are adulterated. In the second century we have Polycarp, Hermas (probably), Justin Martyr, Tertullian in part, Irenaeus, Athenagoras, and some fragments of others, either disputed, or mostly of little significance. Now what is the character of the exegesis in most, I might say, in all of these writings? Much of it is such, confessedly, as would not stand a single hour's examination, by the test of fair and established hermeneutical principles. I could easily prove this, even ad nau seam, if time and the patience of my readers allowed. But as to such as need proof, I may refer them to such histories of interpretation as are designated abundantly in Morus, in Ernesti, in Meyer, and indeed in the works of all recent authors who have undertaken to write the history of interpretation. The early patristic exegesis is, even to a proverb, not only often extravagant and unsupported by solid principles, but sometimes even ridiculous. The Jesuit with his seven sermons on O! the preacher who drew out the 82d particular of resemblance between the horses in Pharaoh's chariot and the bride, i. e. the church, scarcely exceeded what may sometimes be found even in Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Irenaeus himself.

These simple facts, no man well-read in regard to this subject will venture to deny. What now shall we make of them? That such exegesis is traditionary in the good sense of this word, and is derived from prophets and apostles? Away forever with such a supposition! "Quodcunque mihi narras sic-incredulus odi!" God's eternal and awful word must not be degraded by the conceits and dreamy visions and egregious puerilities of minds, either unenlightened, or enthusiastic beyond the bounds of moderation, or fully and earnestly engaged in the pursuit of ignes fatui.

Who does not know-at all events, who that has read the Fathers for himself does not know--that although sincere and ardent Christians, as most of them doubtless were, their minds, in many respects, were rude and uncultivated? They emerged, at least most of the earlier ones, from the midst of heathenish darkness. They became, we will say, sincere and earnest Christians. But all the double-sense exegesis which they had been taught to apply to Homer, and Pindar, and others; all the mysticism which they brought with them from the heathen schools-were insensibly carried along by them into the reading and expounding of the Scriptures. They

designed no wrong, by their fanciful and extravagant exegesis. They only gave what they deemed to be innocent play to their fancy and imagination. But in this play they indulge quite too often for us to follow them. Religion cannotmust not be degraded by puerilities, which make it contemptible to a man of cultivated mind and taste. And I am bold to assert, that from Clemens Romanus, down to a period later than the beginning of the third century, there is not a single patristical work, of any considerable extent, in which may not be found conceits and puerilities, that would make an intelligent scholar of fourteen years of age in our Sabbath Schools, who has been well instructed, blush to be regarded as producing or indulging.

Those advocates of tradition, who stand aghast at the greatness and the sacredness of the works of the Fathers, will doubtless lift up their hands in token of astonishment, at the boldness, or rather (as they will name it) the presumption, or the heresy, of such a sentiment as this. Well-I shall endeavor to bear it with some tolerable composure. I have heard the like of this in days that are past, until it has ceased to be an object of any great dread. But one thing I have to say—and I wish them to mark it well-let them be careful how they challenge the proof of my assertions. I have read with my own eyes. I judge, therefore, for myself. I can prove to any reasonable man, what I affirm. And before I dismiss the subject of these strictures, I promise them some specimens, of what I have here alluded to, in respect to traditionary stories and interpretations, which will enable them to judge for themselves, whether I have not pronounced a sober judgment in relation to this matter.

Let us, for a moment, turn our attention to the condition of the early Christian readers of the Scriptures; specially to those who were brought up as heathen. Who instructed them in the principles of interpretation? The apostles, and other missionaries preached; and the Spirit of God came down and converted multitudes. But conversion did not impart intellectual education. Their habits, their learning (what little they had), had been of a heathenish cast. Time, pains, right instruction, habitude of study, must all concur to form the rational exegete. Hence the early ages of Christianity give us noble specimens indeed of temper, feeling, right and warm affections, benevolence, beneficence; but as to the

interpretation of difficult passages of Scripture, language can hardly describe how puerile much of it is.

Still, I must say a word, to prevent any mistake here in respect to my opinion of the early fathers. Some of them were men of distinguished talents. In other circumstances of training and education, they would have shone conspicuously. They were, at least many of them, men of good faith; credible witnesses of facts; worthy of deference even as to opinions, when their superstitions and their visionary fancies were out of the question. Whoever despises them, or disregards their testimony as to simple matters of fact, shows himself plainly to be a prejudiced or an unskilful judge. But as to their interpretations of prophecies which were dark, or difficult to minds untrained in the Scriptures—they are most of them among the last to which we ought to think of appealing.

Having said thus much on the general principle in question, I shall pass over the whole of Mr. D.'s hundred pages of patristical traditions, with merely a few more suggestions.

