66

But, again, the author of these strictures demurs at the liberty we take in interpreting the phrase, "until the times of the restitution of all things;" and more especially because we suppose the word "until" to signify during." He does not deny that the term sometimes has this meaning, but is "surprised at the facility with which we leap all at once to the conclusion, that such is certainly its meaning in this passage." He instances our allusion to Heb. ix. 10, and marvels how we do not tell our readers, "that the disputed word "until," occurs in that passage also, and that, by rendering it "during," we would make the apostle say, "that the meats and drinks and carnal ordinances were imposed during the time of reformation or gospel dispensation." But our self-appointed judge, in his eagerness to discover our faults, has, it seems, strained his eyes, and has not sight enough remaining to see, in his Greek New Testatament, that the word rendered "until," in the two passages-is not the same at all! The word in Acts iii. 21, is axg, that in Heb. ix. 10, is exe,-two particles which, though somewhat synonymous, are yet different in meaning. "Achri," says Dr Robinson in his Greek Lexicon, "fixes the attention upon the whole duration up to a limit, having the further continuation undetermined; while mechri refers solely to the limit, implying that the action there terminates." According to this, there is good

reason why the respective words are employed in the two passages, and thus, too, our view is confirmed, that "during" is the proper rendering of achri in Acts iii. 21. So we find the same term frequently employed in the New Testament. To give one instance of many, Gal. iv. 1, 2, "The heir, as long as he is a child, is under tutors and governors, until the time appointed of the Father, i. e. during the time before appointed;" a passage of the more importance, as it exhibits precisely the same mode of construction of the particle with a noun as that under consideration.-Rev. vii. 3. The meaning indeed attached to this word is, we believe, chiefly opposed, in connexion with the idea assigned by us to the phrase, "the restitution of all things," as comprehending the whole period of the gospel dispensation. The writer of the strictures finds it conve nient to pass over in complete silence what we said regarding the inapplicability of this expression to the millennium, on the theory of a personal reign. The all things promised, we said, are not restored, till every chosen soul is brought into the family of God, and every believer perfectly sanctified. These things, according to the millennarian hypothesis, are not accomplished during the thousand years, for we suppose it will be granted that even then every new convert will not be rendered completely holy; and afterwards there is to be a mortal struggle between sin and holiness, through the power of Satan "loosed out of his prison." Take it, however, as denoting not a state of things restored, but an exercise of grace restoring, and the expression most fitly describes the whole dispensation, during which Christ is in the act of restoring all things promised, "gathering together in one all things, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth." Again, then, we repeat, "since it is declared that the Saviour must dwell in heaven during these times, what is this but confirming the truth most surely believed among us, that our exalted Lord shall abide personally in heaven until the hour when all that are in their graves-the just and the unjust-shall hear his voice, and the whole family of God shall be gathered into the family habitation in the better land?"

Once more, our critic bewails it as a sad thing, that we so slight the blessed hope as to find it "difficult to comprehend how the second coming of Jesus, on any view of it, can be urged as a motive of repentance.' Our words are, "it is difficult to comprehend how the second coming of Jesus, in any view of it, can be urged as a motive for the repentance of sinners, that they may thus realize it." The latter part of this sentence, put in italics, is quoted by this writer else where. "We have a right to know on what

