©ucrMijimt&tTO. MiLLENAEIAiriSM. I. BY REV. W. T. EVA. “ Millenarianism or Chiliasin,” says one of our best writers, “is the doctrine of the two resur rections—the first, that of the righteous dead at the time of the second advent of Christ, and the second, that of the wicked at the end of the world —and a personal corporeal reign of Christ be tween them for a thousand years, upon the reno vated earth.” This, I take to be a true and com prehensive definition, embracing in its compass, if cot expressing™ its terms, all, or nearly all, that is essential to the theory, or that distinguishes it from the view commonly held by those who pro fess and call themselves Christians. I will en deavor, in a brief and somewhat synoptical way, to note a few things that may be urged in favor of this theory; to indicate a few others that press themselves with foree against it; and to suggest what seems to me, to be the “ conclusion of the whole matter.” And first, it may be urged in favor of this theory that there are quite a number of Scripture passages, which are difficult of interpretation on any other hypothesis. There are some in relation to the second coming of Christ—not in reference to the fact of that coming; nor the personality of it-^—all agree upon these points; but in relation to the interpre tation and application of certain circumstances in connection with that event. ' For example : “Be ye also ready, for the Son of man cometh at an hour when ye think not,” (Luke xii. 40,} a pas sage the force of which seems entirely destroyed on the Supposition that the Son of man will not fome until after the period of millennial blessed ness; and which, to apply to the event of one’s death, appears almost like a “wresting” of the Scripture. For though it be true that the hour when death will come, is indeed very uncertain, and that we ought to be “ also ready” for that event, yet it is an exceedingly doubtful matter whether death can ever he spoken of as a coming of the Son of man. The phrase, Son of man, clearly refers to the human nature of Christ; and clear it is that that never comes in the event of one’s death. Again: “ When the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on theearth?” (Luke xviii. 8.) The coming here spoken of, for the same reason is evidently a personal coming of Christ; and the question of the Saviour seems very plainly to imply, that, at his coming there i shall be a great want of faith on the earth; which could hardly be, except on the millenarian theory, that he will come before the conversion of the world. Also the passage where Christ affirms that, “As it was in the days of Noah, and in the days of Lot, so shall it be alsb when the Son of man is revealed,”'(Luke xvii. 30,) a passage which is exceedingly difficult ,of interpretation except upon the millenarian hypothesis. There are passages, also, in relation to the kingdom of God, or the kingdom of heaven. I need say nothing about that in Daniel, “In the days of these kings shall thp God of heaven set up a kingdom,” etc., which has often been ably expounded in the intereßtof the anti-millenarian theory; nor of many others, the proper interpre tation of which is a subject of debate between parties holding different views on the subject. But there is one passage, which, on auy other than the millenarian view, has always seemed to me to be very inconsistent and obscure. It is the address of the angel to Mary: “ Behold thou shalt conceive in the womb, and shall bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of tlie Highest; and the Lord God shall giveuuto him the throne of his father David, and he shall reign over the house of Jacob forever.” (Luke i. 30.) All acknowledge that a part of this promise and pre diction has been literally fulfilled; the millenarian theory implies the literal fulfilment of the bal ance—the literal sitting of Christ upon the throne of his father David, and his literal reign ing over the house of Jacob; whieh circumstan ces, by others, are not expected to be literally, but spiritually, fulfilled. Now, the question is, Avhetber, one part of a promise or prediction being literally fulfilled, it is not reasonable to suppose that the remaining part will in like manner be literally fulfilled? Or, on what principle, by what canon of interpretation, can we explain the one portion spiritually when we are compelled to acknowledge that another portion has been ful filled literally ? And bo, there are passages in reference to the resurrection. There certainly are two resurrec tions of the dead spoken of, as to distinction and glory, if not to time. The passage in the Reve lation, (xx. 4-Q,) upon its fair and natural inter pretation would indicate two resurrections as to time; and though it may seem a satisfactory mode of disposing of its teaching, to maintain that the first resurrection there spoken of is a spiritual resurrection—a resurrection of “the martyr spirit,” etc., yet the assertion that “ the rest of the dead lived not again until'the thousand years were expired,” certainly raises a difficulty in the way of that interpretation, well nigh, if not quite, fatal to it. Because, it either involves a strange inconsistency and confusion in the exe gesis, or, it carries with it the assumption that, after all, the great spiritual rising of the woild, “ dead in trespasses and