MILLENNIUM, a period of a thousand years; generally used with reference to the thousand years during which, according to the statement of the Apostle John in the 4th verse of the twentieth chapter of the Apocalypse, Christ is to reign with his saints upon earth.

As almost all nations are possessed of some traditionary information respecting the existence of a happy and a holy age at the commencement of the world’s history, so among most of them do we find traces, more or less distinct, of an expectation that a period of still greater excellence will immediately precede its close. In several of the oriental religious systems this expectation occupies a prominent place;^[1. See Plutarch De Did. et Osir. c. 47; Hyde De Relìg. Vet. Pert. p. 832. ] nor will the classical reader need to be reminded of the well-known Eclogue of Virgil, in which he describes the glories of “the last age,” and the return of the Saturnian reign, in strains which so strikingly accord with those of the Jewish Scriptures, that this poem seems to have been commonly regarded by the early church as prophetic of the birth and reign of Christ.^[2. ¾ See Augustine, Inchoat. Expos. in Ep. ad Romanos ; Lactantius, Instit. vii. 24; Eusebius, Constantini Orat, ad Sanctorum Cat., c. 19. ] A still more remarkable, because more explicit, allusion to a millennium, occurs in the writings of Plato, in the statement which he repeatedly makes, that a period of a thousand years (χι λ ιετης π οgεια, χιλιο σ τον ετος, πεg ι οδος χιλιετης) must intervene between death and our “arrival at the inheritance and possession of the second life.”^[3. Timaus, p. 1054, E.; see also Phaed. p. 1223, D.; and De Rep. lib. x. p. 761, E. ]

Among the Jews this expectation assumed a more definite form, and was expressed in less hesitating language. Their prophets distinctly revealed to them the certainty of a period of future felicity under the reign of the Messiah;^[4. See, among other passages, Is. ii. 1-4, ix. xi. xxv.; Zech. xiv. ] and they had, from a comparatively early age, the tradition, that that period would extend through a thousand years. This tradition seems to have had its rise in the notion, that as the work of creation was divided among six ordinary days, so the world would have to pass through six divine days of toil and suffering (each of which days they imagined to be a millennium, from a misinterpretation of Ps. xc. 4); and that as God rested on the seventh day, so should the seventh millennium be a period of universal rest and quiet under the reign of the Messiah. In the rabbinical writings, frequent allusions to this opinion are to be found, the most important of which have been collected by Wetstein, in his notes on Apoc. xx. Of these allusions, the following may be taken as a specimen: “There is a tradition in the bouse of Elias, that the righteous whom the holy blessed God shall raise from the dead, shall not return again to the dust, but for the space of a thousand years, in which the holy blessed God shall renew the world, they shall have wings like the wings of eagles, and shall fly above the waters.”^[5. Sanhedrin, fol. 92, quoted in Dr Ad. Clarke’s Comment, in loc. ]

From the Jews, this notion of a personal reign of the Messiah with his saints on earth, was adopted by several in the early church, by whom the passage in the Apocalypse above referred to was confidently quoted in support of the opinion. By some of these the blessings [7:15:82]anticipated during the millennium were regarded as entirely of a temporal and sensual kind, while others looked forward to that period as a season of spiritual enjoyment and religious harmony. In neither of these forms, however, does the opinion ever seem to have become general in the church. Indeed we are expressly informed by Origen, that it was confined to those “of the simpler sort,” and to such as, “refusing the labour of intelligence, followed the superficial mode of literal interpretation.”^[6. Proĭeg. in Cani. cant. 69, B.; de Princìp. ii. 11, sect. 2. ] Great obscurity, however, attends the history of this dogma in the early church, as the documents we possess are too few, and too partial in their information, to justify our expressing any definite opinion on the subject. From the testimony of Eusebius, we learn that the first who taught it in the church was Papias, a bishop of Phrygia, in the earlier part of the second century, who professed to have received a traditional revelation on the subject from the apostles. Influenced by a regard to the piety and antiquity of the man (τηv αξχαιoτηrα ταvδξος τΤξοβεβλημενοι), several ecclesiastics, and among the rest Irenaeus and Justin Martyr, adopted his opinion. Adherents were also found in the Latin church, especially from among the Montanist party. It is justly remarked, however, by Professor Neander, that the defensive attitude which the advocates of the doctrine perpetually assume in regard to it, affords a strong presumption that it was not the doctrine of the church in general.^[7. Kirchengeschichte i bd. i. abt. 3, p. 728; see also Waddington’s Church History, ch. iii.; Whitby’s Treatise on the Millennium, appended to his Commentary, &c. ]

