Taylor, in his Liberty of Prophecying, brings forward this identical case of Montanus, in order to illustrate a point which he has in hand; viz. to show the obscure and very unsatisfactory grounds of accusation, against some who were considered heretics. He says: "This is remarkable in the case of Montanus, the scene of whose heresy lay within the first three hundred years, though it was represented in the catalogues afterwards; and possibly the mistake concerning it is to be put upon the score of Epiphanius, by whom Montanus and his followers were put into the catalogue of heretics for commanding abstinence from meats, as if they were unclean, and of themselves unlawful. Now the truth was, Montanus said no such thing; but commanded frequent abstinence, enjoined dry diet and an ascetic table, not for conscience sake, but for discipline: and yet, because he did this with too much rigor and strictness of mandate, the primitive church disliked him, as being too near the error of those, who by a Judaical superstition, abstained from meats as from uncleanness, &c. They therefore reprehended Montanus for urging such abstinencies with too much earnestness, though but in the way of discipline: for that it was no more, Tertullian, who was himself a Montanist, and knew best the opinions of his own sect, testifies. And yet Epiphanius, reporting the errors of Montanus, commends that which Montanus truly and really taught, and which the primitive church condemned in him, and therefore represents that heresy in another sense; and affixes that to Montanus which Epiphanius believed a heresy, and yet which Montanus did not teach." Sect. ii. 18. In regard to other errors imputed to Montanus, Lee in his History of Montanism, (chap. vii., as republished by Dr. Hick,) shews that he was grossly aspersed and misrepresented; and the eminent John Wesley observes in his Journal 15th Aug. 1750: "By reflecting on an old book which I had read in this journey-(The General Delusion of Christians, &c.) I was fully convinced of what I had long suspected, that the Montanists in the second and third centuries were real scriptural Christians." It is farther worthy of remark, that the apologies of the Montanists, (excepting what is contained favourable to them in Tertullian,) have not been permitted to come down to us; and after the evidence above adduced we may well pause before we brand them with the name of heretics. And as for Tertullian, Cyprian it is said never passed a day without reading some portion of his works; which, at least, shews the great estimation in which he was held: and whatever were his errors, we know that he at least drew after him the fairest portion of the Christian church.

As Tertullian has been charged with holding the heresy of Montanism, so Lactantius was also accused in the dark ages, by the adversaries of millenarian doctrine, of holding the heresy of the Manichees; of which, however, he has been most satisfactorily cleared by Dr. Lardner, in his Credibility of the Gospel, vol. vii. He has also been charged with holding sentiments on the prophetical point in hand, most incompatible with his piety and talents, viz. "that the saints shall, in the millennium, have a great enjoyment of carnal and corporeal pleasures. The accusation, however, rests in this instance, not upon any corruption of the text of his works, but on a false representation of his opinions given by Jerome. The words of Lactantius are as follow:-"Then they which shall be alive in their bodies [meaning those persons who shall remain in the flesh, and unchanged at the coming of the Lord] shall not die, but shall generate for the space of those thousand years an infinite multitude; and their offspring shall be holy and dear to God. But those that shall be raised from the dead [here distinguishing the resurrection saints] shall rule over them that are alive in the manner of judges." The same doctrine is set forth by Irenæus, and we will therefore hope, in justice to the character of Jerome, that he did not understand the sentiments of Lactantius; whilst the opponents of the doctrine in later times have blindly reiterated the charge from Jerome, without ever candidly quoting the real opinions of Lactantius.*

The learned Joseph Mede asserts, (but I have not discovered his authority for it,) that the writings of Victorinus and Sulpicius, who maintained millenarian opinions, were authoritatively suppressed by Pope Damascus. Works, p. 664. And it is but reasonable to suppose, that, when the power of the popes became more absolute, they would exercise it more tyrannically and effectually for the suppression of these opinions. It was but to affix the imputation of heresy, and their writings were immediately seized, and either destroyed, or in some other way abstracted from public view: which sufficiently accounts for the paucity of evidence, either on one side the question or the other, during the middle and dark ages of the church. For these opinions were not controverted by fair and open discussion, but were arbitrarily put down. And thus it happens that in regard to some of those sects which were persecuted in those ages (as the Leonists, the Paulicians, &c.)

* Mr. Mede indeed states, “that Jerome was a chief champion to cry down this opinion, and a most unequal relater of the opinions of his adversaries;" and he adds, "What credit he deserves in this instance may appear by some fragments of those authors still remaining, whom he charged with an opinion directly contrary to that which they expressly affirmed." See his Works, folio, p. 748.

scarcely any more has come down to us than that they were a numerous body of Christians, who were held in detestation by the popes on account of their obstinate dissent from the doctrines of the church of Rome. Now and then indeed, the evidence of what was entertained privately, as it were, by Christians, peeps out, even by the admission of Roman Catholics themselves. Thus Lorinus the Jesuit, speaks, in his commentary, of one Tully Crispold, whom he considers a pious man; "but he marvels to find him, in his manuscript annotations on the scriptures, which were in the library of the monastery to which Lorinus belonged, expressing himself as expecting Jerusalem to be restored on earth with sacrifices, in the way of commemoration, and expecting also the apostles to be then existing on earth, and Christ appearing, at least occasionally, (saltem aliquando) and communing with them," &c. So, likewise, though great pains had been taken to instil into the minds of the people that antichrist had already appeared, and was now engulphed in the lake of fire, it appears nevertheless from Baronius, Sabellicus, and Platina, all Roman Catholic authors, that in the year 1106 a very general opinion prevailed, that Antichrist was about to appear. Pope Pascal II. was first informed of it at Florence, and contented himself at the time with reproving the bishop, and treating the whole with derision; though Baronius asserts that it was an opinion entertained by men of no ordinary stamp; instancing Norbert a man of first eminence for piety and talents. Pascal, however, was presently after annoyed by finding the opinion in various other places during his journey; which was the more confirmed (as Sabellicus states) by the extraordinary natural phenomena and heavenly signs which then appeared.*

