curses to be literally fulfilled on the Jews, and the blessings to be spiritually fulfilled on the Christians is very properly exposed by a sensible Jewish writer. And here (says he) I must once for all observe, that all the prophecies which speak of the coming of the Messiah, and the restoration and redemption of the nation, are to be understood in the most plain, obvious, and literal sense; and not in a spiritual and mystical sense, as the generality of christians attempt to explain them. For can any thing be more absurd, than to explain the prophecies, which foretel the calamity which is to befal them, in a literal sense; and those which speak of their future felicity in a spiritual and mystical sense? surely not. And it is not a little pleasant, to observe the great kindness of christians towards us in this respect: for they are extremely ready and willing to grant us the entire and undisturbed possession of all the evils foretold us; (which indeed we have fully experienced for upwards. of seventeen hundred years ;) whilst they, with equal generosity, apply to themselves all the glorious promises, which with equal certainty predict our future happiness in the latter days." INQUIREK. David Levi's Diss. on the Prophecies, Vol. I, pp. 118, 119. MILLENNARIAN DOCTRINE AT THE REFORMATION. REPLY OF ABDIEL TO P. R. and It was my intention not to have replied for the present to those several Correspondents of the Investigator, who have honoured my papers with their notice, until I had concluded the whole series; then to have brought all the objections into one focus: but I must deviate from this resolution in regard to P. R. in as much as his communication relates not merely to my interpretation or use of a Scripture text, but impugns the accuracy of my matter of fact. I beg to assure him in the onset, that I am thankful for his temperate strictures; which thus afford me an opportunity of removing some obscurity from my sentiments, and of eliciting in some measure the opinions of dispassionate opponents. There are two principal points in the letter of P. R. on which I shall offer some remarks: viz. first his attack on my general statements; and secondly the view which he apparently takes of the prophetical controversy, the consideration of which will further elucidate those statements. I. In the first place, I think P. R. has misapprehended what I have said respecting the opinions of the Reformers. He observes, "I am at a loss to conceive, how [Abdiel] could think of representing the chief persons in the Church, as holding and generally teaching [millennarian*] views at the time ' of the Reformation." He has not quoted the words on which he grounds this objection, and I must consequently first bring forward the whole passage, to which I presume he refers. "Thus the doctrine was thrown into the back-ground until the time of the Reformation,† when it was again revived; but owing to the ⚫ fanatical turbulence of the anabaptists on the continent, and the fifthmonarchy men in this country, it again fell so much into disrepute, that many timidly kept it out of 'view, until succeeding generations lost sight of it. In the meanwhile however the doctrine was by no means generally denied: many eminent men were raised up from time to time who advocated these truths in the established church; and the 'dissenters still continued to hold it so generally, that at last to broach these opinions exposed a man to 'the imputation of being a dissenter. And to shew that these opinions were entertained by chief persons in 'the church, and generally taught at the time of the Reformation, I shall finally bring forward two extracts from the CATECHISM drawn up by the prelates in the time of Edward VI, and authorized by that king in the last year of his reign." * I use the term Millennarian in this article merely to avoid a tedious circumlocution. Before any man can venture to appropriate it to himself or to others, it needs to be defined, just as much as Calvinist, Evangelical, and other similar terms of distinction. I am not ashamed of the name any more than of the other two, if it be only agreed what is to be understood by it; but I cannot suffer to have imputed to myself or others all that has been attributed to Chiliasts or Millennarii, whether ancient or modern. For similar reasons, as a matter of caution I often deprecate the terms Calvinist and Evangelical; being sensible, that there is frequently great extravagance of sentiment, and great inconsistency of conduct, to be found among men who have been classed under these denominations. Were I to define the distinguishing tenet of modern millennarianism, I would say, it is the premillennial advent of Christ. From this I do not shrink; though I certainly do from some things which modern Millennarians hold. † It may be necessary to observe, that I mean by "the time of the Reformation" the whole period from the reign of Henry VIII to the Revolution which brought in William III. 1 T as Prideaux, Whitby, Hammond, ment of the saints, than the one already enjoyed. Thus Mede says, "that Papists and Episcopal men are loath that we should expect a better time than that under them." Be this as it may, we know that the English Baptists (not the Anabaptists with whom they are often confounded) held these sentiments; as may be seen by a very unequivocal confession of their faith in Crosby's History.