"Now the remedy to take away this evill is the article of the remission of sins: I beleive the remission of sinnes, both originall and actuall, as also the article, crucified, dead, and buryed.

"Another evill belongeth to all mankinde, and none is free, save onely the true Christian; this is the burthen of the wrath of God for sin; it hangs over the ignorant man's head, and will burne him upp in hell fire, except it be prevented. As one lying in the open field desiring to escape the thunderbolte, will streight seeke for some refuge, so the sinner desiring to escape God's judgments must seeke for a place of refuge to avoyde and misse the thunderbolte of God's judgments.

"Now the remedy out of the 4 of Ephes. verse 6, is told one of God's church, a place of safeguard and shelter; and this we have when we apply this article unto ourselves,-I beleive the catholicke church, and that I am a member of the same.

The 3; underneath a man is hell fire, which is most fearefull to thincke uppon, and this may appeare most fearefull if we compare hell unto a dyngion in which there are many serpents, having a man hanging over by a little twigg which is whereon the hungry beasts are biting; the man falleth into the bottome among the serpents, which is the divell and all his angels in hell fire.

"Now the remedy for this is this article-I beleive-hast conscience that Jesus Christe hath suffred all the paynes of hell which I have infinitely deserved.

"The 4 is prosperity, not an evill of itselfe, but in regard of man, Rom. viii. 5; as riches, &c. By these the divell carrys many into hell fire; and hence it is sayd, a rich man is hard to be saved. The divell useth this temptation, Worshipp mee and I will give thee all the world;' and the divill chose this to tempte Christe. "The greatest remedy against this is,―I beleive in Christe, who is ascended into heaven, sitting at the right hand of his Father, &c. So that our mindes be in the heaven where he is, our riches shall not * * *

"The 5 is adversitie; crosses and calamities which every one must taste of in this world. This is wonderfull bitter to flesh and bloud, yet a path wherein every Christian must walke.

"Now the remedy is,-I beleive in God the Father; so that if we put our affiance in our Father, he will do nothing unto us but that which is good for us. Hast thou many enemies? Then say, I beleive there is a communion of saints. Doth thy father or another hate thee? Then thou hast this remedie,-I beleive my blessed Father which is in heaven to be my comforte. Agayne, if our life in this worlde be miserable, we have a comforte in that there is an eternall life for all the true saints of God.

The 6 is double-1. Death in itselfe, an evill curse of sinne. 2. The snare of Sathan.

"For death there is never a man can escape it, for it is the dissolution of nature. The remedy to stay this is the last articles,-I beleive there is a resurrection of the body, and that there is a life everlasting. The snare of Sathan to take our soules is in this manner, the divell comes before us as an angell of light, and urges us to commit sinne, paynting it in a most pleasant color to our eyes, and never leaves us till he have brought us to commit that sinne which agreeth most fit to our disposition; and this done, he awayteth the tryall of God's judgments, and then he turnes his behaviour and becomes a most ougly divell; then he puts away his paynted. vizard and sheweth us what ougly sinne is, and lets us see hell tormente due for the sinne; and then s.t thou art condemned. There is never a man in the world but the divill will enter this practise withall. Now the remedy is to apply to ourselves every article in the creede,-I beleive in God my Father, in Jesus Christe, &c.

"The 7 is a man's life past. If we looke to this we shall see we have committed seas of rebellion agaynst God. Now, men forget all these, which, notwithstanding, remayne still in heaven, writte in a book agaynst the last judgment; so that our life past is a wonderfull evill, and troubled the wise man. Job. xiii. 26. O Lord, thou makest mee remember the sinnes of my youth.'

"Now the remedy agaynst this evill is the article of the remission of sinnes :—I have, O Lord, been a rebellious sinner; but I beleive, O Lord, that thou wilt hide my sins, and forgive myne offences."

Words which I have been unable to decipher.
+ Sinner.

