"The Age to Come"
BY JOSEPH MARSH
ROCHESTER, N. Y., PUBLISHED AT THE ADVENT HARBINGER OFFICE 1851
THE CATHOLIC'S MILLENNIUM
will next claim our attention. In the marginal notes of the Douay, or Catholic Bible we find the following
sentiments expressed:
"Rev. xx. ver. 2. Bound him, & c. The power of Satan has been very much limited by the
passion of Christ, for a thousand years; that is, for the whole time of the new testament; but
especially from the time of the destruction of Babylon or Pagan Rome, till the new efforts of
Gog and Magog against the church, towards the end of the world. During which time the souls
of the martyrs and saints live and reign with Christ in heaven, in the first
resurrection, which
is that of the soul to the life of glory; as the second resurrection will be that of the body, at the
day of the general judgment."
This is the Catholic's millennium, and according to the light we have of their faith in this respect, it stands
thus: ~~ Their millennium covered the period of about one thousand years, in which they martyred over
fifty millions of the saints. Then Protestantism commenced, or, as the Catholics understand it, the battle
of Gog and Magog began against the Catholics. That battle, they suppose, is soon to terminate in the
destruction of Gog and Magog, or all protestants, and others who will not turn Catholic; and, as a matter
of course, the Catholics are expected to triumph, and to obtain universal power over all the world.
We recognize some features of this theory in a pamphlet, not long since published by J. Turner, in which
he locates the millennium of Rev. 20, in the days of the triumphs of the Papal power. The date of its
commencement he puts down thus: "from A.D. 530 to 546;" and its termination, "about A.D. 1532 and
1546." All that pertains to the millennium, of Rev. 20, he contends took place in this bloody period! The
angel which came down from heaven and bound the dragon with a great chain, he supposes to be Papal
Rome; and the dragon which was bound, Pagan Rome.
That this theory is radically erroneous, is evident from the following considerations:
1. No certain dates for either the commencement or termination of this supposed millennium, can be
given. To say that Pagan Rome was bound "from 530 to 546", a period of sixteen years, and that
Pagan Rome was loosed "about 1532 and 1546," a period of fourteen years, is a virtual
acknowledgment that we cannot tell when these events did take place. This indefiniteness throws
too much uncertainty about a definite prophecy, to be admissible, especially in the interpretation of a
prophecy of this magnitude, and which it is supposed, had its termination at the late date of "about
A.D. 1546." If at this date Pagan Rome was loosed, and commenced deceiving the nations in the
four quarters of the earth, to gather them unto the battle of the last day, most certainly some
historian would have named the important event, but as no such date for such an event is given, we
conclude that no such event occurred then; and consequently the millennium was not immediately
before 1532.
2. No events of sufficient magnitude occurred at A.D. 530 or 546, 1532 or 1546, or near those times,
to justify the fulfillment of this highly important prophecy. The real dragon or devil was not bound
by an angel from heaven, at the first date, nor loosed at the second. Neither did Papal Rome bind
and loose Pagan Rome, in any sense, in the potent and imposing manner, in which the prophecy
represents the work to be done, in the binding by the angel. There must be a fitness between the
prophecy and the event that justifies it.
Papal Rome, if it ever bound Pagan Rome in any sense, did it by its long and imperceptible religious
deceivings, which was a work in no way resembling the sudden and omnipotent act of binding the
dragon, described in the prophecy. Hence the millennium cannot be located where this theory places
it.
3. The important event that marked the fulfillment of prophecy, that took place "in from 530 to 546,"
was not the binding of Pagan Rome in any sense by Papal Rome. The great work of those times
was performed by Justinian, Emperor of Eastern Rome, the then head of the symbolic dragon
power. By his general, Belisarius, he drove the Ostrogoths from Rome, and by his decree, made the
Pope universal head of the Church, and an effective corrector of heretics. Certainly these imperial
acts of the dragon power did not bind him; and, admitting they did, the dragon bound himself,
instead of being bound by Papal Rome. Consequently, this theory must be incorrect in locating the
millennium in the days of Papal triumph.
