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 chap

ter.

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 sys

tem 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.

From the principle of the text may, I think, be deduced, among others, the following conclusions; all of them tending to clear the subject of prophecy, and to obviate some or other of those objections, which prejudiced or hasty reasoners have been disposed to make to it.

I. My first conclusion is," That on the idea of such a scheme of prophecy, as the text supposes, a considerable degree of obscurity may be reasonably expected to attend the delivery of the divine predictions."

There are general reasons which show that prophecy, as such, will most probably be thus delivered. For instance, it has been observed, that as the completion of prophecy is left, for the most part, to the instrumentality of free agents, if the circumstances of the event were predicted with the utmost precision, either human liberty must be restrained, or human obstinacy might be tempted to form the absurd indeed, but criminal purpose, of counteracting the prediction. On the contrary, by throwing some part of the predicted event into shade, the moral faculties of the agent have their proper play, and the guilt of an intended opposition to the will of heaven is avoided. This reason seems to have its weight; and many others might still be mentioned. But I argue, at present, from the particular principle under consideration.

An immense scheme of prophecy was ultimately designed to bear testimony to the person and fortunes of Jesus. But Jesus was not himself to come, till what is called the last age of the world, nor all the purposes of his coming to be fully accomplished till the end of that age.

Now whatever reasons might make it fit, in the view of Infinite Wisdom, to defer the execution of this scheme to so distant a period, may probably be

conceived to make it fit that the delivery of it should be proportionably dark and obscure. A certain degree of light, we will say, was to be communicated from the date of the prophecy; but it is very conceivable that the ages nearer the completion of it, might be more immediately concerned in the event predicted; and that, till such time approached, it might be convenient to leave the prediction in a good degree of obscurity.

The fact answers to this presumption. Prophecies of very remote events, remote I mean from the date of the prediction, are universally the most obscure. As the season advanced for their accomplishment, they are rendered more clear; either fresh prophecies are given, to point out the time and other circumstances, more determinately; or the completion of some prophecies affords new light for the interpretation of others, that are unfulfilled. Yet neither are we to conceive that those fresh prophecies, or this new light removes all obscurity; enough is still left to prevent or disappoint the efforts of presumption; and only so much additional clearness is bestowed on the prophecy, as the Revealer saw fit to indulge to those who lived nearer the time of its completion.

But this is not all: By looking into that plan of Providence, which respects Jesus, and the ends to be accomplished by him, as it is drawn out in the sacred writings, we find a distinct reason for the obscurity of the prophecies, relative to that subject.

We there find it to have been in the order of the divine councils, that between the first dawnings of revelation, and the fuller light of the Gospel, an intermediate and very singular economy, yet still preparatory to that of Jesus, should be instituted. This economy, (for reasons, which it is not to our present purpose to deduce, and for some, no doubt, which we should in vain attempt to discover,) was to continue for many ages, and while it continued, was to be

had in honour among that people, for whom it was more immediately designed. But now the genius of those two dispensations, the Jewish, I mean, and the Christian, being wholly different; the one carnal, and enforced by temporal sanctions only, the other spiritual, and established on better promises, the prophets, who lived under the form of these dispensations, (and the greater part of those who prophesied of Jesus lived under it,) were of course so to predict the future economy, as not to disgrace the present. They were to respect the law, even while they announced the Gospel, which was, in due time, to supersede it*.

So much, we will say, was to be discovered as might direct the thoughts of men towards some better scheme of things, hereafter to be introduced; certainly so much, as might sufficiently evince the divine intention in that scheme, when it should actually take place; but not enough to indispose them towards that state of discipline, under the yoke of which they were then held. From this double purpose, would clearly result that character, in the prophecies concerning the new dispensation, which we find impressed upon them; and which St. Peter well describes, when he speaks of them, as dispensing a light indeed, but a light shining in a dark place.

Upon the whole, the delivery of prophecy seems well suited to that dispensation which it was given to attest. If the object in view had been one single event, to be accomplished all at once, it might perhaps be expected that the prophecies concerning it would have been clear and precise. But if the scheme of christianity be what the Scriptures represent it to be, a scheme, commencing from the foundation of the world, and unfolding itself by just degrees through a

* D. L. vol. v. p. 218. Lond. 1765.