as if he was not satisfied himself with his own explication. "The apostacy is the revolt of the Jews from the Roman empire, or from the faith." If the former it is the same mistaken notion as Le Clerc's. If the latter, it is true that many were to apostatize from the faith, before the destruction of Jerusalem, according to the preiction of our Saviour: but it doth not appear that their number was so very great, as to deserve to be called by way of eminence and distinction 'the apostacy.' "The man of sin' is the Jewish nation with their high-priest and sanhedrim." But the Jewish

nation with their high-priest and sanhedrim could not be said to apostatize' from the faith which they never received; and those Christian Jews, who did apostatize, were never united under any one head or leader, famous or infamous enough to merit the title of the man of sin.' The Jewish nation too with their high-priest and sanhedrim were already revealed: and most of the instances which this author allegeth, of their opposing the Christian religion, and exalting themselves above all laws divine and human, were prior to the date of this Epistle. He was himself aware of this objection, and endeavours to prevent it by saying, " that these are the descriptions of the man of sin, by which the Thessalonians might then know him, and they run all in the present tense, showing what he already did." But it is the known and usual style of prophecy to speak of things future as present, intimating that though future, they are as sure and certain as if they were even now present.— "He who now letteth' is the Roman emperor Claudius, and he will let until he be taken out of the way,' that is, he will hinder the Jews from breaking out into an open rebellion in his time, they being so signally and particularly obliged by him." But how utterly improbable it is, that the apostle should talk and write of Jewish politics to Gentile converts! If Claudius withheld the Jews from revolting from the Roman government, did he withhold them also from apostatizing from the Christian faith? or what is that withheld them? and what then becomes of that interpretation? “When Claudius shall be taken out of the way, as he was by poison, then they 'shall be revealed,' either by actual apostacy from the Roman government, or by the great apostacy of the believers of that nation." But the apostacy of believers was not near so 'great' nor universal as the apostacy from the Roman government. Here too is the same ambiguity and uncertainty as before. The prophecy plainly intends, one sort of apostacy, and this learned commentator proposeth two, and inclines sometimes to the one, and sometimes to the other, as may best suit his hypothesis. He is guilty too of the same incon

sistency as Le Clerc, in interpreting the coming of Christ' in the former Epistle, and in this Epistle, and in the first verse of this very chapter, of his coming to judge the world; and yet in verse the eighth, of his coming to destroy Jerusalem. But if the destruction of Jerusalem only was meant, what need had the Thessalonians to be under such consternation, to be shaken in mind,' and to be 'troubled,' that 'the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost,' as the apostle saith, 1 Thess. ii. 15, 16,-who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men, forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles, that they might be saved.' It was matter of consolation, rather than of trouble or terror to the Thessalonians; and as such the apostle mentions it in his former Epistle.

5. But of all the applications of this prophecy none is more extraordinary than that of the late professor Wetstein, the learned and laborious editor of the New Testament with various readings and copious annotations. "By the man of sin' and 'the wicked one' he understands Titus or the Flavian family. The mystery of iniquity' was then 'working,' because at the time Vespasian had borne the office of consul, had received the honours of a triumph, and even under Caligula had entertained some hopes of the empire. He who letteth' was Nero, who was now adopted by the emperor."* One is really ashamed and grieved to see a scholar and critic fall into such absurdities. What! was Titus then, as well as the emperor Julian, an 'apostate?' Was he who was one of the best emperors, "the love and delight of mankind," to be branded with the odious appellations of the man of sin' and 'the wicked one?' Even Domitian was not worse than several other emperors both before and after him. How did Titus and the Flavian family oppose and exalt themselves above every God or emperor? How did they 'as God sit in the temple of God, showing themselves that they were Gods?' Why was Vespasian's hoping for the empire the mystery of iniquity,' more than Galba's, or Otho's, or Vitellius's hoping for the same? When Nero was taken out of the way,' were not these three emperors, Galba, Otho, and Vitellius, all 'revealed' before the Flavian family? How was the coming' of Titus and the Flavian family, with all power, and signs, and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness?' How were their adherents and

* Intelligo Titum sive domum Flaviam-Musnρion Ts avoμias, Eo tempore Vespasianus consulatum jam gesserat, triumphalia acceperat, et jam sub Caio in spem imperii venerat. 'O xxxv, Nero Jam adoptatus erat &c. [Translated in the text.] Wetstenins in locum

followers such eminently as 'received not the love of the truth that they might be saved, but believed a lie, that they might be damned, and had pleasure in unrighteousness?' How were Titus and the Flavian family destroyed in the destruction of Jerusalem, when they were themselves the destroyers of it, and reigned several years afterwards? Was there an illustrious coming of Christ, when Titus or any of the Flavian family died? Or how can the Lord be said to consume them with the spirit of his mouth, and to destroy them, with the brightness of his coming? It surpasseth all comprehension how this learned professor could think of such an application, without asking himself some such questions; or how he could ask himself any such questions, without clearly perceiving the impossibility of answering them. We cannot suppose that he would have made a compliment of his religion, but he hath certainly of his understanding, to Cardinal Quirini, in this instance as well as in his com ment upon the Revelation," which, as he humbly hopeth, will not displease his eminency, and then he shall be transcender tly happy."