ON ROMANS, VII., AND THE MILLENNIUM.

MR. EDITOR,-A correspondent in your Magazine for March is wishful to ascertain the precise history of that interpretation of the seventh chapter of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans which represents the apostle not as describing his own state or that of a regenerate person, but the state of one who is without the covenant of grace, and which professes to have been received by the church for the first three centuries as the only true interpretation, and therefore approaches the highest kind of tradition.

There is a passage in the epistle ad Zenam et Serenum, usually attributed to Justin Martyr, from which it appears that this interpretation was approved by the writer. That he refers to this chapter there cannot be a doubt, for he almost quotes these words from the 18th verse-ὅτι οὐκ οἰκεῖ ἐν ἐμοὶ ἀγαθόν—and somewhat loosely paraphrases these words from the 14th verse, έyw de σapkiкós ɛiμu. But a perusal of that epistle has induced me to doubt whether it be really the production of that eminent father, though Bishop Bull has quoted it without appearing to entertain any suspicions of its genuineness. Dupin, I perceive, without hesitation, condemns it as spurious. See Epist. ad Zenam et Serenum, inter oper. Just. Martyr. Edit. Nova juxta Paris. Edit. 1636. Coloniæ, 1686, p. 506. Irenæus also adopts the same interpretation, but I cannot at present refer to his works. See Iren. lib. 3, cap. 22.

The same may be said of Clemens Alexandrinus, who, after citing an opinion of Plato, in which he affirms that the soul of a philosopher regards the body with contempt, flies from it, and seeks for a separation, subjoins these remarks,—καὶ μήτι συνάδει τῳ θείῳ Αποστόλω λέγοντι. Ταλαίπωρος ἐγὼ ἄνθρωπος, τίς με ῥύσεται ἐκ τοῦ σώματος τοῦ θανάτου τούτου ; εἰ μὴ τὴν ὁμοφροσύνην τῶν εἰς κακίαν ὑποσεσυρμενών, σῶμα θανάτου τροπικῶς λέγει. He inquires whether this passage accords with the sentiment of Plato, and corrects the error by declaring that the body of death is here to be figuratively understood of the consent of those (Thy oμoppoσúvny Tv) who have been drawn into wickedness, whichexpression can be descriptive of the state only of wicked, and therefore unregenerate men. Besides, he does not say his consent, but their consent, τὴν ὁμοφροσύνην τῶν—thereby plainly shewing that he understood the apostle to be speaking not of his own state, but of the state of others. See Paris Edit. Clem. Alex. p. 433.

Bishop Bull affirms that in this interpretation of the passage these ancient fathers are followed by Tertullian, by Cyprian, by Origen, by Basil the great, by Cyril, by Chrysostom, and all the fathers who lived before Augustine. What evidence, then, can there be in favour of that interpretation which considers St. Paul in this chapter as speaking in his own, or in that of a regenerate, person? The advocates of this interpretation appeal indeed to Methodius, to Hilary, to Gregory Nazianzen, and to Ambrose. Now Methodius, be it remembered, flourished toward the end of the third century. Of Gregory Nazianzen, Bishop Bull doubts whether in the passage referred to he is speaking at all of a regenerate person; and of Ambrose, that while he seems to

adopt the interpretation for which he is quoted, he furnishes arguments by which that interpretation is entirely overthrown. Augustine, it is well known, entertained different views of this passage at different periods of his life. But the remarks of Bishop Bull on the value of Augustine's testimony are so important that I must beg to quote his own words:" Ad Augustinum vero quod spectat ipsi opponimus ipsum, antequam a Pelagiano conflictu incalesceret; et obnixe rogamus Lectorem, ut ea, quæ de hoc loco, communem priorum Patrum sententiam secutus, scripsit Quæst. 66, Lib. 83. Quæstionum, et in Quæstionibus expositis Epistolæ ad Romanos, nec non Quæst. 1 ad Simplicianum, libero judicio conferat cum interpretatione, quam post exortam Pelagii hæresim quæsivit, et rationibus, quibus persuasus fuit, ut eam amplecteretur ab ipso expositis Lib. 1, Retractationum cap. 23 et 26, et Lib. 2, cap. 1. Quod si fecerit, nulli dubitamus, quin Antepelagianum hic Augustinum (si ita loqui fas sit) Augustino Antipelagiano longe præpositurus sit." See Bishop Bull's Apolog pro Harmon. sect. 9, pp 66, 67, edit. 1703; et Harm. Apostol. Diss. posterior. cap. 9, p. 59 et sequent.

