promoting the cause of missions,) that he may thereby consider, that he is hastening the glorious crisis, which his soul desires. When we indulge in abstract reasoning upon the decrees and purposes of God, we are compelled to admit that, strictly speaking, man can neither accelerate the counsel of God, nor does the Lord himself bring any event to pass with greater rapidity than he has from the first intended. But the Christian will look at what God has revealed on this subject; and with much subjection of his mind to what is written, rather than to metaphysical abstractions, he will consider, that when the Lord nevertheless speaks to us, as if he would hasten an event, and as though we might also hasten it, he intends to stir up his people to inquire concerning it, and to honour them as the blessed instruments of fulfilling his will. Thus we conclude, when it is written of God's glorious purpose, 'I the Lord will hasten it in his time;"t and when his Apostle admonishes us to be "looking for looking for and hastening (not hasting to, as in our translation*) the coming of the day of God." The same sentiment is echoed in the Burial Service of the Church of England-" that it that it may please Thee, of thy gracious goodness, shortly to accomplish the number of thine elect and to hasten "thy kingdom.” We know not how believers may be said to hasten these things, except by prayer, and by endeavouring, in dependance on divine aid, to effect that which the Scriptures inform us must first be accomplished. Among these is the preaching of the Gospel: "for the for the Gospel of the kingdom shall be 'preached (not necessarily received) in all the world for a witness unto all nations, and then shall the end

' come."u To call out God's elect, and thus to hasten the kingdom, have been among the most powerful motives exciting ourselves to the cause of missions; and surely they out to be especially stirring and influential in those, who profess to "love the appearing" of the Lord Jesus, and to be "looking for, and hastening the coming of the day of God.”

How then does it happen, that many, who can even now view the work of missions in that connexion with prophecy which is here contended for how happens it, we ask, that they have nevertheless become sluggish and indifferent? We have shown, that the disappointment of their former expectations may have had considerable effect in neutralizing their exertions; but though this may have depressed them for the moment, it ought not to continue in the regenerate: there are still most cogent motives to this work, the influence of which ought not to be diminished by any particular interpretations of prophetic truth. But, alas! we fear there is often wanting, even in real Christians, a deep experimental conviction on some of these points. For instance, the worth of souls: we talk of the value of ONE soul;-we listen to, and approve of eloquent appeals based upon this truth truth; we admit, that it would be a sufficient recompense, were all the money hitherto subscribed to be made instrumental towards the conversion of only a single individual : but our apathy meanwhile gives to all this a practical negation, and betrays, that we are by no means prepared to make sacrifices, or to encounter trouble, at all commensurate with our declared opinions. We may notice again the foul dishonor put upon our heavenly Father and the

Lord Christ, by superstition and idolatry. We are informed of St. Paul, that, when at Athens, "his spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry :" but we can hear of India with its myriads of gods, and of the delusions and miseries and cruelties of the her then generally; yet there is no soul-stirring effect of any permanency ;—the impression made upon our hearts is evanescent :-and the repetition of such narratives, instead of reviving these feeble emotions, seem rather to superinduce hardness and unconcern.

W.

Passing from these considerations, which may be referred rather to our feelings, we notice the same deficiency as regards the sense of duty. It is as much a duty now, as it was in the days of the Apostles, "to go into to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature ;"w" to to pray the Lord of the harvest, that he would send forth labourers into his harvest;"x-to invoke the name of the Lord upon the Gentiles, in order that they may seek after the Lord;y-and to remember, in regard to the Jews, that it is instrumentally through our mercy that some are to obtain mercy.z There is not one of these considerations, that ought not now as practically to af

fect the heart, as they ever did. Israel and the Gentiles are still unconverted to God; and the very circumstance that little has been accomplished, is an additional and most conclusive argument in behalf of continued and increased exertions.

We entreat our dear Christian brethren to suffer this word of exhortation. We earnestly desire to see these principles resume their wonted influence wonted influence; and we pray for a more lively experience of them also also in our own heart. Remember the word of the Lord— "he that gathereth not with me scattereth: it applies forcibly to our present subject. When we contemplate our Lord's speedy appearing, we would not for the world be found otherwise than thus doing. We know that fault may be found, more or less, with all missionary institutions: they are human. we must not suffer the adversary to gain an advantage of us through a morbid captiousness; which is too much the spirit of the present day.

But

Therefore, beloved brethren, be 'ye steadfast, immoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, 'forasmuch as ye know that your ' labor is not in vain in the Lord." 1 Cor. xv, 58.

