Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

No. II.

A pamphlet has been recently published by Mr. Nisbett, on the man of sin, in which, reviving the opinions of some former commentators, he endeavours to prove, that by that mysterious character we are to understand the Jewish nation considered collectively; by his apostasy, the revolt of the Jews from the Romans; and by the coming of Christ to destroy him, the figurative manifestation of our Lord in the destruction of Je

rusalem.

As I have written nothing myself on the subject, but have only expressed my unreserved approbation of what Bp. Newton has said on it, it might appear officious in me to animadvert upon Mr. Nisbett's pamphlet if he had not done me the honour to introduce my name into it. Because I deny the Pope to be the atheistical Antichrist of St. John and the wilful king of Daniel, he thinks I make a strange inference when I assert, that the prophecy respecting the man of sin has been accomplished in the Papacy; and, since (according to his idea) the church of Rome is not properly and strictly speaking apostate, he conceives, that the inference should have been, even according to my own principles, that the prophecy was not accomplished in the Popes *. He elsewhere charges me with having marred the symmetry of my system, by connecting together St. Paul's prediction and the Apocalypse without a shadow of proof that they are so connected; inasmuch as I have denied (so Mr. Nisbett asserts) the church of Rome to be an apostate church throughout the whole of my work †.

While I acknowledge my obligations to Mr. Nisbett for the polite manner in which he has spoken of me, I cannot refrain from expressing my surprize that he should hazard such very unguarded assertions. I draw no inference from my denial. of the Pope's being Antichrist and the wilful king, that the phecy respecting the man of sin has been accomplished in the Papacy: I merely affert, on the authority of Bp. Newton's Dissertation, that that prophecy has been exactly accomplished

[blocks in formation]

pro

in the Papacy; and deny, that the prophecies either of Antichrist or the wilful king have been accomplished in the Papacy. This opinion I still hold; but, as for an inference, I drew none whatsoever.

Because Mr. Nisbett takes up the idea, that Apostasy, when understood in a religious sense, must mean an abjuration of Christianity, he censures me for applying the apostasy of the man of sin to Popery, and charges me with being guilty of a manifest inconsistency. Before he passed this censure, he ought to have shewn, both that such must be the exclusive meaning of a religious apostasy, and that I maintained such to be the meaning of it. He has done neither. For my own part, so far from subscribing to the propriety of his definition, I directly controvert it. A religious apostasy is simply a departure from the purity of the faith; and may be to a greater, or to a smaller, extent. It by no means necessarily involves a formal abjuration of Christianity. Accordingly St. Paul considers the giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines concerning demons as sufficient to constitute men apostates, though they should not go the length of renouncing the whole of the faith and, upon this apostolical authority, Mede and Newton scruple not to pronounce the corrupt church of Rome to be an apostate church. In this sense therefore of the word Apostasy, I have been guilty of no inconsistency in applying the Apostasy of the latter days and the man of sin to Popery: in Mr. Nisbett's sense of the word, I never thought of so applying it.

He further declares, that throughout my whole work I deny the church of Rome to be apostate. This assertion, like the former one, is made, I apprehend, on the ground that religious apostasy must exclusively mean a direct abjuration of Christianity. At least I can account for it in no other way. So far from my denying the Church of Rome to be apostate in St. Paul's sense of the word, the whole of my work is built on the principle its being apostate. In my very title-page, the papal superstition is styled the papal apostasy. At the very opening of my work, I carefully discriminate between individual apostasy, and the authorized apostasy of a community. And, through

out

out the whole treatise, the words apostate and apostasy repeatedly occur in application to the church of Rome.

He says, that I connect St. Paul's prophecy and the Apocalypse together without a shadow of proof. This is a very unfair representation. It is true, I no where prove their connection, because I professedly avoid discussing the character of the man of sin: but, when I unreservedly declare my assent to Bp. Newton's exposition of his character, it is obvious that for the proof of its connection with the Apocalypse I refer the reader to the Bishop's exposition. This connection his Lordship appears to me to have proved almost beyond a possibility of doubt.

