, in his entertaining History of the Eastern Church, says, “Alone of all the Councils it still retains a hold on the mass of Christendom. Its creed, as we just now saw, is the only creed accepted throughout the universal Church. The Apostles’ Creed and the Athanasian Creed have never been incorporated into the ritual of the Greek Church. But the Nicene Creed, Greek and Eastern though it be, has a place in the liturgies and confessions of all Western Churches, at least down to the end of the sixteenth century,” (p. 150).

It is, therefore, a most interesting and suggestive fact that this important Council, knowing that a belief in the personal coming of Christ to establish His kingdom and to reign with His saints a thousand years was everywhere embraced, not only abstained from uttering a word of protest against it, but so far as they spoke at all, bore their testimony in the same direction. As Whitby says, “It was held by all Christians who were exactly orthodox.” Or as Gibbon says, “It appears to have been the reigning sentiment of the orthodox believers.” Or as Bishop Russell says, “So far as we view the question in reference to the sure and certain hope entertained by the Christian world that the Redeemer would appear on earth, and exercise authority during a thousand years, there is good ground for the assertion of Mede, Dodwell, Burnet, and writers on the same side, that down to the beginning of the fourth century the belief was universal and undisputed,” (Discourse on the Millennium, p. 236).

Yet in the face of all this. Professor Shedd, who writes pleasantly and is no doubt worthy of the high esteem in which he is held, has ventured to affirm in his History of Christian Doctrine that “Millennarianism was not the received and authoritative faith of the Church.” Even he, however, admits that “The period between the years 150 and 250 is the blooming age of millennarianism”; and that “of the apostolical fathers, Barnabas, Hermas, and Papias exhibit in their writings distinct traces of this doctrine”; Barnabas, let it be remembered, being the companion of St. Paul, while Hermas, it is generally allowed, is the same person saluted in Romans xvi: 4, and of Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis, Irenæus, according to Eusebius, asserts that he was the disciple and pupil of St. John, and the companion of Polycarp. Dr. Lillie, in an appendix to the sermon already quoted, refers to the sweeping statement of Professor Shedd in what he calls “the singularly inadequate and, I say it reluctantly, somewhat unfair chapter on millennarianism. ‘There are no traces of Chiliasm,’ he says, ‘in the writings’ of certain Fathers whom he names, and then, with rather hasty logic, he ‘infers that this tenet was not the received faith of the Church, certainly down to the year 150.’ It would have been more to the purpose, could he have pointed out any traces of opposition to Chiliasm in the writings either of those particular Fathers, or of any others within that period. For it seems to be conceded that every one of the Apostolical Fathers., who says anything at all on the subject, is a Chiliast. And that all the rest were not less so, would be no very violent inference from the fact, recognized by Dr. Shedd himself, that ‘so general had the tenet become in the last half of the second century, that Justin Martyr declares that it was the belief of all but the Gnostics.’”

Of course it is not pretended that the prevalence of pre-millennial views during the first three centuries proves these views to be correct, for some of the “Fathers” taught very serious error; and no intelligent Christian needs to be informed that “All Synods or Councils since the Apostles’ times, whether general or particular, may err, and many have erred; therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith or practice, but to be used as a help in both.” It has been abundantly shown, however, that in an age, beyond question the best, the purest, and the most successful the Church has ever known, the doctrine of our Lord’s personal advent to establish His kingdom, and to reign with His saints a thousand years on the earth, was generally if not universally held. It has been said that this was owing to the terrible persecutions which burst like successive storms upon Christians during that period; but at all events it must be admitted that the doctrine comforted their hearts, and that it did not arrest their earnest efforts to save souls, for at no other time has there been manifested a more zealous missionary spirit, nor a more intense desire attested in self-denying labors for the speedy accomplishment of the number of God’s elect.

On the other hand, when the Emperor Constantine took the Church under his protection and patronage, allying it with the world, and making it the instrument to attain worldly ends, the hope of the Lord’s coming gradually died out of the hearts of His people, and with the exception of a few scattered witnesses for the truth, we hear nothing more of it until the time of the Reformation in the sixteenth centur3\ In proportion as this hope was lost, it seems that ignorance, like gloomiest night, settled down upon Christendom, and innumerable errors prowled through the darkness, threatening the utter extinction of the gospel. The millennial reign was “regarded as realized in the glory of the dominant imperial State-church,” as Dr. Schaff says, and the mind being taken from Christ to look for the triumph of His cause through human agencies, the inevitable consequence was the cessation of conscious dependence upon Him alone, followed by self-confidence and the introduction of unscriptural doctrines and methods to achieve the anticipated success.

But when it pleased God to break the slumber of centuries, and to raise up men who preached the forgotten truth of a present justification and of an assured hope only by faith in the precious blood of Christ alone, the expectation of our Lord’s speedy appearing again took its appropriate place in the faith of believers. Page after page might be filled with extracts from the writings of Luther, Calvin, Knox, and others who were forced by the Holy Ghost to the forefront of the battle, showing how clearly they saw, and how eagerly they embraced the doctrine of Christ’s personal coming, and not “the universal reception of the true religion,” as the proper object of believing contemplation. They had grace given them to bear testimony against the fanaticism of some who believed in a gross and sensual millennium, “but,” as Dr. Lillie says, “that they did, at the same time, generally and steadfastly hold to the ideas of a restored Israel, and a renewed earth, and, in particular, that not one of them ever allowed the modern notion of an intervening millennium to becloud his solemn, earnest outlook for the Lord’s Second Coming—so much is perfectly well known to all who have a moderate acquaintance with their writings.”

