66

plied with the thrilling proclamation, "that THE DAY OF CHRIST WAS AT HAND," or IMMINENT” (évéσrnev). And how does the apostle meet their expectation? He fearlessly crushes it; gently insinuating that it had its origin rather in impositions practised upon them by false brethren, than in any spontaneous leanings to it among themselves. He "beseeches them, by" (or rather, concerning*) "the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ," which was dear to all alike, "and" the transporting prospect of "our gathering together unto him," to give no heed to the insinuation, from whatever quarter it might come, "that the day of Christ was at hand."

No such entreaty, we may safely affirm, would ever come from a premillennialist—at least of the modern school. He would be afraid of "destroying the possibility of watching." So much, indeed, is this warning in their way, that they take pains to show that our version conveys an erroneous impression of the apostle's meaning, and that the Thessalonian notion was, that the coming of Christ was "imminent,” or momentarily to be looked for. Be it so, and what is gained? Let it be conceded that the Thessalonians thought themselves already in the thick of the events which were to usher in the second advent; the question is not what the Thessalonians thought about the day of Christ, but what the apostle says in opposition to their thought. The writers I allude to affirm that the apostle meant only to deny that the day of Christ had begun, or was actually present, while he wrote that "the streaks of dawn" were to be then discerned-that

* της πὲρ τῆς παρουσίας. “So Rom. ix. 27, ὑπὲρ τοῦ Ἰσραήλ, concerning Israel. And though the other sense of rig be an unquestionable one, yet on a consideration of the whole passage, taken in connection with chap. iv. of the former epistle, I think it less suitable here. He is going to speak to them on a subject concerning which they had been troubled, and the con'nection of the verses immediately preceding, chap. i. 7-10, is marked by the particle dì, but."-(Hints for an Improved Translation of the New Testament, by the Rev. JAMES SCHOLEFIELD, Regius Professor of Greek in the University of Cambridge, &c., 3d edition, pp. 115, 116.)

the moment for his appearing had yet arrived. But what unbiased reader would so understand the passage? Does not the apostle, in the following verses, expressly intimate that a long and complicated series of events had to be developed, the very commencement of which was retarded by an obstacle then in being while he wrote? And is it conceivable that, at the very time when he was announcing this, and announcing it for the very purpose of crushing the expectation of an immediate appearing, he should nevertheless have meant them to expect it any day, or very speedily? * So manifestly does this famous passage in Thessalonians

* “It was not possible," says MEDE, the prince of premillennialists, and the most sagacious of the students of chronological prophecy, "the apostles should expect the end of the world to be in their own time, when they knew so many things were to come to pass before it as could not be fulfilled in a short time. As, 1. The desolation of Jerusalem, and that not till the seventy weeks were expired; 2. The Jews to be carried captives over all nations, and Jerusalem to be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles should be fulfilled; 3. That in the mean time the Roman empire must be ruined, and that which hindered be taken out of the way; 4. That, after this was done, the Man of Sin should be revealed, and domineer his time in the temple and Church of God. . . . . . 7. That the time should be so long, that in the last days should come scoffers, saying, 'Where is the promise of his coming?' How is it possible they should imagine the day of doom to be so near, when all these things must first come to pass, and not one of them was yet fulfilled? . Notwithstanding all this, I make no question but, even in the apostles' times, many of the believing Gentiles, mistaking the apostles' admonitions to the Jews of the end of their state approaching, thought the end of the whole world, and the day of the Lord, had been also near; whom, therefore, St Paul (2 Thess. ii.) beseeches to be better informed, because that day should not come until the apostasy came first, and the Man of Sin were revealed." (Apostasy of the Latter Times, chap. xv. Works, book iii.)

66
I was so

"The apostle's expression," says Bishop HORSLEY-also a premillennialist-speaking of the fourth chapter of 1st Thessalonians, strong, that his meaning was mistaken, or as I rather think, misrepresented. There seems to have been a sect in the apostolic age, in which sect, however, the apostles themselves were not, as some have absurdly maintained, included; but there seems to have been a sect which looked for the resurrection in their own time. Some of these persons seem to

destroy the modern theory of watching for the coming of Christ, that it has been found necessary to qualify the theory to some extent. Events, it is admitted, may be announced as preceding the second advent; but "the interposition of an event is very different from the interposition of a period: the latter seems to be incompatible with watchfulness, but not the former; especially when the event is said to be already in progress, as is done by the apostle when he says, The mystery of iniquity doth already work.' For this no time is given, and it is the absence of time that is the foundation of watchfulness: It is the presence of time as an element that destroys the possibility of watching; and it is the absence of that element that produces the watchful spirit." "'*

6

This distinction, however, between events and periods does nothing to save the new theory; for, as we have seen, the events interposed by the Lord himself and by his apostles before the second advent, are such as no one in the apostolic age, rightly apprehending them, could imagine to be possibly over in his own day. To such, therefore, "the possibility of watching for Christ's coming" was as effectully "destroyed" by interposed events as by interposed periods.

