ch. But that he could
not be properly a Millenarian, seems clear from several parts of his
writings. For, Ep. 2 and 3, he affirms, that the souls of St. Martin
and St. Clarus passed from this world to the immediate beatific
vision of God. He establishes the same principles, Ep. 1, ad
Claudiam Soror., c. 5. And in his Sacred History, l. 2, c. 3,
explaining the dream of Nabachodonosor, he teaches that the
destruction of the kingdoms of this world will be immediately
succeeded by the eternal reign of Christ with his saints in heaven.
In the passage, Dial. 2, c. 14, upon which the charge is founded,
Sulpicius relates, in the discourse of Gallus, that St. Martin, on a
certain occasion, said, that the reign of Nero in the West, and his
persecution, were immediate forerunners of the last day: as is the
reign of Antichrist in the East, who will rebuild Jerusalem and its
temple, reside in the same, restore circumcision, kill Nero, and
subject the whole world to his empire. Where he advances certain
false conjectures about the reign of Nero, and the near approach of
the last judgment at that time: likewise the restoration of
Jerusalem by Antichrist; though this last is maintained probable by
cardinal Bellarmin, l. 3, de Rom. Pontif. c. 13. But the Millenarian
error is not so much as insinuated. Nor could it have been inserted
by the author in that passage and omitted by copiers, as De Prato
proves, against that conjecture of Tillemont. St. Jerom, indeed, l.
11, in Ezech. c. 36, represents certain Christian writers who
imitated some later Jews in their Deuteroseis in a carnal manner of
expounding certain scripture prophecies, expecting a second
Jerusalem of gold and precious stones, a restoration of bloody
sacrifices, circumcision, and a Sabbath. Among these he names
Tertullian, in his book De Spe Fidelium, (now lost,) Lactantius,
Victorious Petabionensis, and Severus, (Sulpicius,) in his dialogue
entitled, Gallus, then just published: and among the Greeks, Irenaeus
and Apollinarius. De Prato thinks he only speaks of Sulpicius
Severus by hearsay, because he mentions only one dialogue called
Gallus, whereas two bear that title. At least St. Jerom never meant
to ascribe all these errors to each of those he names; for none of
them maintained them all except Apollinarius. His intention was only