He first refers us to the Jewish Rabbies, and even to the Zend-Avesta, at a period antecedent to the Christian era. Next, John the Baptist, the Saviour, and the writers of the New Testament, are all made to contribute something to establish his Millennium. Then come Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tatian, Clement of Alexandria, and many others, some of which have not even left behind them any certain relics of their writings. All these are made by Mr. D. to give testimony in favour of his cause; or, (which he seems to regard as being equally in his favour), they do not give testimony against it. In this way he goes on until he comes down to a later age. Nor does he omit, even here, to trace out his traditionary history. But the fathers who were opposed to the millennial views in question—Origen, Dionysius of Alexandria, Jerome, Augustine, and indeed most of the other distinguished fathers—he slips over with slight notices, or with some little effort either to make them indirectly contribute to his purpose, or else to parry the force of their strokes, and diminish the value of their opinions.

There is nothing— —or almost nothing-which cannot be established from the Fathers, in such a way. There is scarcely any absurdity in exegesis or theology, which some of them

have not uttered or patronized.

It is the most convenient of all possible methods of arguing, to appeal to tradition; for there is no sect, and no enthusiast, which may not find some prototype among the ancients.

I have observed, specially of late years, in my reading, that those always seem to rely most heartily upon the Fathers, who feel themselves to be most deficient in the power of establishing any thing directly from the Scriptures. So did not the first Protestants. THE SCRIPTURES ARE THE SUFFICIENT AND ONLY RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE, is the basis of all true Protestantism. Whoever builds on any other basis, will find, sooner or later, that he has built upon the sand.

Mr. D. gives us, with no very sparing hand, extracts from a number of the Fathers; but he takes, for the most part, what he finds already selected for a purpose like his own, and leaves out what he would not wish to bring forward. Even in most of the passages cited by him, the evidence in favour of his scheme is rather of the constructive kind. Papias, probably Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Lactantius, and a few others, were, no doubt, real Millenarians, in a sense somewhat resembling that in which Mr. D. is a Millenarian. The same is true of a few others; but they are mostly obscure men. I respect many of them, because they were sincere. I cannot but respect the talents of such men in particular as Tertullian and Irenaeus. A more impassioned soul of oratory than Tertullian exhibits, can scarely be found in the circles of any age or nation. His style is indeed rough and unpolished. His idiom, even barbarous. But sparks of celestial fire burst forth on every occasion where his feelings are excited; and he breathes out the very soul of glowing eloquence. Irenaeus too was learned, for his time, sober for the most part, solid and judicious. Yet there were points in respect to which he became as it were a childish listener to fiction and conceit, and where, as we shall see by and by, the most incredible extravagancies were no obstacle to his faith.

We have done with the Fathers, for the present. We come then, at last, after ranging through 266 pages, to the BIBLE itself. In respect to this I readily concede, in accordance with Tertullian, Faber, and Mr. D. (see p. 163), that whatever is first is true, i. e. that whatever was originally inserted and comprehended in the Scriptures, is true.

In a

qualified sense I also concede, that whatever is later, is adulterate, i. e. understanding this to mean, that whatever uninspired men have added to the Scriptures, or made to assume the place of them, is spurious and of no binding authority. But how can any considerate man possibly concede, that all the views and interpretations of the Scriptures, which belong to the early Fathers, are true and unadulterate ? In sober earnest, it is impossible to believe this, without abandoning reason and common sense. It is impossible to do so, without degrading the Scriptures. Uninspired men are never infallible; and the early Fathers belong most manifestly to this class.

Mr. D. opens

Let us go at once then to the Bible itself. his argument in favour of his scheme from this, by appealing to the much controverted passage in Acts 3:21, which speaks of "the heavens receiving Jesus Christ, until the times of the restitution of all things, ἄχρι χρόνων ἀποκαταστάσεως лάvov." These times he assumes, as we might expect, to be the very times so largely set forth and insisted upon in his millennial theory. The heavens are to conceal the Saviour, and hide him from our fleshly vision, until the commencement of the Millennium; and then they are to render him up, and he is to become visible again to the eyes of men on earth. "Here," Mr. D. says, "there can be no questioning of facts by any one who admits as truth... the testimony of the apostle." A little farther on he remarks, that "it is of essential consequence, if possible, to enlist this text in favour of this [his] view." To his own satisfaction he has made this possible. Without adverting, now, to the various mistakes in criticism which the process of Mr. D.'s reasoning here developes, it is enough to say, that every thing depends, of course, on the meaning of χρόνων ἀποκαταστάσεων, rendered in our English version, times of restitution. This our author of course considers as declaring in favour of his views of restitution, i. e. in favour of the transformation of things in general at the commencement of the Millennium. The simple and literal meaning of άлoxατάστασis is restoration, i.e. the putting of any thing which has been injured, has decayed, or is worn out, into a renewed and good condition. It is undoubtedly true, that Peter might have employed this word, in case he had believed in the same Millennium which is advocated by Mr. D.; but it is equally plain and true, that