Accordingly we search in vain among the Confessions of that period for any trace of the modern theory which diverts the mind of the bride from a patient watching for the Bridegroom into the dangerous delusion, so dishonoring to Him, of expecting her own triumph and reign without His personal presence. Let us take, for example, the Westminster Confession of Faith, which will stand forever among the noblest productions of uninspired men, and among the clearest testimonies to the truth. The twenty- fifth chapter is entitled Of The Church, defining its nature and purpose; and if the framers of this remarkable Confession had held the modern and common theory, it is certain they would have finished us with glowing statements of “the universal diffusion of revealed truth,” and “unlimited subjection to the sceptre of Christ,” long before His appearing. But all that is said touching the future is in the fifth section, as follows: “The purest churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error: and some have so degenerated, as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan. Nevertheless, there shall be always a Church on earth, to worship God according to His will.” If the Assembly who formed the Confession had maintained the view now taught in Presbyterian pulpits, and papers, and Seminaries, it is unaccountable that they gave not the slightest hint of it, and made not the most distant allusion to it, in a chapter treating directly and solely of the Church.

But in the thirty-third chapter we find language which no human ingenuity can render consistent with the belief that a thousand years of millennial righteousness and peace must be expected previous to the coming of our Lord. “As Christ would have us to be certainly persuaded that there shall be a day of judgment, both to deter all men from sin, and for the greater consolation of the godly in their adversity: so will He have that day unknown to men, that they may shake off all carnal security, and be always watchful, because they know not at what hour the Lord will come; and may be ever prepared to say, Come, Lord Jesus, come quickly. Amen.” Such are the closing words of the Confession of Faith; and it is difficult to see how any can intelligently accept them as true, and at the same time adopt the theory of Whitby as to the long impersonal reign of holiness on the earth before the end of the dispensation. It will not be denied that the reference is to the personal coming of Christ, and it is impossible for men to be “always watchful” for it, if they are convinced that His coming will be deferred for at least a thousand years; and it is impossible for them to assert in one breath that “they know not at what hour the Lord will come,” and in the next breath that He will not come for at least a thousand years; and it is impossible for them to “be ever prepared to say. Come, Lord Jesus, come quickly” if they believe that He will not come quickly, but that He will postpone His coming until at least a thousand years shall have run their round.

So far, then, as the Westminster Confession of Faith speaks at all upon the subject, it must be admitted that it speaks on the side of the general view advocated in these pages, and none will pretend that it speaks anywhere on the other side. Nor are we surprised at this fact when we learn that Principal Bailie wrote as follows of the Confession and its authors: “I marvel I can find nothing in it against the millenaries. I can not think the author [Forbes] a millenaiy. I can not dream why he should have omitted an error so famous in antiquity, and so troublesome among us; for the most of the chief divines here [Westminster], not only Independents, but others, such as Twisse [the Prolocutor, or Moderator], Marshall, Palmer, and many more are express Chiliasts.” If, therefore, any who hold to the Westminster Confession of Faith are charged with unsoundness in doctrine, because they believe and teach the personal coming of the Lord to reign with the risen and raptured saints on the earth for a thousand years, and this as possible at any moment, they may be content to take their place with the Moderator and “most of the chief divines” who compiled that admirable statement and summary of Christian truth.

Since the days of the Reformation the doctrine of the pre-millennial advent has been subject to the fluctuations which have so strangely marked the ebb and flow of vital piety in all the history of the past. It is not, however, going too far to say, that the doctrine sinks out of view in proportion as the Church descends into a low spiritual state; and that it rises into view in proportion as the Holy Ghost lifts His people into a higher spiritual existence. In those dark periods when formalism, rationalism, and worldliness abound, giving tone to the speech and conduct of men who have a name to live and are dead, we find no mention of our Lord’s second coming; but in the revival of God’s work this truth is also revived, commanding the faith, energizing the efforts, and kindling the aspirations of believers who look for Him to appear a second time without sin unto salvation. A long list of names might be presented of those who advocate the pre-millennial doctrine, embracing many to whom would be conceded in the judgment of the Christian world the very front rank as ministers of the Gospel, Commentators, and Authors, and particularly distinguished for their evangelical views. It is true that in America the number is not very great, and some of these have brought reproach upon the truth by the monstrous heresy of the annihilation of the wicked, but in Europe, and especially on the Continent, the vast majority of real Christians are confidently expecting the personal coming of the Lord to establish His kingdom and to reign with the saints a thousand years before the end.

For example, the last article of the Confession of Faith, or Declaration of Principles, adopted unanimously by the General Assembly of the Free Italian Church, at Milan, in June, 1870, is as follows: “The Lord Jesus Christ will come from heaven and transform our body of humiliation into a glorious body. In that day the dead in Christ shall rise first, and the living who are found faithful shall be transformed, and thus together shall we be caught up in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air, to be forever with the Lord; and after His kingdom, all the rest shall rise to be judged in judgment.” It is a cause of gratitude to discover this little body, but recently entering into the light, so clearly perceiving that there is no judgment for the believer as to the question of sin and salvation, because judgment has been pronounced and executed upon the person of Jesus Christ, and that the proper hope of the Church is the personal coming of her Lord to receive her to Himself in the glory, long before the resurrection and judgment of unbelievers.