concerning the expected millennium. The days will come in which vines will grow, each having ten thousand branches, and on each branch there will be ten thousand twigs, and on each twig ten thousand elus, ters of grapes, and on each clustersten thousand grapes, and every grape, when pressed, will yield twenty-five metreta (209 gallons) of wine. And when any of the saints shall take hold of one cluster, an other willery out I am a better cluster, take me, and by me bless the Lord. In like manner a grain of wheat will produce ten thousand heads, and every head will have ten thousand grains, and each grain will yield ten pounds of clear fine flour; and other fruits will yield seeds and herbage in the same proportion." These things," adds Father Papias, are credible to those who have a believing spirit. Judas the traitor, being incredulous, and asking how can such increase be produced by God, the Lord said, They shall see who come to these times: The following is the manner sind which Justin Martyr" quotes the words of John as well as of Isaiah, as the ground of his belief in Christ's personal reign. Thus Isaiah has spoken concerning the thousand years (Isaiah Ixv. 17-25). And what is meant by these words, as the days of a tree or the days of my people, the works of their hands shall be multiplied?' We understand them as aptly describing the thousand years. For though it was declared to Adam, that in the day he ate of -the tree the should die, yet we know he lived nearly a thousand years. Hence, a oday is in the sight of the Lord as a thousand years. To this agrees what John the aposstle of Christ, in a revelation given to him, predicted regarding the thousand years during which Christ shall reign with beHevers at Jerusalem; and, after that, shall be the general resurrection of all simultaneously, and the future judgment. I and many others hold these sentiments, and believe assuredly that thus it will come to pass; but again, I have intimated to you that many christians who are of pure and pious dispositions do not acknowledge it. But I and those christians who are in all things of a correct judgment, know that there will be a thousand years reign in Jetorusalem, built, adorned, and enlarged. Christ shall come again to Jerusalem, and then shall he eat and drink along towith disciples." Thus too, Lactantius, after a fantastic description of the reign of the man of sin, speaks of the advent of the Lord. "Then shall the heavens open at the dead of night, and Christ shall descend with great power; a fiery brightness shall go be

Irenæus Contra Hareseos, Lib. V. e. 33. † Dial. Cum. Tryphone, § 80, 81.

fore him, and an innumerable host of angels, and the whole multitude of the wicked shall be destroyed. Torrents of blood shall flow, and the leader of the ungodly himself shall flee. Thus peace shall be gained, and the righteous King, the conqueror, shall reign on earth with his own, he will build the holy city, and the dominion of the just shall remain a thousand years. Throughout this time the stars shall shine with a purer ras diance, the brightness of the sun shall be increased, and the light of the moon shall not wane. Then shall descend showers of blessing from God, morning and evening, and every fruit of the carth shall grow withOut toil. The rocks shall distill honey, and fountains shall flow with wine and milk." We had marked for quotation other passages in the same strain from Tertullian, and Victorinus, but must forbear.15 or moret us bobot 50 197

Justice, however, would not be done to the truth of history, nor to the memory of the greatest names in the primitive church, without remarking, that these inisguided millennarian notions were then strenuously opposed. In the course of the third century, Origen directed his great learning against them, calling them absurd fables, empty motions" Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, the worthy disciple of the great Origen, employed his acquirements and powers against the same opinions; and, in a conference held with the presbyters and churches under his care who favoured them, he so proved from the Scriptures their erroneous views, that they thanked him for his instructions, and declared themselves now convinced of the soundness of the opposite doctrine. By these means millennarism was crushed in the Eastern churches; and the blow thus given there was followed up in the West by Jerome and Augustine,— the latter, without doubt, the greatest of the patristic divines. In the era of the Reformation, we know the theory was revived by the fanatical anabaptist Münzer, but his ravings were vigorously confuted by Luther and Melancthon. Ilence, if the truth were to be settled by an appeal to mere human authority, both for mind and heart we should unhesitatingly take our stand on the side of the great men who have contended for the faith against the millennarian theory. But after all, this, as well as every article of religious belief, must be decided, not by the question, "What saith tradition??? but by this, "What saith the scripture ? this subject we close our reply to this advocate of millennarianism, in the divine words of the great Milton, "We do injudw (17 695 quantity of h Divin. Inst. Epitome, Lib. VII. §.8. Hagenbach's History of Doctrines, Vol. I. # Neander's Church History, Vol. II. pǝ433.

p. 210.

