the Apostle designed to correct them. What we now have to attend to is, the period assigned by the apostle for this glorious advent of the Redeemer. Guarding them against deceivers, he assures them that that day should not come except there come a falling away first, and that Man of sin be revealed-the Son of Perdition. He proceeds to state the character of Antichrist, (as recognized by Protestant commentators,) and having adverted to the barrier which the dominant power of Rome Pagan opposed to his manifestation, till taken out of the way, he adds, (ver. 8,) "And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the Spirit of his mouth, and DESTROY WITH THE BRIGHTNESS OF HIS COMING."* This coming must therefore be before the Millennium; and if it be of a personal nature, in the second verse, it must be the same in the eighth. The same word is used in both cases; and to imagine that the apostle, while professedly correcting a mistake into which his readers had fallen, about the personal coming of the Lord, should, instead, inform them of the period of a spiritual advent, without

Dr. Wardlaw (p. 519, et seq.) not only admits the accuracy of the above substitution of “concerning the coming of our Lord," instead of "by the coming," as given in our translation, (making the correction in quoting the passage,) but states it to have been the apostle's object here to correct the misapprehension which had arisen from the expressions in his first epistle concerning the personal coming of the Lord. Considering the misapprehension to have arisen from the apostle's "use of the pronoun we in his first epistle, Are we not necessitated," he asks, "to consider the correction of it as amounting to an intimation that the day of the Lord was not to be expected within so short a time" as a life-time? Again he says, (p. 522,) that the apostle gave them "the plainest intimation that the day in question, [the day of the Lord,] was not to come till events had happened which did not admit of its being at hand' in the sense in which they had by mistake supposed it; that is within their own life-time." But those "events" to which the Doctor alludes, are the rise, and manifestation, and destruction of the Man of sin, events which will all have happened before the Millennium; and we do think it remarkable, that while the Doctor takes so correct a view of the connection in which the mistake of the Thessalonians, "concerning the coming of the Lord" and the correction of that mistake by the apostle, that he should have quoted the entire passage without taking the slightest notice of the time at which the apostle does say the coming of Christ will take place; and that while Paul does inform them that before the coming of Christ, the Man of sin had to come into being and acquire an ascendancy, that he also affirms that "by the brightness of His coming" this Wicked shall be destroyed.

giving them any intimation of the substitution, is to suppose him guilty of a sophism which would not be practised by any honest man. Besides, it deserves to be remarked, that the word here translated "brightness," Parkhurst observes, the Greek writers particularly apply to the appearance of some deity. In Scripture it is never used but to denote a personal manifestation, as in the following passages relative to Christ's glorious appearance at His return: "I charge thee, therefore, before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;" 2 Tim, iv. 1. "That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ;" 1 Tim. vi. 14. Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;" Titus ii. 13. "Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, shall give me at that day; and not to me only, but unto all them also that love His appearing." 2 Tim. iv. 8. In these instances, the word translated "appearing," and appearance" is the very word translated "brightness" in the passage before us. How then is it possible to evade the conclusion that Christ's return will take place at the

*

66

Any general remarks on Dr. Hamilton's mode of treating the three Greek nouns used in the New Testament to signify the advent of Christ, are unnecessary, as Mr. Cunninghame-whose thorough acquaintance with the Originals, eminently fits him for the workhas in his several pamphlets so fully taken up this part of the argument. We merely observe on the above passage, that the Doctor's method of getting through the overwhelming evidence it contains of the Saviour's personal return at the destruction of Antichrist is abundantly easy. Assuming that he formerly came at the destruction of Jerusalem-next declaring that he did not then come in person and lastly asserting, that "His advent is represented in the same terms on the two latter occasions," he speedily arrives at the conclusion, (p. 238,) that "the presumption certainly is, that he will not come in person, either at the overthrow of Antichrist, or the introduction of the Millennium"-between which events he marvellously interposes 75 years, (p. 236,) and seems to imagine he has thus fully confuted Mr. Cunninghame's argument!!

This is the passage to which we formerly referred as "the sole apparent evidence" which "after long thought" Mr. Faber discovered. It may therefore be interesting to notice the means by which he succeeds in evading it. This he does simply by supposing that from a forged letter the Thessalonian church had been deceived into an expectation of the immediate FIGURATIVE advent of Christ to destroy the Man of sin!!

destruction of Antichrist ?-"And then shall that Wicked རྒྱུ་ revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the Spirit of His mouth, [as has been witnessed since the Reformation,] and shall destroy with the brightness [or glorious ap pearance]" of HIS COMING."