4. Admitting that Pagan Rome was actually bound in "from 530 to 546," by virtue of the Justinian
code, or any other act or acts whatever, either moral, ecclesiastical, political or military ~~
Pagan
Rome was not loosed one thousand years from that date. This should have been the case, to justify
the prophecy, according to the theory under consideration. It will not do ~~ to have the dragon
bound, cast into a pit, and a SEAL SET UPON HIM, in the character of Pagan Rome --- and then
come out something else. For the prophecy binds, shuts up in the pit, seals, and looses, the same
identical power. To justify this prophecy, it is just as important to identify the dragon
bound, with
the dragon loosed, as it is to identify Jesus crucified, with Jesus resurrected, to prove that He
actually rose from the dead. The theory under consideration makes the dragon that was bound,
Pagan Rome; and the dragon loosed ~~ the Protestant, Catholic, kingly and republican powers of
America and Europe. Hence, the dragon bound is not the dragon loosed, and the theory before us
must be faulty.
5. Pagan Rome could not be bound either before or after her fall. This is clear. Well, the fall of the
Western Empire is dated A. D. 476 about 60 years before this theory dates the binding of the
dragon, or Rome; and the Eastern Empire did not fall until the conquest of Constantinople, A. D.
1453, the long period of about 1115 years after the time when it is supposed the dragon was bound!
These are stubborn facts that will neither break nor bend to suit any theory. As they do not agree
with that under consideration, it cannot be correct.
6. Pagan Rome was Imperial Rome, which was never bound. But it fell, as did the kingdoms of
Babylon, Medo Persia and Grecia, before it, never to be loosed, or rise again. The iron and the clay
was never to be united.
7. If Pagan or Imperial Rome was the power that was bound, cast into the pit, sealed and loosed, then
Pagan Imperial Rome has, in fact, continued to exist, as really as the kingdom of
Nebuchadnezzar, during the even times that passed over him in his insanity. But, as Pagan Imperial Rome has not
existed since its fall, it is clear, that it is not the power that was to be bound, as predicted in this
prophecy. The theory under consideration must therefore be defective.
8. But if it is said, that it was Rome in its divided or kingly form that was bound, cast into the pit,
sealed and loosed, then we reply, that the ten kings help constitute the Papal Beast; and, therefore, if
they were bound by that Beast, they bound themselves, which would be absurd.
9. Rome, in its kingly form, was never bound. For prophecy compares part of the kings to iron; so
strong as to defy all human power that might attempt to bind them. And, besides, they were to
continue the prominent political actors, from their rise to the time of their making war with the
Lamb, who will destroy them at his coming. These, also, are stubborn facts, and fatal to the theory
that locates the millennium during the existence of Rome in its kingly and papal character.
10. Should it be contended that the ten kings were ecclesiastically or religiously bound by Papal Rome at
about A. D. 530 or 546; then we reply, that this is contrary to fact. For the last of the ten was
converted to the Catholic faith as early as 508; twenty-two years prior to the earliest date named in
the theory under consideration for the binding of the dragon.
11. If Rome, or the ten kings, were ecclesiastically or religiously bound by the Papal power, at about A.
D. 546, they were not loosed by that power nor any other in 1532 or 1546, nor at any other date.
For some of them are still of that faith, and under ecclesiastical papal bonds. These facts are fatal to
the theory under consideration.
12. If it is contended that the loosing took place at the revolt from the Pope of Henry VIII, King of
England, about 1532, we object, on the ground that Germany revolted some time before, and
France not until 1793. As each kingdom equally belongs to the dragon, (if either belongs to him) the
date of his being loosed may, with as much propriety, be placed at the revolt of one of these
kingdoms as the other. These considerations throw an insurmountable barrier in the way of the
theory under consideration.
13. Pagan and Papal Rome are both masterpieces of the devil. Hence, if one binds the other, Satan
binds himself; or, he instigates one of his subjects to bind another, to prevent himself from deceiving
the nations any more! This is not the work of the Devil, nor his subjects.