On

riously in thinking to taste better the pure evangelic manna, by seasoning our mouths with the tainted scraps and fragments of an unknown table, and searching among the venomous and polluted rags dropped overworn from the toiling shoulders of time, with these deformedly to quilt and interlace the entire, the spotless, and undecaying robe of truth, the daughter, not of time, but of heaven."*

W. R.†

ON READING SERMONS IN THE PULPIT.

SIR-There are, perhaps, few things about which the great majority of professing Christians in this country have formed a more decided opinion, than that of ministers reading their sermons. The practice is disliked by almost all; and such are the feelings of many in reference to it, that they derive no benefit from sermons deI'vered in that way. In these circumstances, the practice would require to be sanctioned by authority, and recommended by considerations higher and more important than any which have been urged in its favour, before the character of our church should be injured, and its prosperity interfered with, by its general adoption.

There are tolerably good grounds for concluding, that it was almost, if not altogether, unknown in the apostolic and immediately succeeding ages. Then the doctrines of the gospel were unfolded and pressed upon the attention of men with the greatest simplicity; and though the exhibitions of divine truth given by primitive teachers were, perhaps, less methodical, less accurate, and less adorned, than the more formal and finished discourses read to listless or fastidious congregations, by some of our preachers in modern times, they were blessed of God, to a vastly greater extent, in awakening sinners to reflection, and leading them to the cross. And it would

not be difficult to show, that at no period has the reading of sermons been general, except when religion was in a languid state, and the spirit of the world dominant in the church. But our limits will not permit us to enter either into the proof or the illus tration of this statement. It is our object, at present, merely to glance for a moment at some of the grounds on which the practice in question is defended.

It may, perhaps, be as well to state, at the outset, that we do not take into account the few isolated cases in which individuals,

from physical causes, are under the necessity of using their manuscript in the pulpit.

*Tract on Practical Episcopacy.

By mistake, our correspondent's signature to his former paper was printed W. P.

Such individuals and we allude to those alone whose health has given way under the continued pressure of ministerial labourare entitled to all the indulgence which the law of love will permit; and they are so obviously exceptions, that their example cannot be considered as, in any degree, sanctioning a practice which we believe to be highly injurious to the ministerial character, and to be an almost insurmountable barrier in the way of ministerial success.

The ground on which it is most frequently defended is, that it secures more ample preparation for the pulpit, and that greater accuracy in the delivery of sermons is attained. In order to sermons being read, they must, of course, be written; but it does not necessarily follow, that, because they are written and read, they are more carefully prepared than those which are delivered from memory. Specimens which we have recently heard make it perfectly evident, that there is such a thing as writing extempore, as well as speaking extempore; and they demonstrate the fallacy of supposing, that a sermon must be accurate in its language and its logic, and skilfully embued with saving doctrine, be cause it is traced upon paper, and stealthily or openly read instead of being recited. The argument, in fact, is little better than a mere assumption; but, even if it were sound, it would utterly fail to convince the generality of hearers of the propriety of the practice in support of which it is urged. To them no alleged advantage, secured by reading, can compensate for the earnest ness and the animation which generally ac company spoken addresses. This is the mode by which a speaker most effectually finds his way to the heart, and it is the only one which admits of those occasional outbursts of vehement and impassioned eloquence, that are often productive of the most powerful and salutary effects. A ser mon, rich in gospel truth, characterized by ing, though it be destitute of all the higher faithfulness, and delivered with deep feelgraces of composition, is, in almost every instance, listened to with greater satisfaction, and is much more likely to secure the great end of preaching, than is the most read. There are emotions awakened by elaborate and highly finished discourse when the former, which the latter has no power to excite and call forth.

But why should there be occasion for using such an argument as this? Is not the course of preparatory study prescribed by our church amply sufficient to enable an individual, under ordinary circumstances, to address with propriety any congregation within its bounds? If a young man, after eight or ten years' previous study, find him self so deficient in the power of utterance,

that he cannot with ease and comfort deliver a sermon which he has duly prepared, without the assistance of his manuscript, he obviously lacks the important qualification insisted upon by an inspired apostle, 65 apt to teach." That qualification is indispensable; and no individual can, on any solid scripture ground, be considered fit for the ministerial office who is destitute of it. The amplest stores of learning-nay, even the most elevated christian principle

avail but little, where the power of communicating instruction in an attractive and impressive manner is not possessed.