sins,” will not take place THE AMERICAN PRESBYTERIAN, THURSDAY, MARCH 7, 1867. until after the millennium is ended. If the word living or lived, is used in a different sense in the latter, from that in which it is used in the for , mer part of the passage, why then it certainly furnishes a of great ambiguity, uncer tainty, and confusion, in the use of terms in the word of God. If it be used in both parts of the passage in the same sense, why, then it involves the absurdity which I have suggested. There is a dilemma here, upon one or the other horn of which the anti-literalists must certainly-hang- . , Daniel says, “Many that "sleep in 'the dult of the earth shall awake: some to everlasting life, some to shame and everlasting contempt” (xii. 2.) Christ says: “ The hour is coming in which all that are in their graves shall rise; they that have done good to the Resurrection of life; they that have done evil to the resurrection of; damna tion.” (John v. 29:) Now here is certainly a distinction as to the characteristics and-glory of those who shall rise from the dead: yea, here are certainly too resurrections spoken of by Christ himself—“the resurrection of life, and the resur rection of damnation!” And so the Apostle Paul “ If by any means I mjglit attain unto the resurrec tion of,” or from, “thedead.” (Phil.iii.il.) The difference in -the • rendering : of the, particle ek, whether of or from- the dead, makes no difference at all in the sense; resurrection such as the Millenarians contend for— ( tbe. .first, resurrection! —is just as truly a resurrection from the dead— a rising up of the saints from among the great mass of the' world’s dead—as is a resurrection to spiritual life from the multitude dead in trespasses and sins. And the spiritual interpretation in volves the absurd and fatal idea, that the Apostle here sets himself' forth, as a not yet converted man; for if the resurrection of which he speaks be a resurrection to spiritual life—which, of course, is identical with the conversion of the Soul —and Paul declares that he had not yet attained to that, but sets it before himself as an object for which be earnestly strove, why, the inference is unavoidable that he speaks of himself as a not yet converted man. The conclusion is inevitable that the resurrection to which he directs our thoughts is a literal rising from the dead; and such a rising as had a something attached to it, which, in some way, either as to time, or as to distinction and glory, distinguished it from the general resurrection of the bodies of all men. These are a few of the Scriptures which are certainly difficult of interpretation upon any other than the millenarian hypothesis. There are many others of similar import and character. But these are sufficient for our purpose at this time. And they are cited, not as authority for the theory in question, but with' a view, if possible, to elicit; some satisfactory exegesis jfrom those whose minds are enlightened and whose opinions are settled in opposition thereto. We confess that in our way, they are something in the na ture of “stumbling blocks,” which we should like to have removed. Second. It may be urged in favor of this theory, that in some of its features, it seems to have been the doctrine of the Apostolic Church. We do not say in whole, but in some of its features. For example, there cannot be a doubt that the Apostles and primitive Christians made much—even as Millenarians now do—of the second and personal coming of the Lord. Jesus Christ. It lias been asserted, indeed, that that event is the hope of which they invariably speak in their writings, and that they never allude to death or the state following as, in any way, that to which they looked forward with pleasing and delightful anticipations. And while .this is clearly an extreme and erroneous statement—for Paul in Philippians does speak of having a “ desire to depart,” or to die, “ and be with Christ, which is far better,” and Peter does speak of “ putting off the fleshly tabernacle,” by which he means to sig nify the event of his death, and the Apocalypse does pronounce the beatitude, “Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord!” Yet it is as clear as a sunbeam, that the great object which was most commonly before the mind of the Apostles—that which was their absorbing and prevalent hope, was the personal coming of their Lord and Saviour. Of this they preached, of this they wrote; and in the prospect of this they evidently rejoiced. I need not cite passages here. Quite an array of them has doubtless been brought to the atten tion of the reader; and many will occur at once to the recollection of the student. In deed, so evident is this, and such an argument does it furnish in favor of the millenarian theory, that some of the opposers of that theory have found no way to get rid of its force, except in the idea that on this subject, the Apostles themselves were mistaken; an idea which, as it seems to me, it is by no means safe, for a moment to admit; for it carries along with it the implication’ of their fallibility in reference to a. point on which they frequently wrote, and of course leaves the whole of their writings open to the suspicion of a simi lar fallibility. If they were in error, or liable to be in error, on one point of their teachings, why not on others? And if