"the influence of truth was very powerfully strengthened by an opinion, which, however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, has not been found agreeable to experience. It was universally believed that the end of the world and the kingdom of heaven were at hand. The near approach of this wonderful event had been predicted by the Apostles; the tradition of it was preserved by their earliest disciples; and those who understood in their literal sense the discourses of Christ himself, were obliged to expect the second and glorious coming of the Son of Man, in the clouds, before that generation was totally extinguished which had beheld his humble condition upon earth, and which might still be witnesses of the calamities of the Jews under Vespasian or Hadrian. The revolution of seventeen centuries has instructed us not to press too closely the mysterious language of prophecy and revelation; but as long as for wise purposes this error was permitted to subsist in the church, it was productive of the most salutary effects on the faith and practice of Christians, who lived in the awful expectation of that moment, when the globe itself, and all the various race of mankind, should tremble at the appearance of the divine Judge." (p. 185, edition 1830.)

-

This objection has never been answered, neither is there any existing religious body that can answer it. Bishop Watson, in his 'Apology for Christianity,' in reply to Gibbon, has said, "The Apostles knew but in part; and concerning this particular point (to wit, the coming of Christ to judge the world,) Jesus himself had told them, just as he was about finally to leave them, that it was "not for them to know the times and seasons which the Father had put in his own power." This is nothing to the point, as we shall presently show. Mr. Bush follows the Bishop of Llandaff, as appears from the following: "The Saviour expressly said, that it was not designed that the Apostles should know when future events would occur;" and in support of this Mr. B. quotes Acts i. 7, and Mark viii. 32. I answer, all this does not prove the Apostles' ignorance of the times and seasons,' but it does assuredly prove the ignorance of the Bishop and Mr. Bush. It was very true that the Apostles did not know the times,' before the death and ascension of Christ, and prior to the outpouring of the Holy Ghost; but it was not true after these events had taken place, for Paul, when writing to the Thessalonians says to them, "But of the times and seasons you have no need that I write unto you; for yourselves (not ourselves, the Apostles only,) know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night; for when they shall say, peace and safety, then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child, and they shall not escape. But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief." (1 Thess. v. 1.)

In this view, the illustration which Mr. B. brings forward in support of his position is overthrown. He says, "The Apostles were in fact ignorant and mistaken in regard to, at least, the time of the occurrence of one future event, the death of John, xxi. 23." The disciples were at that time certainly mistaken in supposing that John should not die, but they were not then inspired, for the Holy Ghost was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified, in the glorious death image of his mediatorial reign.

I know not that anything may be added to the above. When Mr. B. goes back to the prophets of the Old Testament for support, and quotes 1 Peter i. 10, 11, he ought to have also quoted verses 12 and 13, where he will read the infinite distance between the knowledge of the Apostles and that of Isaiah, David, John, &c. One great object of my work is to exhibit somewhat of the grandeur of the Apostolic ministry; therefore I need not enter into this question here.

When Mr. B. writes, "There is in the Scriptures no statement of the time when the world would close," he assumes that the Apostles held an' end of the world,' whereas they had no conception of such an absurdity. Mr. B. appears also to confound 'world' with 'age.' Moreover, he must have forgotten scriptures like the following, "All these things shall come upon this generation," or, " These be the days of vengeance for the fulfilment of all things written."

I contend that it does truly detract from Paul's (not Isaiah's,) claims to inspiration, if he have so stated what was revealed as to evince that he had in this respect mistaken its true purport. If the Apostles were mistaken in regard to their expectation of the speedy coming of Christ, they may be mistaken in other things; the Bible may be a mistake, and Gibbon's objection is in such case fatal.

Ꮓ

Note N.