Fathers of the christian Church. My object in this paper is to put your Readers on their guard against the summary way, in which this consent of the Fathers is got rid of by those who do not admit the doctrine in question.

They say, that this doctrine originated in the notions of a single individual, Papias; and then they produce an extract from a writer, who lived upwards of 200 years after him, an express opponent of the doctrine, who says that Papias was a person of shallow mind and weak judgment. On such evidence as this Papias and his testimony are at once set aside; and we are then referred to Fathers of the 4th, 5th, and 6th centuries, who are produced as disapproving of the doctrine, and even calling it heretical and thus the question is set at rest. Let me quote a passage of this kind from a work, that I have lately met with, entitled, "The Time and Nature of the Millenium investigated," by the Rev. Dr. Nolon, Lond. 1831.

:

"On the peculiar views of the chief of these writers, [the early Fathers], many of whom unfortunately suffered their opinions to be warped by Jewish prejudices, it is unnecessary at present to enlarge, as they have been extracted from their works by a learned writer, a whose particular hypothesis derives much of its weight from their authority. It will suffice at pre'sent to observe, that the opinion of the primitive Church, respecting the nature of the millennium, received more than a tinge of error from the peculiar notions of Pa'pias; for the statement of this ' writer acquired an undue autho'rity, from his professing to transmit it as a tradition imparted to

But

him by the immediate hearers of St. John; who received from his mouth what had been delivered on the subject by our Saviour. by those who had the opportunity of consulting his works, and were most competent to decide upon his pretensions, he is described as a person of mean parts and narrow judgment. b And although some of the earliest Fathers, not less misled by the speciousness of his professions than by an erroneous 'view of the Prophets, have inconsiderately acquiesced in his sentiments; by some of a later age, ' and more matured judgment, who ' have reviewed the subject under a freedom from the controversial prejudice with which it was at first debated, this statement has been 'censured, as not merely tinctured

with error but heresy." c (Nolon p. 15, 16.) In page 17 Dr. Nolon speaks of the later writers, who

escaped the contagion of Jewish prejudices in their notions;" of whom he mentions Origen, Ambrose, Hilary, Chrysostom, Jerome, and Augustine. Again, in the "History of the Church," published under the superintendence of the Society for the diffusion of useful knowledge, we find a passage quoted from Eusebius, (which will be produced presently below) and this inference drawn,-" To Papias then we may attribute the origin of the belief."

Now had Papias broached some new doctrine, not perhaps contradictory to Scripture, yet no where expressly mentioned therein, it might have been indeed sufficient to discredit it, that it could be traced only to his opinion and no higher. But for what is his authority really adduced? For saying, that the words

R

of the Apostles and Prophets are to be understood, as meaning just what they say. It is not in support of any new doctrine that he is referred to. St. John says, that the saints shall reign upon the earth, and that they shall live and reign with Christ a thousand years; and all that Papias does is, to confirm the doctrine, and to tell us, that there is nothing mystical or unintelligible in it, but that it is to be admitted in its plain straight-forward sense.

And where can we go higher in the course of tradition in the Church, than to Papias or to some of his contemporaries?

He, who lived

with those who had personally seen and heard the Apostles, is surely near enough to the times of the Apostles themselves, to be brought as a witness of what they were reported to have taught. Then again, if it were upon some difficult and deep matter, the mysteries of the divine existence, or the plan of the divine government of the universe,

-that reference was made to the

opinion of Papias, it might be to the purpose, in order to invalidate his authority, to quote Eusebius's character of him, that he was σφοδρα σμικρος τον νουν. But what is the fact ? It is for a mere matter of testimony that he is adduced, to tell us how St. John's doctrine was understood in his days by men, who had heard the Apostle himself. And as I have already said, to set this aside by quoting the character given of him by an avowed opponent 200 years after, is rather too much.

But after all, I ask, what right have we to say, that the views or testimony to which we are referring really originated with Papias at all? Is it to be supposed, that all the Fathers of the last age of the christian Church followed the opinion of of a single individual? Is it not far more reasonable to suppose, that

these opinions were common to them all; not because they found them in the writings of Papias, but because they found them in the oracles of God?because they were the opinions of the Apostles, and of the universal Church after them ?

Let us ex

The two great authorities quoted against Papias and his opinions are Eusebius and Jerome. amine what they say on this subject.