* It is likewise known that many of the Independents (often confounded also with the Brownists) inclined to similar sentiments; and that the fifth monarchy men of Cromwell's time were chiefly of that denomination. Many of the most eminent were doubtless at this period disgusted at the abuses which they witnessed whence arose the desire to be called Congregationalists, instead of Independents; in order that they might not be identified with the anarchical and turbulent proceedings of those times. In regard to the Puritans generally, many of the names which I have already instanced were among that body;† and it may be sufficient to quote a passage from Prideaux to shew, that these sentiments were then imputed indiscriminately (whether right or wrong) to the dissenting body. Endeavouring to prove, that the thousand years commenced with Constantine he says: ; * Those who have not ready access to Crosby will find that part of their Confession of Faith, which relates to this subject, in the Dialogues on Prophecy, Vol. II, p. 269. Bishop Burnet speaking of the Anabaptists says: "Some of them set up a fantastical, ' unintelligible way of talking of religion, which they turned all into allegories: these being joined in the common name of Anabaptists with the other, (the Baptists,) brought them also under an ill character." Vol. ii, Bk. i. This extract further shows, how opposite those persons were to the true millennarians, in all things but the personal reign for one distinguishing principle of genuine millennarianism is, to seek first the plain and literal meaning of Scripture and it is well known, that they were the persons who most decidedly contended against the allegorizing method introduced by Origen. + Burroughs, Caryll, and Sterry are in the list of the assembly of divines, who met at Westminster in 1643; before whom Dr. Twiss was appointed to preach. See Neale's History of the Puritans. It would be exceedingly difficult, perhaps impracticable, to trace at this time, whether the doctrine preponderated among the various nonconforming and dissenting divines; not to say among episcopalians also: many evidently did not hold it; but it did as evidently pervade them pretty generally. It afterwards declined; but at the end of another century (about 1750) we find an attempt was still made by the Dissenters to keep up attention to prophecy, by an annual sermon mostly preached at Great Eastcheap. It was here that the eminent Dr. Gill, about the middle of the last century, delivered his chief prophetical discourses: from which we may perceive that he decidedly expected a visible personal reign of Christ; and that he takes occasion frequently to lament the decreasing attention of christians towards prophecy, and the general decay of piety in dissenting congregations at that time. We find about the same period that millennarian sentiments were held by those eminent Methodists Fletcher and Wesley. The opinions of the former are contained in a well known Letter of his to Wesley: the views of the latter may be seen in his Exposition of the New Testament on Rev. xx. 2. I return now to the Millennarian sentiments of the Reformers in the time of Edward VI. Notwithstanding the opposition which on the first glance may appear between the article cited by P. R. and the Catechism which I have quoted, it will not be found, when properly understood, to clash with it so much as it may seem to do. The Catechism is explicit so far as it goes: the meaning of the article entirely depends upon the interpretation which those who framed it put upon the word Millennarii; and it is no impossible thing to find individuals (as I shall shew under the next head) unconsciously holding millennarian sentiments, yet condemning the word millennarian' from an erroneous notion of the principles connected with it. This I have no doubt was the case with the framer of the article in question. All historians agree in stating, that it was just about the period when it was published, that some of the German Anabaptists first made their appearance in this country: and a Millennarian