It seems, then, to me somewhat singular that so eminent a writer as Mr. Faber, according to your correspondent, should have adopted, in his book on Justification, this interpretation against such a weight of authority, against such a decisive declaration of Bishop Bull,-in opposition, moreover, to the strong internal arguments from the chapter itself, by which that profound divine has shewn that the contrary interpretation is supported, and the satisfactory manner in which he has refuted the objections of his opponents.

Permit me to offer a few remarks on the millennium in reply to your correspondent. Various writers, actuated by widely different motives, have been anxious to represent this doctrine not only as embraced by many eminent fathers of the first three centuries, but as the actual avowed doctrine of the church during that period. Gibbon, on this and several other points connected with Christianity, can scarcely be acquitted of unfairness. In his anxiety to affix some wild or rash opinion on the church in its very origin, he hesitates not to assert that Tertullian wrote his treatise De Coronâ before he adopted the errors of Montanus; though, as Bishop Kaye has remarked, (see his Tertull. edit. 2, p. 57,) the first chapter contains a refutation of the assertion by an allusion to the new prophecy. He is open, I fear, to the charge of unfairness on this very subject; for while admitting in the text, as a saving clause, that the doctrine of a millennium might not be universally received, though it appears to have been the reigning sentiment of the orthodox believers, he states in the note that Justin Martyr, in speaking of it, declares in the most solemn manner that it was the doctrine of himself and of his orthodox brethren; endeavouring with a sneer to weaken the force of his very comprehensive exception, as to the universal prevalence of that belief among the orthodox. Mosheim does not in common with Gibbon represent it as the generally received doctrine of the early church. That cautious writer merely states, that this opinion, long before the third century, had prevailed, and

up to that period had met with no opposition. See Mosh., Cent. 3, cap. 3, sect. 12.