they made a mistake in reference to that point, what guarantee have we that they did not make mistakes in regard to other points? It is true, indeed, that in the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, (2 Chap.) Panl intimates that they, the believers at Thes salonica, had received a false impression from what he had written to them in his First Epistle in regard to the time of the coming of Jesus. But the mistake w'as their own, not his; .they had misunderstood what he had written, not he the truth in the case: that truth he reiterates and reaffirms, guarding them only against error in regard to' the time off its verification. We must admit, therefore—it be successfully, denied, I think—“-that the second personal coming of Christ.was*-fhe event which constituted the great hope and desire of the Apostolic Church; that from the time when, at the ascension of the Master, the angel which appeared, addressed to the company that stood upon the Mount of lOlivesr the jwords,, .“ Ye men «of. Gallilee,- why stand ye ‘gizing heaveh? This‘same’ Jesus of Nazareth whom ye have seen go into hea ven, shall so come in like manner as lye have seen him; go into, heaven,” (Acts i. 11.) this, and its cognate event,; the ■ resurrection of, or from, the dead, Was that, the anticipation, of which was an almost constantly present and predominating support, comfort, and joy to their hearts. ; Third. In favor of this theory it may be fur ther urged that belief in it was most general in the period'when martyrdom was most prevalent , arid' that in tlte- faith of this theory Christians were most ready to go to the stake, and to seal their testimony to their, faith faith their siifferings and blood. \ Of the -faetj'tKere can be no. (question. . Gibbon says, that “ the assurance of suet a millennium was carefully inculcated by a succession of fathers, froto Justin Martyr and Ireneus who conversed with the immediate disciples of the Apostles, down to Lac'tantius-who waS preceptor to the son of Constantine. Though it might not be univer sally received, it appears to have been the reign ing sentiment of the' orthodox believers . . . and must have contributed in a very considerable de gree to the progress bf the Christian faith.” Mosheim says, that “ long before this period,” that is, the third century, A. D., “an opinion had prevailed that Chi-ist was to come and reign a thousand years among men before the entire and final destruction of the world.' This opinion had hitherto met with no opposition. But in this century it began to decline, principally through the influence and authority of Origen, who opposed it with the greatest warmth, be cause it was incompatible with some of bis favor ite sentiments.” Neander says that “ Millenari anism (Chiliasmus) was, in the days of Papias, Ireneus, and J. Martyr, extensively propagated,” and that, “in the midst of persecution it was an attractive thought for the 'Christians to look to a period when their Church, purified and perfected, should be'triumphant even on earth, the theatre of their present sufferings.” And Professor Shedd affirms, that “ the period between the,year 150 and 250 ’’—that is, the period when the blood of the martyrs was most profusely shed— “was the blooming age .of millenarianism The millenarian tendency,” says he, “became stronger, as the Church began in the last half of the second century, to feel the persecuting hand o£ the government laid upon it. . . . It was natural that the doctrine of the personal reign of Christ should be most prevalent when the earthly condition of the Church was the most intolera ble.” Such is tlie testimony gathered from writers who themselves are anti-Millenarians, to the fact that in'the early-age of persecution and martyrdom, the millenarian doctrine did most prevail. In regard to the worth of the fact as an argu ment iu favor of the millenarian theory, there will, of course, be differences of opinion; and some, perhaps most, will regard it as worth, just nothing at all. But to my own mind, I confess that there is some force in it, as furnishing some thing of a presumption in favor of that theory: for if the martyrs, when they went to the dungeon, to the arena, and to the stake, to suffer and to die for Christ, were animated by a love of the truth as it is in Jesus, and sustained by tlieir faith in that truth, it seems, to say, the least of it, a strange thing, that their Master would have suf fered them to be so deluded as to rest tlieir. hope upon fancy instead of fact, and derive the peace and joy that sustained them, from a mythical fiction, instead of a true and living faith I And it seems further strange that a mere delusion—a sheer phantom of tlie imagination, should have fur nished any part of the foundation on whieh was built the hope and the triumph, in the midst of pains and penalties, sufferings and death of the thou sands of martyrs of that age; to say nothing of such witnesses for the truth as Ireneus, Cyprian, Justin Martyr, and others. And yet again, even in modern and present times, this theory numbers among its believers and advocates, either partly or in whole, some of the best minds, and some of the very purest hearts of the Church. They are, indeed, comparatively few; but they arc men whose praise is in all the Churches, whose reasonings’are not to be despised, and whose