was then either presumed to connect the notion of carnal enjoyment with the resurrection of the saints, whereby it is presumed the heretic Cerinthus corrupted this doctrine; or to expect the re-establishment of the Mosaic ritual and ceremonies, which Jerome charges upon them ; * or to have sought to establish Christ's * On Jeremiah xix, 10, Jerome hath these words :-" quanquam Judei auream atque gemmatam Hierusalem restituendam putent; rursumque victimas et sacrificia, et ' conjugia sanctorum, et regnum in terris Domini Salvatoris. Quæ licet non sequamur, ' tamen damnare non possumus; quia multi ecclesiasticorum virorum et martyres ista 'dixerunt." That "many ecclesiastical men and martyrs" have asserted the reign on earth of the Lord is most true; but certainly not "the restoration of Jewish oblations and sacrifices, and marriages of saints." Nor does Jerome instance any on the contrary, Justin Martyr, the principal writer on this subject, says expressly in his Dialogue with Trypho, when treating of Christ's second advent: εν τη παλιν παρουσια kingdom by violence and rebellion.* For the same reason there was an Article, (No. 40,) "That the souls of men deceased do not perish 'with their body nor sleep idly:" a doctrine which many of the German Anabaptists maintained; but which I do not find that any of the early millennarian Fathers held. And whatever were the circum. stances, which led to the adoption of the Article against the Millennarians in 1553; only nine years afterwards it was withdrawn, and the number reduced from forty two to thirty nine, with scarcely any alteration in the doctrinal matter of those which remain. This renders more remarkable and decided the withdrawal of the one in question: it must have arisen either from the increase of millennarian principles at this time; or from the conviction, that they were not to be confounded with the extravagances of Cerinthus or Munzer.t As to the Catechism, I cannot but think I was justified in stating, that the opinions it contains were those of "chief persons in the church, and generally taught &c." The very nature of a catechetical form, published by ecclesiastical authority, implies, that it was circulated for general instruction in parishes and schools. It is of little importance, who was the individual employed to draw it up :‡ it must have had the sanction of the prelates; and it then becomes just as much their act, as a report of the College of Physicians would be with propriety called theirs, though they would necessarily depute some one of their number to compile it. This is evident from the King's Letter prefixed to the Latin Edition of 1553; which is the edition from which my extracts in No. I. are as literal a translation as I could make. "Cum brevis et explicata Cate'chismi ratio, a pio quodam et erudito viro conscripta, nobis ad cognoscendum offerretur, ejus per'tractationem et diligentem inquisitionem quibusdam EPISCOPIS μη δόξητε λεγειν Ησαιαν η τους αλλους προφητας θυσίας αφ' αιματων η σπονδων επι το θυσιαςηριον αναφερεσθαι, αλλα αληθινους και πνευματικούς αίνους, και ευχαρισίας. * That there was a special exception against Anabaptist principles, may be clearly inferred from the circumstance, that when in the beginning of Edward's reign a general pardon was published to all offenders, the Anabaptists alone were not allowed the benefit of it. Crosby I, 50. + It does not appear that the arguments or discussion which took place in Convocation on these Articles, and which led to their being withdrawn, ever transpired. All we know is, that they were struck out with the red lead pencil used always by archbishop Parker. See Strype's Annals, c. 28, p. 288; and Bennett's History of the 39 Articles. "( was confess I know not the authority of P. R. for saying, that this Catechism edly written by dean Nowell." Burnet says, that Cranmer owned it to be his: (Vol. iii, Bk. iv.) Neale on the other hand states, that it was written by Poynet, afterwards bishop of Winchester. Vol. i, p. 63. Nowell's Catechism was not written till the reign of Elizabeth ; and if P. R. will compare the two Catechisms, upon the single question, why we pray that God's kingdom may come, he will find;-that Edward's Catechism makes the kingdom of Christ future, and considers it cannot come till Antichrist be slain, and the little stone cut out, &c. (important points of millennarian doctrine ;) whereas Nowell's considers the kingdom as then present; and, without mention of Antichrist or the stone, looks only for its greater extension. Suppose even that Nowell drew up the Catechism which goes by his name, and likewise this which is called Edward's; yet these are discrepancies which it would be found very difficult consistently to reconcile. |