with industrious zeal and appears to have laid a strong hold on the public mind," (p. 44,) although it has enjoyed the countenance of several great and venerable names, yet the balance of reason and authority seems on the whole to lie decidedly against it. The teaching of the Millennarians is pronounced by Dr. Wordsworth to be inconsistent with other parts of Holy Writ; to lack the sanction of the Universal Church; to have been adopted by some holy and wise men before its consequences had been fairly tested; to have brought discredit upon the study, and to have endangered the reception, of the sacred book from which advocates imagine it to be deducible. These statements, we repeat, are in our humble judgment, forcible and well founded. But of a truth there is scarcely a single argument adduced by Dr. Wordsworth against this popular interpretation of the thousand years, which does not appear to us to recoil with fatal force against the interpretation which he supports concerning the Beasts and the Mystic Babylon. Does he aver that the Millennarian teaching has been advocated with zeal and laid strong hold on the public mind? We may, though with some qualification, assert the same of his account of Babylon. Does he admit that the doctrine of the Millennium has received the sanction of some revered and illustrious names? Truth requires us to make a similar admission respecting his explanation of Babylon and the Man of Sin. Does he maintain that, despite these advantages, the former doctrine may be rejected, as having a stronger case against it than can possibly be made out in its favour? We maintain precisely the same position respecting the modern theories on Antichrists and the city of abominations. Does he urge the inconsistency of the common notion of the Millennium with other parts of Holy Writ? We have, both directly and indirectly, attempted the same task with respect to his theory upon the other subject. Does he challenge the advocates of the Millennium to display the warrant of the Universal Church? We demand from the assertors of this volume's teaching the same august and binding sanction. Does he maintain that the Millennarians have brought discredit on the study of the Apocalypse? We, in company with Mr. Evans and many more must declare the very same conviction respecting these subsequent interpretations. Lastly, does Dr. Wordsworth think that Papias, S. Justin Martyr, S. Irenæus, might have changed their opinion on the Millennium, (p. 41,) had their lives been prolonged to a later age? We think that Hooker, Andrewes, and even Mede would have spoken very differently on the questions here at issue had they been spared to witness the career of continental Protestantism. We are at last arrived at the question of authority. What and of what kind are the testimonies in favour of this tremendous arraignment of millions of Christians, as servants of the Man of Sin and denizens of the spiritual Babylon? With many Dr. Wordsworth himself is a sufficient authority. We had prepared some two or three pages intended to explain, why, despite all the excellent gifts of this learned Divine, we demur to so entire an acceptance of his opinions. We had therein hinted, how, in looking for a commentator on the writings of the loved disciple, we should prefer some one of less controversial habits, one whose volumes displayed more of affection and enthusiasm, dwelt more largely on the cycle of consequences arising from the Holy Incarnation, or gave more instruction concerning the secrets of the inward life. But however much those pages might excuse our nonadoption of Dr. Wordsworth's teaching, it is perhaps more charitable to withhold them. Who then are Dr. Wordsworth's witnesses? He appears to admit that he has none to produce from the first six centuries. And, (with the exception of some words of S. Gregory the Great) the first name of any weight which he can cite is that of Peter of Blois, a French ecclesiastic of the twelfth century! The reader may hence judge of the Primitive character of these opinions. But the Fathers were not prophets, argues the lecturer, and could not therefore foresee what the Roman Church and her Bishop would in time become. Granted;-but did not the ancient Fathers, one and all, hold an interpretation, which, if accepted, renders that of Dr. Wordsworth impossible? We assert, unhesitatingly, that they and we challenge contradiction of the assertion. From all the ages prior to the Reformation, Dr. Wordsworth's vast extent of learning selects the following list of great theologians: Peter of Blois, the Waldenses, Joachim of Calabria, Ubertinus de Casali, Peter Olivi, Marsilius of Padua. Petrarch, Dante. For this list (not, we think, a very overwhelming one) he is mainly indebted to Wolf's "Lectiones Memorabiles." We must add that Vitringa is summoned as an eulogist upon Olivi, and reference made to many other passages of Wolf, besides those employed; as likewise to Signor Rosetti's comparatively