Oftentimes when, in reading the Bible, some particular beauty of exposition strikes me, I say to myself, "Well, now I will take down Scott, and see what he says; ten to one there will be something supremely ridiculous." However, to my surprise, I read the following in Scott, on 1 Thess. iv. 15: "As the Apostle expressly declares that he spake by the word of the Lord,' or by divine inspiration, the consequences of allowing him to be mistaken in what he said should very seriously be considered." This overthrows not only Scott's exposition of 1 Thess. iv., but the whole superstructure of his commentary. Again, on the same chapter: "The resurrection of believers is exclusively meant, as every attentive reader must perceive, and therefore all speculations concerning the bodies with which the wicked shall arise (a subject on which the Scripture observes a profound silence,) must be wholly foreign to the subject." Do not the words in parentheses go very far to overthrow the common resurrection doctrine altogether? If Scripture is silent as to a resurrection of the bodies of the wicked, (for the admission amounts to this,) what right had Mr. Scott, or what right has any man, to assume that their bodies will rise? Again, on 2 Cor. iv. 18, Scott has, "They (the martyrs,) were fully assured that God would raise their mangled bodies from the grave!" and in 1 Cor. xv., we read, "The identity of the particles of matter, as necessary to the resurrection of the same body, is nowhere mentioned in Scripture; and this chapter strongly militates against this opinion!" What sense is there in either of these passages, taken separately or together? God raised Christ's mangled body; there was the print of the nails, the wound of the spear, &c. Here is another puzzle for dust resurrectionists. If Christ's resurrection be a pattern, the identity of our bodies must be preserved, in the marks that may be upon them. The whole affair is absurd in the extreme. A Baptist preacher was once describing the resurrection, "and," said he, "it will be like an immense cloud of dust arising out of the earth; a leg or an arm which has been buried in one part of the world, will be seen flying over to join the rest of the body, buried in another." From this we are to suppose, for instance, that the Marquis of Anglesea's leg, which he lost at Waterloo, will come flying across the channel to meet his Lordship's maimed body, which will doubtless be buried somewhere in England. I know not whether I am not deserving of censure for printing this, but it is the doctrine of the day. The doctrine of the day holds this, and many more things equally the ridicule of the infidel; for instance, if a person be born with any corporeal deficiency—without a leg-he will be raised at the last day without a leg, or else the same body cannot be raised. In 2 Sam. xxi. 20, we read," And there was yet a battle in Gath, where was a man of great stature, that had on every hand six fingers, and on every foot six toes, four-and-twenty in number, and he also was born to the giant." Query, Will this giant be raised at the last day with four-and-twenty fingers and toes?

There is yet one passage, which, not being expounded in the text of the treatise, I wish to mention here. I allude to 2 Cor. v. 10, " For we must all appear before the judgment-seat of Christ, that every one may receive the things done in his body." It will be observed that two words are in Italics; this is the key to a true exposition of the verse. A fellow-collegian of mine, and formerly my schoolmaster, was lately figuring at a 'no-popery' meeting in Blackburn. Having quoted some Romish dogma or other, he is reported to have said as follows:-"The word of God, on the other hand, said every man should give an account of himself, for the deeds done in the FLESH.' The word of God says no such thing. For a detailed exposition of this verse, I refer the reader to Mr. Wilkinson's Last Days,' p. 100. The proper translation reads thus, "That every one may receive the things in the body, according to that he hath done, whether good or bad;" meaning, the things done during the bodily state, which state was dissolved when prophecies failed, &c.

6

And here I may observe upon a common objection, "There are surely preachers now; did not Paul give directions to Timothy, The things that thou hast heard of me, among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.' Does not this argue the continuance of the whole, or some, of these offices in the church?"

I answer, 'ALL OR NONE.'-The Apostles were stewards of the mysteries of God. Paul writes, "A bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God." Stewardship implies trust, according as it is written; "For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods," &c. (Matt. xxv. 14,) saying, "OCCUPY TILL I COME."

(Luke xix. 12.) Well—there is a testator: this is the man travelling into a far country: the testator dies: he makes a will: the will comes into operation after he is dead: he has appointed in his will certain trustees or executors; the time of their trust is determined: the parties in whose favour the will is made are "Abraham's seed, heirs according to promise:" these are heirs, as minors, for the state of the church at the resurrection of Christ was new-born, (1 Peter ii. 2,) and so they were begotten again by the resurrection of Christ. They were children: "Beloved, now are we the sons of God;" and again, "if children then heirs." While they were as children, in the sonship state, the Lord had provided guardians, overseers, &c., for the work of the ministry, &c., that is, till the second appearing, when the minority should cease, the children having come to full age, to a perfect man, &c.

Paul's charge to Timothy is thus clearly expounded. If it be a man's testament or will, provision is made therein for the decease of the executors under the will, the same power devolving upon their heirs and assigns; or there is a power given to appoint others as successors, either in the event of death or the parties refusing to act, until the trusts in the will are fulfilled, but not after. So with the New Testament in Christ's blood; "As oft as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew forth the Lord's death till he come."