Besides, are not periods interposed as well as events? So soon as the Apocalypse came into general circulation, the Church knew that Antichrist's career would extend over a

have taken advantage of St Paul's expressions in this passage, to represent him as favouring their opinion. This occasioned the second epistle to the Thessalonians, in which the apostle peremptorily decides against that doctrine, maintaining that the Man of Sin is to be revealed, and a long consequence of events to run out, before the day of judgment can come; and he desires that no expression of his may be understood of its speedy arrival; which proves that whatever he had said of the day of his coming as at hand, was to be understood only of the certainty of that coming." (Serm. i.) In a previous part of the same sermon, the Bishop more fully develops the sense in which he understands the day of Christ to have been "at hand" in the apostles' days.

* Dr H. Bonar (Prophetical Landmarks, p. 91), quoted with approbation by the Duke of Manchester, p. 281.

certain definite period-expressed in the three forms of "days," "months," and "times." An attempt is made to blunt the force of this fact, by alleging that symbolical language, and the shortest periods, were purposely selected, to prevent the Church being lulled into security by a plain disclosure of the time. It has not, however, deterred the writer whose argument I am now examining from lifting the veil, and intimating that a definite period of twelve hundred and sixty years was intended by these mystic numbers as the time of Antichrist's reign. He will, probably, console himself with the thought, that, living in a day when the expiry of this period may be speedily expected, he is in no danger of being lulled by his knowledge of the time, or hindered by it from watching for his Lord's coming. But did not others arrive at the same conclusion long ago, as to these 1260 years of Antichrist's reign? As early, at least, as the Reformation, this was becoming the decided judgment of divines; and as the views of the students of prophecy, after that, grew more definite, calculations were ventured on as to "the time of the end," most of which threw it considerably beyond their own, day. This remark applies to some of the most eminent premillennialists, quite as much as to the other students of the prophetic word. Now, my question is, Did these good men and able divines destroy by their calculations the possibility of their watching for Christ? Absurd surely it were to affirm this; and yet if not, how worthless is this whole theory of watching? *

It might strengthen these remarks to advert to the view which the early chiliasts took of the dates. They appear, for example, to have adopted universally the Jewish tradition,

*These remarks on the 1260 years do not apply to those (such as the Duke of Manchester) who take the "days" literally, as denoting just three years and a half. I cannot go into that question here; and am content to leave the matter, as far as they are concerned, to rest upon the events interposed before the second advent, which I think quite sufficient to settle it, independently of the periods..

*

that, after a six thousand years' duration of the world, there would be a sabbatical millenary; and, as they identified this with the millennial reign of Christ and his saints, it is not very easy to see how, with all their ignorance of the true chronology of the world, they could look for the second advent quite so soon as the new theory requires. One thing is certain, that LACTANTIUS-a chiliast of the fourth century -did not look for the second advent sooner than about two hundred years; and this, be it observed, he gives as the result. of inquiries into the subject by all those most skilled in such matters. †

"This statement," says Mr Wood, (p. 398), "exposes unpardonable ignorance on Mr Brown's part. Cyprian, who died, A. D. 258, speaks of the six thousand years as nearly run out in his time; and he, I believe, is the first of the fathers who makes use of that tradition to fix the date of the advent." Those who accuse others of ignorance should take especial care to be well informed themselves. Mr Wood gives Mr Elliott as his authority for his historical statements; but his authority is against him. "Among the Christian fathers," says Mr Elliott, "that succeeded on the apostolical age, this view of the matter (the tradition of a sabbatical millennium of the world) was universally received and promulgated."— (Elliott's Hora, iv. 229, fourth edition.) So far from Cyprian being the first of the fathers to make use of this tradition, I had read it from Barnabas downwards, long before I saw Mr Elliott's extracts. It is with regret that I repeat this note, and only in case this offensive charge should meet the eye of my readers.

+"Fortasse nunc quispiam requirat, quando ista quæ diximus sint futura: jam superius ostendi. Completis annorum sex millibus, mutationem ipsam fieri oportere: et jam propinquare illum summum conclusionis extremæ diem, de signis, quæ a prophetis dicta sunt, licet noscere. Prædixerunt enim signa, quibus consummatio temporum expectanda sit nobis in singulos dies, atque timenda. Quando tamen compleatur hæc summa, docent ii qui de temporibus scripserunt, colligentes ex literis, sanctis, et ex variis historiis, quantus sit numerus annorum ab exordio mundi: qui licet varient, et aliquantulum numeri eorum summa dissentiat, omnis tamen expectatio non amplius quam ducentorum videtur annorum. (DIV. INSTIT. lib. vii. c. xxv.)

Mr Wood charges me with misrepresenting Lactantius in the text. If so, I have at least provided the antidote, by printing his own words. Lactantius's object and mine being different, there is naturally