Eusebius writes, in his Ecclesiastical History, lib. iii, sect. 39 :—

Και αλλα δε ὁ αυτος συγγραφευς (Παπιας) ως εκ παραδόσεως αγραφου εις αυτόν ήκοντα παρατέθειται, ξένας διδασκαλίας αυτό, και τινα αλλα μυτε τινας παραβολας το Σωτηρος και θικωτερα εν δις και χιλιαδα τι να φησιν ετων εσεσθαι μετα την εκ

νεκρών ανάςασιν, σωματικως της του

Χρισε βασιλείας επι ταύτησι της γης ύποςησομενης· ὁ και ἡγεμαι τας απο πολικας παρεκδεξάμενον διηγήσεις υπολαβείν, τα εν ὑποδείγμασι προς

αυτών

μυσικώς ειρημενα μη

συνα

εωρακότα σφόδρα γαρ τοι σμικρος ων τον νεν, ὡς αν εκ των αυτε λογων τεκμηράμενον ειπειν φαίνεται. Πλην και τοις μετ' αυτον πλείσοις ὁσοις εκκλησιασικών της όμοιας αυτῳ δοξης

παραιτιος γέγονε,

την

αρχιοτητα

τ' ανδρος προβεβλημενοις, ώσπερ εν Ειρηναιῳ, και ει τις αλλος τα όμοια φρονων αναπέφηνεν.

Other things also the same writer (Papias) has set forth, as having come to him by unwritten tradition, some new parables and sermons of the Saviour, and other things of a somewhat fabulous character. Among these, he says, that there will be a space of a thousand years (a certain chiliad of years) after the resurrection from the dead, when the kingdom of Christ shall be established corporeally upon this earth. These views however I think he has taken up from a misconception

of the statements of the Apostles, not seeing the meaning of what they spoke mystically in figures (or examples). For he seems to be very weak in intellect, if one may judge from his own writings. However he occasioned the same opinion to be embraced by most ecclesiastics after him, who allege in defence of them the early age in which he lived; as for instance Irenæus, and any other who has appeared with the same views.

Now what have we here but the opinion of Eusebius, that the Apostles are to be understood mystically and figuratively, where Papias says they are to be understood literally: Papias having lived in the times of those who had personally known and heard the Apostles, and Eusebius two hundred years afterwards? Of the weakness of intellect which Papias betrays in his writings we cannot now judge, as those writings no longer exist. The things however which Eusebius quotes in this section, as related by him, appear to my own mind very far indeed from showing that he was a dealer in fabulous tales. He relates that Justus, called Barnabas, drank a cup of deadly poison without injury; and that a dead man was raised to life in his time, which, he says, (if I rightly understand Eusebius's expression,) he heard from the daughters of Philip the Evangelist. And Eusebius admits, that the family of Philip lived at Hierapolis, of which of which place Papias was bishop. As to the As to the opinion which we ought to form of the sound judgment and impartiality of Eusebius himself, I will quote but a single clause from this same section of his History. He has been saying that Papias mentions John the elder, a person posterior in date to John the apostle, and that hence the circumstance of there being two tombs at Ephesus inscribed with the

name of John may be accounted for ; and then he goes on: diç kai avayκαιον προσεχειν τον νεν εικος γαρ τον δευτερον, ει μη τις εθελοι τον πρωτον, την επ' ονόματος φερομενην Ιωαννα αποκαλυψιν έωρακέναι. To these circumstances it is necessary to pay attention: for it is likely that the second John, unless any one chooses to say it was the first, saw the revelation which goes forth under the name ' of John." For myself I had much rather trust the judgment of simple old Papias, than that of a man who can thus lightly and most groundlessly endeavour to call in question the genuineness of one of the books of the New Testament.

I have not referred to Eusebius's commendation of Papias in another part of his History, where he is called ανηρ τα παντα ότι μαλισα λογιωτατος και της γραφης ειδημων, because this passage is wanting in several MSS, and is judged by Valerius to be spurious.

Let us come to Jerome, who talks of this opinion of the elders who were before him as a fable, (mille annorum fabulum, in Joel, cap. 3.) Let us see what better exposition of Scripture he has to substitute. Take for instance his commentary on the 38th chapter of Ezekiel. He begins with setting aside "terrenum sensum 'et Judaicas atque aniles fabulas, quæ noxiæ sunt," and goes on,

Quæ nos, omnia lectoris arbitrio concedentes, non tam aliena damnare damnare quam ecclesiasticum explanationem affirmare conabimur. GoG Græco sermone doua Latino tectum dicitur. Porro MAGOG interpretatur, de tecto. Omnis igitur superbia et falsi nominis scientia quæ erigit se contra notitiam veretatis, his nominibus demonstratur.—Tectumque interpretabimur Hæreticorum principes, et de tecto, eos qui illorum suscepere doctrinas.”