Here I might fairly be allowed to stop, but the love of truth induces me to add a few more observations. As for Bp. Newton, his Dissertation requires no defence either by me or by any other person. He has so fully considered the matter, that he has altogether exhausted the subject. He has shewn, completely to my own satisfaction, that the prophecy agrees in every particular with its supposed completion; and consequently, according to a rule of my own which Mr. Nisbett honours with the flattering appellation of excellent, I must allow his interpretation to be valid. Respecting the Bishop therefore I shall say nothing, but shall proceed to examine how far his opponent's system will bear to be tried by the same rule.

If the man of sin be the whole body of the Jewish nation previous to the sacking of Jerusalem, then that nation must have performed all that is ascribed to the man of sin.

Now the man of sin is said to have sat in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. How did the Jewish nation do this? Mr. Nisbett refers us to the conduct of the High Priest and the Sanhedrim. Because these commanded the aposties not to speak in the name of Jesus, and because they held their court in the temple, they arrogated to themselves a divine authority, and might therefore be said to sit in the temple of God-But how was this actually shewing themselves that they were God? They did what many secular governments have likewise done: they opposed the propagation of Christianity

Christianity from motives of worldly policy; they feared least the Romans should come and take away both their place and uation. What has been so repeatedly done by various governments, is no distinctive badge of any. Nor is this all: the action of the Sanhedrim by no means comes up to the action so definitely ascribed to the man of sin. If we be allowed to say, that the Sanhedrim sat in the temple of God and shewed themselves that they are God, simply because they forbad the preaching of the Apostles; we may be allowed to explain away the most definite expressions of prophecy. Had St. Paul meant no more than what Mr. Nisbett ascribes to him, it is incredible that he would have used language which requires to be tortured into the right explanation. Let the reader compare together Ep. Newton's unconstrained ease, and his antagonist's painful laboriousness, in explaining this part of the prophecy; and I think he cannot long hesitate in determining which of them produces the most natural and obvious interpretation of it.

The man of sin is further said to come with all power, and signs, and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighte ousness in them that perish; and it is declared that God should send those persons strong delusion, so that they should believe a lie. What miracles did the body of the Jewish nation work for the purpose of deceiving others? Mr. Nisbett replies, that many impostors arose among the Jews, who deceived the people; that, under the pretence of a divine impulse, they made the people mad and led them into the wilderness, promising there to them signs of liberty from God; and that, even when the temple was in flames, they encouraged them to expect that God would assist them-But how does this come up to the plain import of the prophecy? According to St. Paul, the man of sin was to work lying miracles for the purpose of deceiving, not himself of course, but them that perish in consequence of their taking pleasure in unrighteousness. According to Mr. Nisbett's interpretation, the man of sin, that is the body of the Jewish nation, did not come with lying wonders to deceive others; but was himself deceived by the lying wonders, or rather the promised lying wonders, of certain VOL. II. M M

impostors.

1

impostors. Here, as well as in the former instance, I can discover nothing like any accomplishment of the prophecy..

These remarks alone seem to me sufficient to invalidate the whole plan of Mr. Nisbett's interpretation: the prophecy has not been accomplished in the Jewish nation; therefore the Jewish nation cannot be intended by the man of sin.

I shall conclude with two remarks of Bp. Newton. The first is, if we may rely upon the concurring testimonies of the fathers, that which letted the revelation of the man of sin was the Roman empire; hence the primitive Christians prayed for its preservation, as expecting that this great enemy' of real religion would be revealed when the Roman empire was removed. The second is, that, if this prophecy were fulfilled before the destruction of Jerusalem, it is surprizing that none of the fathers should ever suspect that it was then fulfilled; but, on the contrary, should speak of its accomplishment as still future. Justin Martyr, Irenèus, Tertullian, Origen, Lactantius, Cyril, Ambrose, Jerome, Austin, Chrysostome, all agree in this point; all equally consider the prophecy as an unfulfilled one; all suppose the man of sin to be the same as the little horn of Daniel's fourth beast: and it is not a little extraordinary, if the interpretation which Mr. Nisbett has adopted be the true one, that it should never have been thought of until sixteen or seventeen centuries subsequent to the accomplishment of the prophecy. In short, after carefully comparing together the expositions of Mr. Nisbett and the Bishop, I am even more firmly persuaded than ever I was that his Lordship's views of the subject are perfectly accurate.

FINIS.

Printed by Luke Hansard & Sons,
near Lincoln's-Inn Fields.

« PreviousContinue »