In this manner was the doctrine of the millennium, and all that immediately concerned the revelation of Antichrist (so immediately connected with it,) corrupted, misrepresented, slandered, or suppressed. On which Bishop Newton, in his xxvth Dissertation on the Prophecies, has some observations so pertinent and judicious, that they will serve admirably for a conclusion to this section. He says, "In short the doctrine of the millennium was generally believed in the three first and purest ages; and this belief, as the learned Dodwell has justly observed, was one principal cause of the fortitude of the primitive Christians; they even coveted martyrdom, in hopes of being partakers of the privileges and glories of the martyrs in the first resurrection.†

* See more in Mede, lib. iii. p. 887.

+ Jam in millennii regno primam fore resurrectionem corporum crediderunt primævi Christiani. Et ut justorum propriam eam crediderunt resurrectionem,

"Afterwards this doctrine grew into disrepute for various reasons. Some both Jewish and Christian writers have debased it with a mixture of fables; they have described the kingdom more like a sensual than a spiritual kingdom, and thereby they have not only exposed themselves, but, (what is infinitely worse) the doctrine itself to contempt and ridicule. It hath suffered by the misrepresentations of its enemies, as well as by the indiscretions of its friends; many, like Jerome, have charged the millenarians with absurd and impious opinions which they never held; and rather than they would admit the truth of the doctrine, they have not scrupled to call into question the genuineness of the book of the Revelation.* It hath been abused even to worse purposes; it hath been made an engine of faction; and turbulent fanatics, under the pretence of saints, have aspired to dominion, and disturbed the peace of civil society. Besides, wherever the influence and authority of the church of Rome have extended, she hath endeavoured by all means to discredit this doctrine; and indeed not without sufficient reason, this kingdom of Christ being founded on the ruins of the kingdom of Antichrist. No wonder therefore that this doctrine lay depressed for many ages; but it sprang up again at the Reformation, and will flourish together with the study of the Revelation. All the danger is, on one side, of pruning and lopping it too short; and, on the other, of suffering it to grow too wild and luxuriant. Great caution, soberness, and judgment are required to keep the middle course. We should neither, with some, interpret it into an allegory, nor depart from the literal sense of scripture without absolute necessity for so doing. Neither should we, with others, indulge an extravagant fancy, nor explain too curiously the manner and circumstances of this future state. It is safest and best faithfully to adhere to the words of scripture, or to fair deductions from scripture; and to rest contented with the general account, till time shall accomplish and eclaircise all the particulars."

5. When Bishop Newton asserts, and truly asserts, that the doctrine of the millennium was revived at the Reformation, something must nevertheless be offered in the way of explanaita martyrum in ea portionem longe esse præcipuam. Hæc cum ita crederentur, dici nequit quantum martyres illiut ætatis martyrii studio inflammarint. [The primitive Christians believed that the first resurrection of their bodies would take place in the kingdom of the millennium. And as they considered that resurrection to be peculiar to the just, so they conceived the martyrs would enjoy the principal share of its glory. Since these opinions were entertained, it is impossible to say how many were inflamed with the desire of martyrdom.] Dodwelli Dissert. Cyprian. xii. De Martyrum fortitudine, sect. 20, 21.

See Mede's Works, b. 5. chap. 5. D. Hieronymi Pronunciata de Dogmate millennariorum, p. 897.

tion, lest the reader should, in some respects, misapprehend his statement.

So far as regards the belief in the period of "the thousand years" triumph of the church, mentioned in the Apocalypse, it does not appear that the earlier reformers did generally maintain it for the papacy had succeeded, by mis-representing the fathers, and by imputing to them the carnalities of Cerinthus, in making the words chiliast and millennary, an effectual object of terror.* The attention however which was given at this period to the pure word of God, and the beams of divine truth which now, in consequence re-illumined the christian church, necessarily brought the essentials of prophetical doctrine, contained in the covenants of promise, before the view of the saints of God: and it is a remarkable fact, therefore, that whilst the single tenet of the thousand years was, by the generality, carefully avoided, all the important truths connected therewith, as the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ, to set up a glorious kingdom on earth, in which all the saints should partake, the dead being raised and the living changed; the literal restoration of the Jews, to the literal Canaan, the earth being then renewed and Jerusalem rebuilt; and the previous manifestation and destruction of antichrist;-were almost universally entertained by the reformers.

In consequence of their partial misapprehension of the subject, as regards the thousand years, it often happens, that the earlier reformers warmly deprecate chiliasm in one page of their writings, whilst in another they will avow what, in the present day, would generally be considered decided millenarian doctrine. An instance shall be given from the works of Bishop Jeremy Taylor, who though a writer of a somewhat later period, very well serves to illustrate the point in hand. In section ii. of his "Liberty of Prophecying," he observes "that the doctrine of the millenaries was in the best ages esteemed no heresy, but true catholic doctrine: though since then it hath had justice done it, and hath suffered a just condemnation!" Yet in his Sermon on 1 Cor. xv. 23. he decidedly argues from these words, "every man in his own order," &c., that there is to be a resurrection of the just, prior in time to the resurrection of the wicked and to take place at the advent of Christ; and that though this place speaks directly and explicitly only of the resurrection of the just, (i. e. of "those that are Christ's,") yet, because it also says, there shall be an order

The reader will pardon my explaining here, for the benefit of the unlearned, that chiliast is a Greek word, signifying one who believed in the thousand years of Rev. xx. 4. as yet future; and millennary, or millenarian, is a Latin word (or rather compounded of latin and greek) of similar import.