recent work, entitled "Spirito Antipapale." We, on the contrary, take our stand upon these two positions. Firstly, that among sober-minded adversaries of the Roman claims, these theories have scarcely ever, if ever, become a living idea. And, secondly, that wherever they have energised and attained to vigorous life, they have been conjoined with so much of fanaticism, heresy, or violence of conduct, as may well induce all thoughtful Christians to pause, ere they venture to embark in the same vessel.1 1 By a living idea, we of course, mean one, which is not a mere theory of the head, but is inwrought into the very heart and conscience; which is displayed in practice, and moulds other notions into harmony with itself. That an idea should be capable of thus flourishing is indeed no criterion of its abstract truth. It simply goes to prove the existence of power and of capacity for laying hold of some leading prin Let us look at these witnesses a little more closely. (a) Peter of Blois. Of this divine Dr. Wordsworth has not, either in his lectures or in his edition of the Apocalypse, quoted so much as one sentence or even syllable. Had he done so, we would willingly have examined his remarks: failing that, we have reason to doubt whether they would repay the trouble of research. (3) To believe that the Waldenses were far superior to the Albigenses (whom we are glad to find Dr. Wordsworth quietly ignoring); to respect their constancy and purity of life; to sympathise deeply with their unmerited sufferings is one thing. To accept them as authorities for an English Churchman is another. The few statements we have to make concerning them shall be taken wholly from a book which thoroughly, and in all respects, patronises their cause.2 "The Vaudois line," says the writer, "may generally be known by its opposition to the Papacy, and its reference to Sylvester, as affording the first manifestation of Antichrist." (Proof of this fact is given from Remer, Dachery, and the famous Vaudois document, claiming to be of the twelfth century, the Noble Lesson.) In A.D. 1178 Peter Valdo had journeyed to Rome to obtain the sanction of the then Pope, (Alexander III.) to his fraternity, the poor men of Lyons. "Never," continues our author, "did the founder of a religious community experience a better reception from Prince or Pontiff. The Pope embraced Valdo, and approved of the order, as professors of voluntary poverty; but while he gave them a limited licence, as preachers, he forbade them to exercise it without the especial permission of the regular priesthood." This injunction was for a time obeyed, but at length the restraint seemed burdensome. Recriminations ensue between various Bishops and the followers of Valdo; they are admonished to be silent, refuse, and are at length excommunicated, and select from themselves their own unordained ministers. However hardly dealt with, it is impossible to regard them thenceforth as anything more than a sect. Now, their reason for selecting Sylvester as the first manifestation of Antichrist is obvious. The Waldenses professed voluntary poverty, and a grant of lands was fabled to have been given to Sylvester by Constantine. - ciples and faculties in the mind of man. But that an idea should lack this innate vigour, that it should seldom be acted on as true, or, if so acted upon, produce strange contortions both of sentiment and practice; that it should be fitful, variant, arising only in seasons of controversial excitement and sinking into torpidity when they are past: all these signs afford a very strong presumption against its reality and truth. 1 Our belief is, that this Petrus Blesensis wrote to his friend to come out of Babylon just as a country Rector might with us advise a London friend to come out of the bustle of Babylon to rural quiet. Thus Napoleon spoke of Paris as Babylon, and does not Cowper address London by the same title? 2 The Church of CHRIST in the Middle Ages. London: Seeleys, 1845. See pages 303-321, and again p. 484. And yet, considering that Sylvester was elected Bishop of Rome in A.D. 314, this is rather an early period for Dr. Wordsworth to see an Antichrist, especially when we remember that he does not thus regard S. Gregory, whose date is A.D. 590. We read that a church was dedicated to GOD in honour of Sylvester, and that this very S. Gregory the Great preached therein; that his name is found in very ancient martyrologies, and his festival kept not only by the Latin, but likewise by the Greek Church. Moreover, in a certain Calendar, generally considered an authority with devout sons of this our English Church, as being that contained in the Book of Common Prayer, we find among the minor commemorations of holy men; "December 31, Sylvester, Bishop." In other words, the man whom the Waldenses regarded as the first Antichrist, is honoured by the English Church as a saint of the Most High! Said we not truly at the commencement, that some of Dr. Wordsworth's witnesses