indeed upon Chriftians, if they were compelled to receive as apoftolical traditions, the wild reveries of ancient enthusiasm, or fuch crude conceptions of ignorant fanaticism, as nothing but the ruft of antiquity can render venerable.

As to the works of Juftin, the very Dialogue you refer to contains a proof, that the doctrine of the Millennium had not, even in his time, the univerfal reception you have fuppofed; but that many Christians of pure and pious principles rejected it. I wonder, how this paffage escaped you; but it may be, that you followed Tillotfon, who himself followed Mede, and read in the original, instead of av; and thus unwarily violated

the

the idiom of the language, the fenfe of the context, and the authority of the best editions.* In the note you obferve, that it is unneceffary for you to mention all the intermediate fathers between Ju

Juftin, in answering the queftion proposed by Trypho, Whether the Chriftians believed the doctrine of the Mil. lennium, fays, Ωμολόγησα εν σοι και προ τερον, οτι εγω μεν και αλλοι πολλοι ταυτα φρονεμεν, ως και παντως επιςαε, τ8το γενησομενον. Πολλες δ' αυ και των της ΚΑΘΑ ΡΑΣ ΚΑΙ ΕΥΣΕΒΟΥΣ όντων Χρισιανων ΓΝΩΜΗΣ τετο μη γνωρίζειν, εσημανα σοι. The note fubjoined to this paffage out of Juftin, in Thirlby's Ed. an. 1722. 18, Πολλες δ' αυ και των της καθαρας] Medus (quem fequitur Tillotfonus, Reg. Fidei per. iii. fect. 9. p. 756. & feq.) legit των 8 της καθαρας. Vehementer errant viri praclari.

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

ftin and Lactantius, as the fact, you fay, is not difputed. In a man, who has read fo many books, and to fo good a purpose, he must be captious indeed, who cannot excufe small miftakes: that unprejudiced regard to truth, however, which is the great characteristic of every diftinguished hiftorian, will, I am perfuaded, make you thank me for recalling to your memory, that Origen, the most learned of all the fathers, and Dionyfius, bishop of Alexandria, ufually for his immense erudition furnamed the Great, were both of them prior to Lactantius, and both of them impugners of the Millennium doЄtrine. Look, Sir, into Mofheim, or almost any writer of ecclefiafti

cal

cal history; and you will find the oppofition of Origen and Dionyfius to this fyftem, particularly noticed: look into fo common an author as Whitby; and in his learned treatise upon this fubject, you will find he has well proved these two propofitions; first, that this opinion of the Millennium was never generally received in the church of Chrift: fecondly, that there is no juft. ground to think it was derived from the Apoftles. From hence, I think, we may conclude, that this Millennium doctrine, (which, by the bye, though it be new modelled, is not yet thrown afide) could not have been any very serviceable scaffold,

E 4

in

in the erection of that mighty edifice, which has crufhed by the weight of it's materials, and debafed by the elegance of it's ftructure, the statelieft temples of heathen fuperftition. With these remarks, I take leave of the Millennium; juft obferving, that your third circumstance, the general conflagration, seems to be effectually included in your firft, the speedy coming of Chrift.

A

I am, Sir,

LET