The first person who appears to have broached the doctrine of a millennium was Cerinthus, the Gnostic heretic. See Euseb. lib. 3, cap. 28; lib. 7, cap. 25. Papias, according to Eusebius, was the first among the orthodox who taught this doctrine. That historian conjectures that he was led into this error by understanding the discourses and instructions of the apostles too literally; not perceiving that a mystical sense ought to be given to such expressions, the apostles having only made use of them as illustrations; for he adds, he was a man, as is evident from his writings, of a very limited capacity, (pertenuis ingenii.) The millennium of the Gnostics was of the most gross and revolting kind-consisting of carnal pleasures and animal delights, rivalling even in this respect the sensual paradise of Mahomet. That of this apostolical father, and of Justin Martyr, &c., was of a far different kind-one in which peace, and justice, and purity, and holiness would flourish, and the praises of God would be celebrated-in a word, a sort of prelude to the eternal happiness of heaven. Justin Martyr is the earliest writer whose works are come down to us who avows his belief in it. His words are these : ὡμολόγησα οὖν σοι καὶ πρόταρον, ὅτι ἐγὼ μὲν καὶ ἄλλοι πολλοὶ ταῦτα φρονοῦμεν, ὡς καί πάν τως ἐπίστασθε, τοῦτο γενησόμενον ; πολλοὺς δ ̓ αὖ καὶ τῶν τῆς καθαρᾶς καὶ εὐσεβοῦς ὄντων Χριστιανῶν γνώμης, τοῦτο μὴ γνωρίζειν ἐσήμανα σοι. (See Dial.cum Tryph. ut supra, p. 306.) Now from these words it is undeniable that, though Justin was a believer in that doctrine himself, it was by no means a generally received doctrine in his day. Even he is compelled to admit that a large proportion of Christians holding pious and sound views on religion rejected the doctrine. It is evidently, therefore, unfair to represent him as holding it in common with the orthodox; as if he deemed those to be heretics who differed from him on that point. And still more unfair, as Gibbon has done in his note, to endeavour with a sneer to weaken the force of this testimony from its seeming variance with what occurs towards the close of the paragraph, where he says, ἐγὼ δὲ, καὶ εἴ τινές εἰσιν ὀρθογνωμονες κατὰ πάντα Χριστιανοὶ, &c. For there seems to me no real contradiction; as it was natural for Justin to call those Christians orthodox in all things who exactly agreed with him on this point, in contradistinction to those who rejected that opinion, however sound might be their views on all other religious subjects, and however conspicuous they might be for rectitude and purity of conduct. Irenæus entertained a similar opinion, and professed to have received it from Papias. Of this opinion also were Clemens Alexandrinus and Tertullian. Though it appears to have been somewhat prevalent among a great body of Christians in the latter end of the second, and the beginning of the third, century, it was never an acknowledged doctrine of the church; as is evident, not only from the language of Justin Martyr, but from its never having been admitted into any of the ancient confessions of faith. Caius, a presbyter of Rome, was the first person who is known to have condemned it, about the year 215; after which period it began to grow into disrepute, and gradually sunk into oblivion, till it was attempted to be

revived by Petersen in the seventeenth century. See Mosh., Cent. 17, cap. 2, sect. 34. See also Dr. Burton's Lectures on the History of the Church, edit. 1st, pp. 140, 270. 9.

I remain, Mr. Editor, yours &c.

e.

OF COLLECT FOR MONDAY BEFORE EASTER.

MY DEAR SIR,-I wish to ask a question which I doubt not some of your learned correspondents will be able to answer. This day, you are aware, is the Monday before Easter, and also the day of the Annunciation of the blessed Virgin Mary; for both of which days. different epistles and gospels are appointed in the book of CommonPrayer. The question then is, which epistle and gospel should be read under such circumstances? I am myself inclined to think that the epistle and gospel for the day of the Annunciation of the blessed Virgin Mary. Accordingly, I read them; but I find that some of my brethren acted otherwise, and read the epistle and gospel for the Monday before Easter. Would you, or any of your correspondents, give your opinion on the subject, and mention if there is any prescribed order in such cases, as it is most desirable that we should all observe the same rule? I remain, yours most sincerely, A PRIEST.*

Gloucester, March 25th, 1839.

TRIBUTE TO THE MEMORY OF THE LATE REV. H. J. ROSE. SIR,-If anything could have added to the deep sense I have felt of the loss the church has sustained in the decease of the Rev. H. J. Rose, it would have been the interesting memoir which appeared in the British Magazine. I did expect that the perusal of that memoir would have induced some of your readers more influential and worthy than myself, to propose some testimonial from the public, especially from those who have had experience of the service which he rendered in the establishment of the British Magazine. I feel confident that the want of such a proposal arises, not from any coldness of feeling on the subject, but from the same diffidence as withheld my own hand. But as none other has come forward, I trust I shall not be considered presumptuous in suggesting that steps should be taken to place on record the sense which, I am sure, is generally entertained of Mr. Rose's merits. Perhaps the best testimonial might be the founding of an exhibition from King's College, London, to be enjoyed at either University, and at any College, to be named Rose's Exhibition. I am, Sir, your most obedient servant,

J. E. N. MOLESWORTH.†

This letter did not reach the Editor until the eighteenth of April.

The Editor has great pleasure in publishing this valuable suggestion; and will

be thankful to receive communications on the subject.