In the third century it was vehemently assailed by Origen, and as eagerly defended by Nepos, a bishop of the district of Arsinoe, in Egypt. The latter, however, was but a feeble antagonist for so redoubtable a controversialist as Origen, whom his scholars delighted to style the Adamantine; and consequently his interference served only to quicken the downfall of the cause he had espoused. The assault of Origen was followed by that of Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, and one of Origen’s most able scholars, which seems, in the Eastern church at least, completely to have driven the opinion into obscurity.^[8. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. vii. 24, 25. ] From this time forward we find no traces of it in ecclesiastical history, until we arrive at the tenth century, when it was revived, though in a very altered form, and used for the purpose of terrifying the ignorant populace into larger concessions to the ambition and avarice of the papal power. They were taught that the millennium, during which Satan was to be bound, was to be calculated from the birth of Christ, and consequently was then rapidly drawing to a close; that at its termination Satan would be again set free, and the reign of Anti-Christ would commence; and that, after a short season of triumph to the enemies of the church, the last judgment would take place, and the world be consumed by the final conflagration. So powerful was the effect produced by the teaching of this doctrine, that multitudes, as the eventful year that was to close the last century of the millennium approached, forsook their homes, “and hastened to the shores of Palestine, with the pious persuasion that Mount Sion would be the throne of Christ when he should descend to judge the world; and these, in order to secure a more partial sentence from the God of mercy and charity, usually made over their property before they departed, to some adjacent church or monastery.”^[9. Waddington’s Church History, chap. xv. ] The much-dreaded year, however, having passed away, without any of the expected convulsions, the minds of the people recovered their equilibrium. Those who had fled returned to their homes, and resumed their wonted occupations; “and the only lasting effect of this stupendous panic was the augmentation of the temporal prosperity of the church.”^[10. Ibid. ]

Since the reformation, the opinion of the early Millennarians has been revived in the church; and the doctrine of a personal reign of Christ on earth with his saints has been maintained by many excellent persons, as one of the truths clearly revealed in the Scriptures. The tenets of those who avow this opinion are chiefly the following :— That Jerusalem is to be rebuilt, the temple restored, and sacrifice again offered on the altar; that this city is to form the residence of Christ, who is to reign there in glory with all his saints for a thousand years; that for this purpose there shall be a resurrection of all the pious dead, that none of the Saviour’s followers may be absent during his triumph; that at the close of the thousand years, they shall all return to heaven, and the world be left to Satan and his followers for a season; and that then the general resurrection and last judgment shall take place, and the history of the world be brought to a close. In support of these tenets, they appeal to numerous passages in the prophetical writings of the Old Testament, to some sayings of Christ himself recorded in the Evangelists, to one or two detached passages in the writings of the apostles, and principally to the declarations of St John in the Apocalypse. The passages in the Prophecies on which most stress is laid by them, are those in which the latter-day glory seems to be described in connection with the return of the Lord of Hosts unto Zion, the establishment of his sanctuary with men for ever, and the coming of the nations to Jerusalem to receive instruction, and offer their homage to him.^[11. See Begg’s Connected View of some of the Scriptural Evidence of the Redeemer’s Speedy Personal Return, &c. pp. 85-118. ] The declarations of our Lord referred to are those in which he speaks of the destruction of Jerusalem in connection with his second advent;^[12. Matt, xxiv.; Mark, xiii.; Luke, xxi. ] from which it is inferred that Jerusalem shall remain in its present state, and that seasons of tribulation and sorrow shall befall the church, until Christ come to restore the one to its former glory, and to exalt the other over all its enemies.^[13. Begg’s Letters on our Saviour’s Predictions, &c. passim. ] The passages quoted from the apostles are chiefly two: the one the address of St Peter to the Jews,—“Repent and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; when he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you ;”^[14. Acts, iii. 19, 20. ] which is held to prove that Christ shall come again, and that this event shall be attended with times of refreshing to the Jews; the other the declaration of St Paul to the Thessalonians,^[15. Ep. iv. 16. ] that “the dead in Christ shall rise first;” from which it is inferred that there will be a resurrection of the just antecedent to the general resurrection. The main prop of the doctrine, however, is the passage in the twentieth chapter of the Apocalypse, already referred to, and which is as follows: “And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given unto them; and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. But the rest of the dead lived not again till the thousand years were finished. This is [7:15:83]the first resurrection.” Verses 4, 5. Here it is contended that we have a distinct testimony in favour of a millennial reign of Christ and his people, and of a resurrection of those who had been faithful to him, as well as of those who had suffered for his sake, antecedent to that of the rest of the dead, and hence called “the first resurrection.”

