fragments of his works, would be no evidence against it, even if we had no assurance that he received it as holy writ. But such assurance we have from Andreas of Cæsarea*.

Michaelis collects, from some expressions of Eusebiust, that Papias had no where cleared up the important question, "whether John the Presbyter, who "also lived at Ephesus, was the writer of the Apo"calypse." But how can we expect such determination from Papias, when it appears that the question was never agitated in his time? Eusebius himself, in the fourth century, first started it. Dionysius of Alexandria, in the century preceding, had mentioned some other John as, perhaps, the author of the book: but even he does not mention John the Presbyter. Nor is there any evidence that it was ascribed to any other than to John the Apostle, by any orthodox writer

* Michaelis is willing to suppose, (p. 466,) that Andreas had no proof of what he asserts, and that he concluded Papias to be an evidence in favour of the Apocalypse, merely because Papias was a Millenarian. This is, at most, a conjecture, for the support of which he refers us to what is afterwards said by him of Andreas, when he comes to speak of Gregory of Nazianzum. When we turn to that passage, (p. 490,) which is designed to invalidate the testimony of Andreas by this argument," that he who had falsely represented Gregory, << as an evidence for the Apocalypse, may be supposed to "have done the same concerning Papias," we find that even by the admission of Michaelis, Gregory has quoted the Apocalypse in two passages of his writings. Which quotations will he found, (when we come to examine Gregory's evidence,) more than sufficient to counterbalance the circumstance of the Apocalypse not being mentioned in his Metrical Catalogue. Michaelis, at last, leaves the question undecided. And so the testimony of Andreas remains unimpeached by him. Papias appears also by the testimony of And. Cæs. to have commented on the Apocalypse; on the text. See cap. xxxiv. Serm. xii. of And. Cæs. † Page 464.

of the Church, during the first century of its appearance in the world. The Alogi, a sect of heretics, ascribed it to Cerinthus; but no one of the orthodox, before the third century, (as far as we know,) assigned to it any other than John the Evangelist. That Papias, therefore, never entered into the merits of this question, is of no disservice to the Apocalypse. On the contrary, the little that is said by him, and by the ancient Fathers, concerning the writer of the Apocalypse, shows, that no doubts arose, in the early times, concerning the person who wrote it. All who have spoken upon the question, have asserted John the Evangelist to be its author; and they were not contradicted.

But that the Apocalypse was unknown to Papias, our author attempts also to prove from another passage of Eusebius*; who, having mentioned that Papias had reported some doctrines and parables of our Saviour, not contained in the Gospels, but learnt by oral tradition, and among these some things that are fabulous, classes among the latter his Millenarian doctrine, That, after the resurrection of the dead, "Christ will reign in person a thousand years on "earth." "I suppose," adds Eusebius, "that he "acquired this notion from his inquiring into the "saying of the Apostles, and his not understanding " what they had delivered figuratively." From this passage it is inferred, that Papias was ignorant of the Apocalypse;" for why," it is said, "should he "have recourse to oral tradition for the support of "these principles, when the 20th chapter of Revela"tion would, literally interpreted, have much better "suited his purpose?" ?" But this mode of proving is somewhat like that which we have lately examined, which was found to rest only on a conjecture of

* Lib. iii. c. 39.

Eusebius. For this rests only on a supposition of the same writer, equally unfounded. "I suppose," says Eusebius," that he acquired his Millenary no"tions from oral tradition :" but there is no other ground for this supposition, than that Papias had appeared to acquire some other information, and some other fabulous notions, by this method. But, if the 20th chapter of the Apocalypse, verses 4, 5, 6, literally interpreted, would, according to the confession of Michaelis," have much better suited his purpose," why may we not, with equal reason suppose, that he found it did suit his purpose? Certainly we can show, in this chapter, a passage, which, literally taken, would be a ground-work for Papias' Millenary doctrines; but neither Eusebius, nor Michaelis, were able to prove any such oral tradition received by Papias, upon which he could found his notions of Christ's Millenary reign on earth. But Eusebius may be mistaken in this supposition, because he is evidently so in another, which is contained in the same passage. He supposes Irenæus to have founded his Millenary notions on the tradition and authority of Papias; but Irenæus happens to have told us otherwise. For, in his fifth book against the heretics, chapters xxxii. xxxiii. xxxiv. xxxv. xxxvi. he rests this doctrine, partly indeed upon the tradition of the Elders, but chiefly on the promises of Scripture, which he quotes abundantly, producing also this passage of the Apocalypse: "In the Apocalypse, and "the Apocalypse alone," (says Michaelis, speaking of the Millenarian system,)" is this doctrine dis"coverable, if we take all the expressions used in "the xxth chapter in a strictly literal sense: and "this is the chapter on which all the Millenarians of "modern ages have principally grounded their opin❝ions." And why, then, not Papias?

To me there appear to arise two powerful arguments in favour of the antiquity and divine origin of the Apocalypse, to be derived from a consideration of the times of Papias. 1. The Millenary doctrines appear then first to have taken that form, agreeably to the xxth chapter of the Apocalypse, which, literally interpreted, would supply those notions. 2. If the Apocalypse had been written after the times of Papias, after the times when he had broached these doctrines, and had not been a work of divine origin, the ingenious author of it, (who will be supposed, from this passage, to have favoured the Millenarian tenets,) would not have contented himself with that short description of the terrestrial reign of Christ, which is contained in three verses of his xxth chapter. He would have enlarged on a topic so flattering to the Christians, in the manner used by Papias or his followers, and not have left the description restricted to that brevity and obscurity which bespeak a work published before these notions had prevailed.

I may have detained the reader too long with what relates to the evidence of Papias: but it seemed to me to require a particular examination; because Michaelis, when he sums up the evidence for and against the Apocalypse, still takes it for granted, that Papias knew nothing of this book; and considers this circumstance as sufficient to balance against the express testimonies of the learned Origen, a determined Anti-millenarian, in its favour.

(To be continued.)

CONCLUSIONS FROM THE TRUE IDEA OF PROPHECY

REV. xix. 10.

The Testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of Prophecy.

[Continued from page 28.]

WE have seen how precarious all our reasonings

on divine prophecy must be, when built on no better grounds than those of human fancy and conjecture. The text supplies us with a principle, as we believe, of divine authority; as all must confess, of scriptural authority; that is, of the same authority as that on which prophecy itself stands.

This principle has been explained at large. It affirms that Jesus, whose person, and character, and history, are sufficiently known from the books of Scripture, is the end and object of the prophetic system contained in those books.

We are now at liberty to reason from this principle. Whatever conclusions are fairly drawn from it, must to the believer appear as certain truths; must to the unbeliever appear as very proper illustrations of that principle.

In general, if difficulties can be removed by pursuing and applying scriptural principles, they are fairly removed; and the removal of every such difficulty on these grounds must be a presumption in favour of that system, whether we call it of prophecy or revelation, which is thus found to carry its own vindication with it.