The question recurs, Where is the ministry? It is worthy of remark, by way of exhibiting the divine authority of the Apostolic ministry and of Apostolic succession up to the fall of Jerusalem, that all the writings on record of men who lived immediately after that period, are full of the most ridiculous nonsense, plainly demonstrating the time of the cessation of all ministry. See the Shepherd of Hermas,' &c., &c.

Note O.

The common interpretation of the word 'generation,' is that agreed upon by all good authorities. Whitby writes, that the words translated this generation,' never bear any other sense, in the New Testament, than 'THE MEN OF THIS AGE.' There is no greater critical authority than Whitby.

Doddridge has the following in a note on Matt. xxiv.

66

Though Brennius and Mede have here the honour to be followed by so great an authority as Dr. Sykes, yet I must beg leave to say, that I cannot think the texts they collect sufficient to prove that by this generation we are to understand the Jewish nation through all ages."

What matter, supposing this generation' may be rendered this nation?' Has not the Jewish nation ceased since the fall of Jerusalem ?-See Daniel xii. 7. I find a remark on this subject in the Anastasis of Mr. Bush. "We well know by what criticisms upon the word 'generation' it is attempted to rebut the force of the natural construction, and make it harmonise with an accomplishment that should first ensue hundreds and thousands of years after the life-time of the disciples. But after all, it is impossible to explain away the native and genuine import of the phrase. It is only by the most downright violence that we can elicit from the words anything but the declaration that the event predicted should occur in the term of the natural lives of the then existing generation of men." p. 199. As this is the last time I shall have occasion to mention Mr. B.'s work, I would beg again to suggest its perusal, as a startling objection to popular notions of the resurrection. The preface and introduction alone are worth the price of the volume.

For a full discussion of the word 'generation,' consult the Appendix to the 'Last Days.'

Note P.

Much stress is often laid on Acts i. 11, by those who are accustomed to interpret a divine revelation as that which they can see with their eyes, hear with their ears, and handle with their hands. The subjoined exposition is by Mr. Roe, and is quite satisfactory.

*

"The chief argument for a future literal coming is founded on the assumed principle that, as the fulfilment of prophecy was literal in the case of the first coming, it must be equally so in the second. The two cases, however, are essentially different. The first related to his personal manifestation, the second to his unseen agency. The first, therefore, even though expressed in figurative terms, required a literal fulfilment; but the second, even though expressed in literal

terms, a spiritual fulfilment. This view affords an easy explanation of the objector's last-cited text. The disciples had seen a cloud receive our Lord out of their sight, and were informed that he should 'so come in like manner,' that is, the likeness of literal to figurative, or of type to antitype, which, if we transfer ourselves to the time when this language was used, we shall perceive the dis ciples would be at no loss to understand it. They had been familiarized with it in the following passage of Isaiah," Behold, Jehovah rideth on a swift cloud, and shall come into Egypt: and the idols of Egypt shall be moved at his presence.' (xix. 1.) And our Lord's use of the same image, when speaking of his judicial coming, would lead them to assign the same meaning to it under this similar association. It is further remarkable, that Luke, as if to identify the meaning of the word cloud,' on both these occasions, uses it in the singular; whereas Matthew and Mark use it in the plural. Compare Luke xxi. 27, and Acts i. 11. The cloud in Isaiah is shown, by the context, to prefigure anarchy and invasion; and the cloud or clouds, in the other passages before us, the Roman armies. See also Jer. iv. 13; Dan. vii. 13: Rev. i, 7; and Professor Lee's Dissertations, p. 239243."-Biblical Inquirer, No. I.

I transcribe another note, bearing upon this subject.

"The words in Matt. xxvi. 64, translated hereafter ye shall see, and implying any future time, are, in the original an' agri oσe, henceforth ye shall see; as in Matt. xxiii, 39; xxvi. 29; Rev. xiv. 13. How were they to see him henceforth?' In the signs occurring at the crucifixion, resurrection, pentecost, &c., &c. In the corresponding text, Luke xxii. 69, the words, also translated hereafter, are, in the original, anо TOU VUV, literally, from now."

D. MARPLES, PRINTER, LIVERPOOL.