would be discovered to prove far too much? (7) The next supporters of these views may be fitly introduced by an extract from Dr. Todd. He is speaking of the earlier portion of the thirteenth century. "The awful words of prophecy were seized upon as the most effective weapons of political and religious controversy. To the followers of the abbot Joachim, the Fratricelli, the Beguins, and other extravagant sects, who were engaged at that period in an angry warfare with the court of Rome, the fanatical application of the Apocalypse had peculiar charms. They pretended to predict from its visions, with the help of some new and peculiar revelations of their own, the total abolition of the Christian Church, its worship, its hierarchy, and its endowments ; and in its stead, the substitution of a new dispensation brought about by the agency of the mendicant friars of S. Francis, a dispensation which was to excel in spirituality, the Christian religion, as far as the Gospel of CHRIST had surpassed in excellence the abrogated law of Moses. And the existing hierarchy of the Church, by whom, of course, such doctrines were vehemently discountenanced, were denounced as the Babylon of the Apocalypse, the children of Antichrist, the beast to whom it was given to make war upon the saints, and to whom the dragon gave his power and his seals, and great authority." A longer account of poor Joachim may be found in a note appended to Dr. Todd's earlier set of Lectures.2 He, who shall have studied that account, will be able to appreciate more fully our reasons for profoundly distrusting the authority of this Abbot, as an Interpreter of Holy Writ. 1 Lectures on the Apocalypse, Lect. I. pp. 27, 28. Todd on the Prophecies relating to Antichrist, Note D. p. 453. sq-It is only since the publication of the two former portions of this article, that the writer has had the opportunity of making use of this book. He mentions this, lest he should seem to have borrowed, without acknowledgment, some materials which were collected by independent research. (8) The evidence of Peter John Olivi is very similar to that of Joachim, and must stand or fall upon like grounds. Dr. Wordsworth, with a candour which never forsakes him, even in controversy, has supplied the students of his valuable edition of the Apocalypse, not merely with Olivi's comments, but likewise with the criticism upon those comments, made by the eight Papal Divines appointed to examine them. Notwithstanding this candour, which deserves the highest praise, his demands upon the subject appear to us not a little unreasonable. That there is but too much truth in Olivi's assertions "concerning the corrupt state of the existing Church," we learn from very numerous and unquestioned sources of information. But Olivi looked for reformation" by means of the order of that section of the Franciscans (spirituales or perfecti) to which he himself belonged," says Dr. Wordsworth: a reformation, we must add, which was expected to diminish or even annul the power of Bishops, to exalt that of the Pope, and to do away with the possession of Church property, including, we presume, all deancries, canonries, and the like. With what consistency we can regard Olivi as fanatical in his ideas of Church reform and sober-minded in his exegesis of the Apocalypse, we are utterly at a loss to understand. Enough for the present to observe, that in Olivi's judgment the decline of CHRIST'S Church commences "sub Monachis et Clericis temporales possessiones habentibus," and a new and happier state commences, "à tempore beati viri patris nostri Francisci." In Olivi's Postils the Franciscans stand forth as the best and greatest of reformers; in Dr. Wordsworth's Lectures these same Franciscans combine with the Papacy to form the second Beast foretold in the Apocalypse! Admirable harmony! (e) But Olivi's comments are not to rest merely upon their own merits. Dr. Wordsworth would fain endorse them with the authority of a great and respected name, that of the Dutch divine, Campegius Vitringa. And Vitringa certainly does assure us that he read Olivi's Interpretations with admiration. Now the question thus raised is this: not whether Vitringa is justly extolled as the glory of Dutch Protestantism, and as a good and (in many respects) even great man, and an illustrious commentator upon Isaiah, but whether he is a competent witness on the particular subjects now before us. We venture to assert that, with all his great merits, Vitringa is often far too self-sufficient, somewhat wanting in the sense of the supernatural; and, lastly, upon the point of the respective merits of Rome and Geneva, absolutely wild and fanatical. An example of the first two faults may be pointed out in his comment upon Isaiah xiv. 12. In that verse the ancient fathers were wont to see a reference to the fall of the ruined Archangel, who has thence obtained the name of Lucifer. Now here is Vitringa's cool dismissal of primitive testimony in this matter: |