The opinion, we are aware, to some extent prevails, that the practice of reading sermons is not at all likely to become general in a voluntary church; because the people, it is alleged, if they dislike it, have the remedy in their own hands. That the people generally--we had almost said, universally dislike it, there can be no doubt; and that they have the remedy in their own hands, is equally true;-but why permit the evil to grow, until they feel themselves under the necessity of exercising the power which they possess to put it down? Who does not see, that this is likely to damage the interests and the character of the church to an alarming extent? If they are driven to that alternative, a state of things will be induced which we contemplate with pain. Many of our congregations will either be divided into contending factions, and their energies paralyzed by unprofitable discussion; or large numbers of the people will manifest their feeling by quietly leaving their communion, and going where they will hear the gospel preached in a more acceptable manner.

The practice, we have reason to fear, prevails to a vastly greater extent than many seem to imagine. Till very recently, at least in one of the sections of which the United Presbyterian Church is composed, it was almost entirely unknown, except in one or two cases where peculiar circumstances rendered the adoption of it necessary; but now the cases are so numerous, that even some of our preachers imitate the example. We have, with mingled emotions of grief and shame, witnessed such exhibitions, and we have afterwards been made acquainted with the deep discontent and dissatisfaction to which they have given rise. Indeed, so rapidly has the evil spread of late, that the people have, in a great measure, felt themselves taken by surprise; and they are wondering by what fatuity the church which was founded by Gillespie and the Erskines, has permitted a practice to be introduced into it, which has uniformly exerted a benumbing influence wherever it has prevailed, and been invariably associated with a low state of vital

godliness. In these circumstances, we hold it to be important, in the highest degree, to leave the question to be disposed of by them. They have long since made up their minds regarding it; and, if not otherwise done, they will settle it in a way which all will have reason to deplore. A paper ministry is alike opposed to their feelings and their principles; and we may rest assured, that it is altogether incapable of sustaining the interests of Presbyterian dissent in Scotland at the present day.

But it is asked by those who defend the practice, why should a minister be interfered with in the matter, if the people of his charge are willing to bear with him? If it be their pleasure that the individual under whose pastoral superintendence they have placed themselves, should use his manuscript in the pulpit, on what ground can he be called in question for acting in accordance with the wishes of those by whom he is supported? This argument, we grant, if employed by an Independent, would be unanswerable; but in the hands of those who belong to a Presbyterian Church, it has no force whatever. Indeed, it cannot, with any thing like consistency, be employed by them at all. Let us look for a moment at the conclusions to which it would lead, if the principle which it involves were admitted and generally acted upon.

Suppose then, that a minister, for the sake of securing greater accuracy of expres sion, and of being enabled to proceed with more composure, were first to write and then publicly to read his prayers; suppose, further, that, for the purpose of saving himself the pain sometimes occasioned by an unskilful precentor, and the discordant voices of a congregation, in a great measure untaught in sacred music, he were to get an organ introduced to give greater effect to the psalmody; suppose, that, from some new light he had obtained upon the subject, he considers it more becoming that the communicants should receive the sacramental elements kneeling at the altar, than in the ordinary way; and suppose, moreover, that in all these proceedings the people of his charge were to bear with him, or perhaps to approve of his conduct-no other party, on the ground of the argument under review, has a right to interfere. Being self-supporting, they are beyond control; and, as congregations, can do just as they please. But is this, we ask, sound Presbyterian doctrine? Would it be any thing like Presbyterian practice? Would it be the duty of the Church, in such circumstances, to look silently on? Most certainly not. Indeed, if the principle on which the plea is founded were admitted, Synodical authority would be a mere name,