By those who oppose this system, it is generally admitted that the expectation of a long season of uninterrupted triumph to the cause of Christ, is one which is fully authorized by the declarations of Scripture. It is denied, however, that these declarations, when properly interpreted, support the notion of a personal reign, and a twofold resurrection. With regard to the passages from the Old Testament prophecies, it is maintained, that many of those adduced by Millennarians, as favouring their system, have been already fulfilled in the temporal history of the Jewish nation, and that in others which seem to have a still future reference, Jerusalem is used as typically representative of the Christian church in its triumphant state; the temple is spoken of in reference to the ministrations of the Gospel; and the coming of the people to Jerusalem is set forth as indicative of the universal prevalence of the Christian faith. The inference deduced by Millennarians from the words of our Lord above referred to, is regarded by their opponents as at best very obscure and far-fetched, while, on the other hand, it is contended, that the obvious comparison which our Lord draws between the destruction of Jerusalem and his second coming, as well as the circumstances of appalling and unexpected suddenness with which his appearance will be made, seem much better to accord with the notion, that the coming spoken of is his coming to judgment, than with the opinion that it is an advent for which his church shall be longing, and the world prepared. In the statement of St Peter to the Jews, it is admitted that there are some expressions which would seem at first sight to favour the milìennarian scheme; but it is argued that every such inference is precluded by the words which follow, and in which the apostle declares, that the heavens must retain Christ “until the restitution (or accomplishment) of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.” As, therefore, by the showing of Millennarians themselves, the glories of the millennium form part of the “all things” that are revealed in inspired prophecy, and which must be fulfilled before Christ shall re-appear on earth, it is plainly impossible that he can come to our world in person at the commencement of that period; and consequently the times of refreshing spoken of by St Peter must be interpreted of other blessings than those which would flow from the personal reign of Christ at Jerusalem. As to the statement of St Paul, that “the dead in Christ shall rise first,” it is affirmed that a single glance at the context is sufficient to convince us that the apostle is not establishing a difference between the righteous and the wicked as to the time of their respective resurrections; but is simply showing that those believers who are alive at the season of Christ’s second advent shall not enjoy any advantage over those who are dead, for the latter shall be raised first,' i. e. previous to the common ascent of the whole to meet the Lord in the air. In reference to the passage from the Apocalypse, it is contended, 1st, That the expression “first resurrection” no more necessitates a twofold corporeal resurrection, than the phrases “first and second death,” so frequently employed by the same writer, necessitate the supposition of a twofold corporeal dissolution; but that in both cases we have an instance of the same intermingling of the spiritual with the material, as in our Lord’s declaration, “Let the dead bury their dead,” where, as is generally admitted, the first adjective is used in a spiritual or metaphorical, the second in a literal and corporeal sense: 2dly, That the phrase, “the rest of the dead,” refers to “the remnant” spoken of in the 21st verse of the 19th chapter (the words in the original are the same in both verses, lιι λοιποι), by whose resurrection is intended the temporary restoration of the reign of evil after the millennium: 3dly, That it is not a legitimate interpretation to regard the expression, “I saw the souls of them that were beheaded,” &c. as intimating their corporeal resuscitation; for though we may properly enough speak of a soul when we mean ά person, yet it would outrage all propriety of language for any one to say that he saw the souls of certain individuals, when he meant that he saw these individuals themselves: 4thly, That by the return to the earth of the souls of the martyrs and confessors, nothing more is intimated than the universal prevalence of that holy and determined spirit by which they were distinguished; in the same way as the ancient prophecy, that Elias should return to earth before the appearance of the Messiah, is allowed to have received its accomplishment when John the Baptist came “in the spirit and power of Elias:” 5thly, That it is as contrary to sound principles of interpretation to expound a book professedly symbolical literally, as it would be to expound a professed narrative symbolically: 6thly, That it is imperative on those who insist on the literal interpretation of this passage to be consistent, and interpret literally the whole book, in which case we should have literal vials, and trumpets, and mill-stones, and chains, and burning lakes, &c.; an extent of literality for which few will be hardy enough to contend: and, lastly, That by interpreting the whole passage symbolically, and understanding by it a prediction of a season of joyful triumph to the church, during which the whole world shall be under the religion of Christ, and the zeal and piety of its holiest members in its purest days shall be universally diffused, no violence is done to any part of it, while a meaning is elicited in entire accordance with the general tenor of Scripture.

