every thing which might have been known; though, in particular, they were ignorant of the precise time when our Lord would come to judge the world. It can be no impeachment, either of their integrity as men, or their ability as historians, or their honesty as preachers of the gospel, that they were unacquainted with what had never been revealed to them; that they followed their own understandings where they had no better light to guide them; speaking from conjecture, when they could not speak from certainty; of themselves, when they had no commandment of the Lord. They knew but in part, and they prophesied but in part; and concerning this particular point, Jesus himself had told them, just as he was about finally to leave them, that it was not for them to know the times and the seasons, which the Father had put in his own power. Nor is it to be wondered at, that the Apostles were left in a state of uncertainty concerning the time in which Christ should appear; since beings far more exalted, and more highly favoured of Heaven, than they, were under an equal degree of ignorance: Of that day, says our Saviour, and of that hour, knoweth no one ; no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the

Son, but the Father only.-I am afraid, Sir, I have tired you with Scripture quotations; but if I have been fortunate enough to convince you, either that the speedy coming of Christ was never expected, much less predicted, by the Apostles; or that their mistake in that particular expectation, can in no degree diminish the general weight of their testimony as historians, I shall not be sorry for the ennui I may have occasioned you.

The doctrine of the Millennium is the second of the circumstances which you produce, as giving weight to that of a future state; and you represent this doctrine as having been "carefully inculcated by a succession of the fathers, from Justin Martyr and Irenæus down to Lactantius;" and observed that, when "the edifice of the church was almost completed, the temporary support was laid aside :" and in the notes you refer us, as a proof of what you advance, to "Irenæus, the disciple of Papias, who had seen the Apostle St. John," and to the second Dialogue of Justin with Trypho.

I wish, Sir, you had turned to Eusebius, for

the character of this Papias, who had seen the Apostle St. John; you would there have found him represented as little better than a credulous old woman; very averse from reading, but mightily given to pick up stories and traditions next to fabulous; amongst which Eusebius reckons this of the Millennium one. Nor is it, I apprehend, quite certain, that Papias ever saw, much less discoursed, as seems to be insinuated, with the Apostle St. John. Eusebius thinks rather, that it was John the Presbyter he had seen. But what if he had seen the Apostle himself? Many a weak-headed man had undoubtedly seen him as well as Papias; and it would be hard indeed upon Christians, if they were compelled to receive as apostolical traditions the wild reveries of ancient enthusiasm, or such crude conceptions of ignorant fanaticism, as nothing but the rust of antiquity can render venerable.

As to the works of Justin, the very dialogue you refer to contains a proof, that the doctrine of the Millennium had not, even in his time, the universal reception you have supposed; but that many Christians of pure and pious principles

rejected it. I wonder how this passage escaped you; but it may be that you followed Tillotson,

who himself followed Mede, and read in the original & instead of av; and thus unwarily violated the idiom of the language, the sense of the context, and the authority of the best editions*. In the note you observe, that it is unnecessary for you to mention all the intermediate fathers between Justin and Lactantius, as the fact, you say, is not disputed. In a man who has read so many books, and to so good a purpose, he must be captious indeed, who cannot excuse small mistakes. That unprejudiced regard to truth,

* Justin, in answering the question proposed by Trypho, Whether the Christians believed the doctrine of the Millennium, says, Ωμολογησα εν σοι και προτερον, οτι εγω μεν και αλλοι πολλοι ταυτα φρονεμεν, ως και παντως επίστασθε, τετο γενησομενον. Πολλες δ' αυ και των της ΚΑΘΑΡΑΣ ΚΑΙ ΕΥΣΕΒΟΥΣ οντων Χριστ τιανων ΓΝΩΜΗΣ τετο μη γνωρίζειν, εσημάνα σοι. The note sub. joined to this passage out of Justin, in Thirlby's Ed. an. 1722. is, [Πολλές δ' αν και των της καθαρας] Medus (quem sequitur Tillotsonus, Reg. Fidei per iii. sect. 9, p. 756, & seq. legit των 8 της καθαράς. Vehementer errant viri præclari.

And in Jebb's Edit. an. 1719, we have the following note; Doctrina itaque de Millennio, neque erat universalis ecclesiæ traditio, nec opinio de fide recepta, &c.

AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY.

45

however, which is the great characteristic of every distinguished historian, will, I am persuaded, make you thank me for recalling to your memory, that Origen, the most learned of all the fathers, and Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, usually for his immense erudition surnamed the Great, were both of them prior to Lactantius, and both of them impugners of the Millennium doctrine. Look, Sir, into Mosheim, or almost any writer of ecclesiastical history; and you will find the opposition of Origen and Dionysius to this system particularly noticed: look into so common an author as Whitby, and in his learned treatise upon this subject, you will find he has well proved these two propositions: first, that this opinion of the Millennium was never generally received in the church of Christ; secondly, that there is no just ground to think it was derived from the Apostles. From hence, I think we may conclude, that this Millennium doctrine (which, by the bye, though it be new modelled, is not yet thrown aside) could not have been any very serviceable scaffold in the erection of that mighty edifice, which has crushed by the weight of its materials, and debased by the elegance of