The same view of the coming of the Son of Man at th destruction of Antichrist is given by the prophet Daniel.] The seventh chapter of his prophecies contains the account of a dream, or vision, in which the prophet saw four beasts, which, Commentators are agreed, represent the great monarchies which have successively had dominion from that time till now-the Babylonian, the Medo-Persian, the Grecian, and the Roman. This last appeared to the prophet dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly, with great iron teeth, and as breaking in pieces, and stamping the residue with the feet of it, "and it had ten horns." While the prophet considered these horns-the kingdoms into which the Roman empire became divided-behold there came up among them, another little horn having eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great things, which "made war with the saints, and prevailed against them." This little horn, it is also agreed, is the Papal Antichrist. Contemplating this horn, the prophet "beheld till the thrones were cast down, [set or placed,] and the Ancient of Days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of His head like the pure wool; His throne was like the fiery flame, and His wheels as burning fire. A fiery stream issued and came forth from before Him; thousand thousands ministered unto Him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before Him: the judgment was set and the books were opened. I beheld then, because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake; I beheld even till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame. As concerning the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away, yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time. I saw in the night visions; and, behold, one like the Son of Man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of Days, and they brought Him near before Him. And there was given Him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and His

d ingdom that which shall not be destroyed."* Dan. v... 14. How fully does this confirm the view given by aul to the Thessalonians?

Under the representation of seven angels pouring out the ials of God's wrath upon the earth, the book of the Reveation contains a prediction of the judgments which precede

Dr. Hamilton, to supply the place of argument, gives an exract, (p. 234,) in which the Edinburgh Theological Magazine, ttempting to vindicate an absurd commentary which Mr. Cunningiame has exposed, concludes some equally pointless remarks on his passage, in the following words; "The Son of Man came to the Ancient of Days, or was brought near before Him. The only quesion then is, where has the Ancient of Days His abode? Where do he Scriptures uniformly represent Him as erecting His throne? If t be on earth, then the coming of the Son of Man was a descent according to Mr. Cunninghame; if it be in heaven, then the coming of the Son of Man was an ascent according to the interpreters, Maclaurin and Scott." The author of the above is certainly entitled to the merit of originality; and should this new species of argumentation ever become admissible, what are at present regarded as indubitable facts will be easily overthrown. If, for example, any gentleman, ignorant of the power and nature of Religious Criticism, should venture to mention his having been, in 1822, at the levee of his present Majesty, held in the palace of Holyrood, he might soon have occasion to blush for his temerity, and have his want of probity thus exposed by some acute reviewer: "Where does George the Fourth reside? Where is he uniformly represented as holding his Court? If in Edinburgh, then may you have been present at his levee in Holyrood; but, if in London, then, Sir, you endeavour to deceive." In the prophecy the point to be ascertained is not where the throne of the Ancient of Days is usually placed, but where He is represented as having set these thrones of judgment at the particular time specified. These cannot be confounded with the eternal throne of God. They are only placed while the transactions of the vision are being accomplished. The prophet beheld "till" they were set; and, instead of being in heaven, they are represented in the context as being placed upon the kingdoms described under the emblems of the four destructive beasts. Contemplating the Papal Antichrist which had risen among the other horns of the Roman empire, and considering this horn, whose look was more stout than his fellows, the prophet "beheld till the thrones were placed, and the Ancient of Days did sit" in judgment upon him. It was while these thrones were set, and judgment was being executed, that One like the Son of Man came from heaven, which must receive Him "until the times of Restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began."These" times" having now arrived, He comes "with the clouds of *heaven," and there is "given Him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages should serve Him."

N

the Millennium; by the last of which vials, Antichrist is to be finally destroyed. But after the account of the sixth, and before the out-pouring of the seventh vial, there is a remarkable parenthetical intimation given: "And the sixth angel poured out his vial upon the great river Euphrates, [in judgments upon the Turkish empire, symbolized by that river,] and the water thereof was dried up, that the way of the kings of [from] the east might be prepared, [probably the Israelites, called "princes," Ps. xlvii. 8, 9.] And I saw three unclean spirits, like frogs, come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet, for they are the spirits of devils working miracles, [signs or wonders,] which go forth unto the kings of the earth, and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty. (Behold I come as a thief; blessed is he that watcheth and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked and they see his shame.) And he gathered them together into a place called, in the Hebrew tongue, Armageddon." Then follow the judgments oft he last vial: "And the seventh angel poured out his vial," &c. Rev. xvi. 12-17. There is no such intimation as is here made of the coming of the Lord given between the out-pouring of any of the preceding vials, nor in any other of the prophetic parts of the book of the Revelation. And the figure used as a thief is that in which Christ himself foretold his personal advent: "Let your loins be girded about, and your lights burning, and ye yourselves like unto men that wait for their Lord, when He will return from the wedding....And this know, that if the good man of the house had known what hour the thief would come, he would have watched, and not have suffered his house to be broken through. Be ye therefore ready also, for the Son of Man cometh at an hour when ye think not." Luke xii. 35-40. The apostle Peter also assures us, "the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night." 2 Pet. iii. 10. This distinctive character of Christ's personal return might alone suggest that it is to the same advent the intimation between the sixth and seventh vials refers, Behold, I come as a thief." But when we reflect that Paul expressly asserts that the destruction of Antichrist is to be effected by the brightness of Christ's coming-that Daniel's vision presents the view of his coming with the clouds of heaven at the same time,—

66