It is further objected by those who are opposed to Millennarianism, in the first place, that the hypothesis is in itself exceedingly improbable; for since Scripture assures us that the departed saints are already with Christ in heaven, in the enjoyment of unspeakable felicity, it is hardly conceivable that they would leave such a state to dwell for a thousand years on earth, in a state which at best must be one of imperfect enjoyment, and then return to heaven to permit their enemies for a season to reign in their stead: 2dly, That the miliennarian notion of a resurrection of the righteous, antecedent to that of the wicked, is directly opposed to the testimony of Scripture, which represents the two as simultaneous; see, e. g. John v. 28-29, &c.: 3dhy, That the idea of a long interval elapsing between the advent of Christ and the last judgment, is inconsistent with those passages which represent the one as immediately consequent upon the other; such as, 2 Thess. i. 7—10; 2 Tim. iv. 1, &c.: 4thly, That, on the millennarian hypothesis, there can be no judgment of the righteous whatever, for they having been once admitted to reign with Christ, can never after that be placed for trial at his bar,—a hypothesis clearly at variance with innumerable passages of Scripture, such, e. g. as Rom. xiv. 10-12; Math. XXV. 31—46, &c.: 5thly, That to represent the millennium as a state of immortality on earth, is to confound it with the New Jerusalem, though the two are distinctly revealed as separate states, the one previous and the other subsequent to the final judgment: and, lastly, That the theory of millennarianism is in two points at least self-contradictory; for it not only represents Christ as reigning until the last enemy has been destroyed, and yet supposes the existence of a whole host of enemies, who, at the close of that reign, are to be gathered together; but also represents them as contending with the saints, until they are consumed by fire from God (Rev. xx. 7-10), though, [7:15:84]according to another part of their hypothesis, the saints shall before this have returned with Christ to heaven. For these reasons, among others of less weight, this hypothesis of a personal reign of Christ on earth has been rejected by the majority of divines, and the period of the millennium regarded as a season of great spiritual blessedness, consequent on the complete triumph of Christianity throughout the earth. (n. n. n. n.)