piety and devotion to the cause of Christ, is not to be questioned. I need not refer particularly to them; the reader will remem ber such names as Bickersteth, and Elliot, and Cunningham, and Bonar, and Cumming, of the British Church; such as Delitszeh, and Kurtz, and Auberlen, and P. Lange, and Ebrard, of the German Church;' and such as Henshaw, and Duffield, and Lord, and Newton, and Seiss, of our own country. And many others there are, whose views in some points —more or less—agree with those of the Millenarians; as Robert Hall, in the literal restoration of the Jews to their own land; and Dr. Chalmers, in a literal, material new heavens, and new earth; and Olshausen in the two resurrections. REV. E P. HAMMOND'S LETTEE FROM PA LESTINE, No—III. In the afternoon of the 23d of November, we left our tents at Tiberias, and started upon a keen gallop for a visit to the upper end of the lake. Just as we entered the “Land of we passed the village of Magdala, the home of Mary Magdalene. As we rode along the now silent shore of the lake, and saw the fertile plain of Gennesareth away to our left for two or three miles, wiih' riot a-hovutehijtan it, and only affording sus tenance to the wandering Ishmaelites whose hand is against every man, I could but think of the contrast that scene presented to the eye when our Lord made Capernaum, near the northern end of the plain, “ His own city.” At that time all that yale was highly cultivated, and thousands of people inhabited those shores. Eighteen centur ies ago Josephus describes Gennesareth as an /‘earthly paradise, where the choicest fruits grew luxuriantly, and eternal spring reigned.” But now, alas! we see the fulfilment of our Saviour’s prophecy, and the once flourishing- cities, , which encircled this beautiful sheet of water, exalted to heaven in their privileges, are blotted , from exis tence,; : even their very site is a disputed question, while Tyre and Sidon. still preserve at least a semblance of life; , Among the teeming-population, which then surrounded the lake, the Saviour- spent the chief part of his ministry. His own townsmen-at Nazareth had been “ filled with wrath” at a sermon which he had preached in their synagogue, and had “ thrust Him out'of the city and led Him unto the brow of the hill, Whereon their city was built,'that they might east Him down head long,” but he miraculously escaped from them, and “came down to Capernaum,” which he adop ted as “ His own city.” His heart yearned for the- masses; and all around the sea of Tiberias He saw them gathered. Capernaum, Ghorazin, Magi dala, Tiberias,- Bethsaida, Scythopolis, Gadara and Pella, with many villages dotted the shores of the lake. Thus it was no difficult matter, at any time, for our Lord to gather a. crowd in the open air. Hence we read that as “Heeiitered into Ca pernaum, it was noised abroad that He was in the house and straightway many were gathered together insomuch that there was no room to receive them, and He preached the word unto them.” At that time it would appear that this region was a great centre to which the people flocked. It is probable that in no other place in the Holy Land could the Saviour have found such a hopeful field of labor; He choose to toil here among the “common people,” who heard him gladly, rather than at that time to direct His at tention to the more polished, and it may be, more wicked inhabitants of Jerusalem, where' the self righteous Pharisees and ratipnalistie loungers were ready to confront Him at every -step. From among the fishermen and peasants and commer cial peoplesurrounding the lake, He called hisfol lowers and buijt up the infant Church. He erec ted no grand edifice, upon which the eyes of men might gaze with delight, but He there laid the foundations of that structure which is yet more and more to be the wonder and admiration of the universe, and of which He is Himself the “chief corner-stone.” He planted no college to perpet uate His memory, but yet from under his divine teachings went forth humble men, filled with the Holy’Spirit, whose words and writirigshave exer ted a most powerful influence upon the world. Such were some of the many thoughts, which pressed upon me, as we rode along the now silent shores of the lake,- with its once cultivated vale of Gennesareth on our left. We once turned aside to gather some of -the celebrated papyrus, as we were told that was the only place where it could be found in Palestine. It did not appear to ns how the ancients could have made paper of it. One of the chief objects of our ride that af ternoon was to ascertain if possible the site of ancient Capernaum. It is well known among Biblical scholars that it has long been a disputed point as to whether Capernaum was located at Ain et Tiny or Tell Hum. Dr. Robinson and Dr. Porter are of the opinion that the ruins at Ain et Tiny are those of the city where our Saviour dwelt. But Dr. Thomson argues very strongly, and lam inclined to think conclusively, that Ca pernaum was at Tell Hum. It seems remarkable that the place where the Saviour spent so much of His time and which was the scene of go many of His miracles and where so many of His parables and discourses were uttered, should ever have been so lost sight of, as to make its locality a question. For centuries, at least, His followers must have loved to linger