14. The political power symbolized by the dragon, was never bound by the Papal Beast. For they both
exist at the same time. "For they worshipped the Dragon .... and the Beast." --- Rev. xiii. 14. "The
Dragon also gave the Beast his power, and seat, and great authority." --- verse 2. The seat of the
Dragon power was changed from Rome to Constantinople. The seat at Rome was given to the Papal
Beast, while the Dragon continued to reign at Constantinople. He reigned there, at least, until 1453,
when Constantinople was conquered by the Turks. These facts cannot be reconciled with the theory
under consideration.
15. If the Dragon, Rev. xx., is to be symbolically understood, the thousand years should be; which
would make the millennium 365,000 years long, and be fatal to the theory before us.
16. If the Dragon is a symbol of Pagan Rome, and the Angel that binds him a symbol of Papal Rome;
then both of the symbols are taken from the Family of the Wicked One, and the weaker is made to
bind the stronger; or, the Prince and Chief of Devils, in the symbol, is bound by one of his angels!
This is wholly inadmissible; for, according to Scripture, it requires the stronger to bind the weaker.
17. The binding takes place at a time of deception by the Dragon, and to prevent that deception. But, at
the time it is thought the Dragon was bound, Papal Rome---not Pagan---was the Great Deceiver of
the nations. This is a fact worthy of consideration, and fatal to the theory under consideration.
18. The agreement between type and antitype is destroyed by this theory. The Seventh Day was a type
of Rest. To make a harmony, the antitype should be the Seventh Thousand Years of the world's
age. But this theory does away with the Seven Thousand Years---leaving one of the most important
types without an antitype. It will not do to say that Eternity, which has no end, is an antitype of the
Seventh Day, which had an end.
19. The evidence drawn from the Bible, and also from the history of the early Christians, does not
locate the millennium in the past, but in the future; therefore, the theory under consideration must be
incorrect.
20. We are constrained to dissent from this theory, because it says: "The difficulty lies here---the 20th
chap. belongs with the 12th and 13th, and is the real key to both. If this chapter had been committed
to the church in its legal arrangement by the translators, both as a whole, and in its members, none
need have been mistaken---it would have been found a perfect transcript of the 7th of Daniel, from
the rise of Papacy. The members of its sentences, from vs. 4 to 6 inclusive, and manifestly disjoined
and separated, out of which derangement, the fable of Millennial glory has been manufactured,
while the reality is, the thousand years mark the deepest sufferings of the church, without an
intimation of glory, except in the word reign, which reign is illegally connected with the thousand
years." ~~ (See Turner's pamphlet, p. 66.)
This paragraph contains the following charges against the present order of this chapter:
a. "It belongs with the 12th and 13th chapters."
b. It has not "been committed to the church in its legal arrangement."
c. "The members of its sentences, from vs. 4 to 6 inclusive, are manifestly disjoined and
separated."
d. "The word reign, is illegally connected with the thousand years."
Such serious charges as these should never be preferred against the correctness or perfection of any
portion of the Inspired Volume, without the very best evidence to sustain them. But as no evidence,
of any kind, for their support, has been attempted to be given; and as we have never seen the
correctness of this chapter, in this respect, the least questioned, by the best Biblical critics of modern
or earlier days; and as its present "arrangement" is in perfect harmony with other portions of the
Bible: ~~ we therefore conclude that the charges are groundless; that the present "arrangement" of
the chapter and its sentences is both "legal" and correct; and, that the theory under consideration is
incorrect.
21. Finally, this supposed millennium, and that of Rev. 20, do not agree in character. The former was a
time of the severest and greatest suffering the Saints ever experienced; while the latter speaks of
their resurrection from death, and triumphant reign with Christ. Add to this the immutable
evidence drawn from the typical, and plain word of the Lord, and the testimony of the Jewish and
Christian writers, which we have given under the head of Bible Theory, ~~ we say, taking all these
things into account, we see not a shadow of evidence to sustain the theory under consideration; but
an overwhelming amount against it. Therefore it is not the theory of the Bible.
Having bestowed all the attention our limits will admit, on these incorrect theories of the millennium, we
will now call attention to the correct. . .