It is a farther objection to Wetstein, as also to Grotius, Hammond, Le Clerc, and Whitby, that they are so singular in their opinions; they differ as much from one another, as from the generality of interpreters; and as they dissent from all who went before them, so they are followed by none who come after them. If this prophecy was fulfilled, as these critics conceive, before the destruction of Jerusalem, it is surprising that none of the fathers should agree with any of them in the same application, and that the discovery should first be made sixteen or seventeen hundred years after the completion. The fathers might differ and be mistaken in the circumstances of a rophecy which was yet to be fulfilled; but that a prophecy should be remarkably accomplished before their time, and they be totally ignorant of it, and speak of the accomplishment as still future, is not very credible, and will always be a strong presumptive argument against any such interpretation. The foundation of all the mistakes. of these learned men is their interpreting the coming of Christ,' of the destruction of Jerusalem; whereas the context, as it hath been shown, plainly evinces, and they themselves at other times acknowledge, that it is to be understood of his coming to judge the world. They therefore bid fairer for the true interpretation, who apply this prophecy to events after the destruction of Jerusalem.

6. Of those who apply this prophecy to events after the destruc-

- cui si, uti spero, vel interpretationem Apocalypseos, vel conatum saltem meum non displicuisge intellexero, sublimi feriam sidera vertice. [Translated in the text.] Idem. de. Interpret. Apoc. Tom. 2, p. 894.

tion of Jerusalem, some papists, and some persons who think like papists, contend, that the character of the man of sin' was drawn for the great impostor Mohammed: and it must be confessed, that the portrait resembles him in many respects. He was indeed a 'man of sin' both in life and in doctrine. He might be said to 'sit in the temple of God,' when he converted the churches into mosques He likewise rose upon the ruins of the Roman empire; and the Roman empire is generally thought to be 'what withholdeth.' But though some features are alike, yet others are very much unlike, and demonstrates a manifest difference. He was not properly an 'apostate,' for he and his countrymen, the Arabians, were not Christians, but Heathens, though he made many Christians afterwards apostatize from the faith. The mystery of iniquity,' as we have seen, was 'working' in the days of the apostles: but there were not then any indications of the rise and increase of Mohammedism; it sprung up of a sudden like a mushroom, whose seeds the winds scattered over the face of the earth. The apostacy' was to precede and introduce 'the man of sin;' but this man of sin was the first author of this apostacy. And what is the most material, he never pretended to confirm his mission, or authorize his doctrine by miracles. 'His coming was not with all power, and signs, and lying wonders:' on the contrary, he declared, that "God had sent Moses and Jesus with miracles, and yet men would not be obedient to their word; and, therefore, he had now sent him in the last place without miracles, to force them by the power of his sword to do his will.” Some of his followers have ascribed miracles to him: but, as Dr. Prideaux observes, "those who relate them are only such who are reckoned among their fabulous and legendary writers Their learned doctors renounce them all, as doth Mahommed himself, who, in several places in his Koran, owns that he wrought no mi racles. *

7. Others of the papists affirm, that the apostacy' is the falling away from the church of Rome by the doctrines of the Reformation. But who then is the man of sin,' Luther and his followers, or Calvin and his followers, or who? for the protestants are far from being united under any one head. Which of the protestant churches exalts herself above every God and magistrate? Which of them. arrogates to herself divine honours and titles? Which of them pretends to establish her doctrine and discipline by miracles? These things would be ridiculously and absurdly objected to the protes

* See Prideaux's Life of Mahomet, p. 26 and 28, 8th edit. 1723.

tant churches, and more ridiculously and absurdly still by the mem bers of the church of Rome,

8. The greater part of the Romish doctors, it must be confessed. give another interpretation, and acknowledge, that "the fathers and the best interpreters understand this unanimously of Antichrist, who will appear in the world before the great day of judgment, to combat religion and the saints."* But then they conceive that Antichrist is not yet revealed, that he is only one man, and that he will continue only three years and a half. But we have shown before, that the man of sin' is not a single man, any more than the whore of Babylon' is a single woman. The one as well as the other is to be understood of a whole order and succession of persons. The mystery of iniquity' was working, and preparing the way for 'the man of sin,' even in the apostles' days; and is it not very extraordinary, that 1700 years should elapse, and that he should not yet be revealed? What withholdeth,' they say, was the Roman empire; and the Roman empire might be powerful enough to hinder his appearance at that time, but how hath it withheld and hindered all this while? As this evil began in the apostles' days, and was to continue in the world till the second coming of Christ in power and great glory: it necessarily follows, that it was to be carried on not by one man, but by a succession of men in several ages. It cannot be taking root and growing imperceptibly 1700 years and more, and yet flourish under its chief head only three years and a half. There needeth not, surely, so much preparation for so little effect. Neither are three years and a half a period sufficient for Antichrist to act the parts, and to fulfil the characters which are assigned him; unless he hath also this property of divinity, that one day is with him as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.'

III. The detection of falsehood is the next step towards the discovery of truth and having seen how this passage hath been mistaken and misapplied by some famous commentators, we may be the better enabled to vindicate and establish what we conceive to be the only true and legitimate application. The Thessalonians, from some expressions in the former epistle, were alarmed as if the end of the world was at hand, and Christ was coming to judgment. The apostle, to correct their mistakes and dissipate their fears,

* Les Peres, et les meilleurs interprétes entendent unanimement ceci de l'AnteChrist, qui doit paroitre dans le monde avant le grand jour du judgement, pour combattre la religion et les saints. [Translated in the text.] Calmet. Comment. et Dis Bertation sur l'Ante-Christ.