around the spot filled with so many sacred and tender associations. But alas, it ap pears that for many centuries the place was neg lected and then forgotten. Capt. Wilson, by his recent explorations, has done much to prove that Tell Hum is the verita ble site of Capernaum. It is perhaps a mile northeast of Ain et-Tiny. Thither we hastened that we might place our feet on the floor of the synagogue recently uncovered, upon which it is known for a certainty that nur Saviour walked. As we moved among its majestic but fallen Cor- “ aff «*i»g thought to reflect that we were upon the only pavement in existence which is believed to have been thus honored. Even though we should admit that this synagogue belonged to Chorazin, as Dr. Porter thinks, rather ihan to Capernaum, .still there can be no doubt’that our Saviour efitcred it while upon earth, The views at Tell Horn appeared much more extensive than thoße at Ain efc Tiny. Oh, how solemn appeared these words of our Saviour as we read themfrom our Bible on the spot. “ Then began He to upbraid the cities wherein most of His mighty works were done, because they repen ted not. Woe unto thee Chorazin ! Woe unto thee Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which were done in you,-had been done in Tyre and Si don, they would have repented long ago in sack cloth and ashes. But I say unto you it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment than for you. And thou Capernaum which art exalted unto Heaven shalt be brought down to hell, for if the mighty works which have been ! donej in thee; had jbeen,' done in Sidon it would have remained until this day.” Matt, xi: 20. 23. It was.with.an interest greatly augmented by our afternoon’s explorations that we read the ac counts of; fhe many miracles that were performed at Capernaum ,and the memorable admonitions and parables 'which He there uttered. We could scarcely realize that in our wandering that day, we had perchance trodden upon some of the stones of the-house of Jairus, in which once lay his little daughter, twelve years of age, whom Jesus raised to life; and that we had perhaps stumbled upon some of the very stones which once formed the house of the centurion whose servant Jesps raised, and of . whom He said, I have not found so great faith, no not in Israel. (Luke, vii: !). I cannot fail to speak of our having seen near Capernaum what was' evidently a small harbor where the disciples of our Lord, whj were fish ermen, used to anchoritbeir boats, after they had been employed at their usual avocation upon the waters day or night. Perhaps it was near that very spot “that as He walked by the sea of Gali. lee He saw Simon and Andrew his brother casting a net into the sea and said unto them “ come ye after me and I, will make you fishers of men.” And but a short distance farther on where “He saw James the son of Zebedee and John his brother who were also in the ship men ding their nets”—and who, when called by our Lord “left their father Zebedee in the ship with the hired servants and went after Him.” On the morning of thq 24th we, took our de parture from Tiberias and the sea of Galilee and started for Nazareth. It was;a beautiful morn- ing with a most exhilarating.atmosphere. As wr< rose higher and higher upon the hills of Galilee and occasionally looked back at the Lake nestled at their feet, how different was its calm appear ance to us from that, which it presented twenty four hours before 1 when we were tempest tossed upon its angry waves. It did not- appear of half the. size it did the day before when we were sail ing upon it, “ and there arose a great storm|j&| wind and the waves heat into the ship.” ButtH* change was no greater than that we have some times seen in the moral worlff when from Mount Sinai the thunders of Hod’s ®w alarm the trem bling sinner, and the storm of divine vengeance bursts upon him and the waters of his soul, so deceitfully calm, are,thrown into violent commo tion. 0 how vain, at such times, are all human powers to allay the tempestuous agitation of the troubled billows. But when the Saviour in love and mercy has arisen with the potent words upon His lips, “ Peact, be still” —then, 0 how quickly has the wind oeased and that “peace, which is lik’e a river,’’ filled the-heart. At such times, it is only the sight of our risen Lord, apprehended by faith, that can give peace to the troubled soul. Peaca only can follow where the anxious, trembling sin ner believes,, not in any works of righteousness of his own, but because Christ has once suffered. “ le just for the unjust,” therefore, He, by (Jod s appointment, has the speak peace ami pardon to all who trust in Hum. Every tempest tossed soul must, with some/degree of faith, look upon the Saviour’s wounded hands and feet and believe that “He was wounded for our transgres sions, if he would enjoy lasting peace. Thi* truth seems to be contained in the words in John xx. 19, 20, “ Jesus stood in the midst and saith unto them, peace be unto you. And when Jh had so eaid, He showed unto them His hands awl His side. Then said Jesus to them again , peart be unto you.” As if to repeat the words, “Look to these wounded hands,see how much I have suf fered that your sins might be forgiven ! 0 then let the troubled waters of your souls suisidc. Peace be unto you.” , After an h °ur’s ride, we approached a