1. Now the man of sin is said to have sat in the temple of God, showing 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 apostles 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 govern ments have likewise done: they opposed the propagation of Christianity from motives of worldly policy; they feared least the Romans should come and take away both their place and nation. 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. It 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 Bp. 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 deter+ mining which of them produces the most natural and obvious interpretation of it, 2. The man of sin is further said to come with all power, and signs, and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of un righteousness 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 even when the temple was in flames, they encouraged thém '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 impostors. Here, as well as in the former instance, I can dis cover 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. 3. 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. To these remarks, which Mr. Nisbett drew upon himself, he has made an angry reply in the Gentleman's Magazine, Vol. Ixxviii. p. 1158. I have answered him in the same periodical work, Vol. lxxix. p. 228. Such being the case, I think it superfluous to say any thing more on the subject. April 24, 1809. FINIS. 1. T Law and Gilbert, Printers, St. John's Square, London. Lately published, by F. C. and J. RIVINGTON, in Two Volumes, Octavo, Price, in Boards, 17s. the Second Edition, revised and corrected, of CONVERSION, RESTORATION, UNION, AND FUTURE GLORY, OF THE HOUSES OF JUDAH AND ISRAEL; ΤΗΣ PROGRESS, AND FINAL OVERTHROW OF THE ANTICHRISTIAN AND THE. ULTIMATE GENERAL DIFFUSION OF CHRISTIANITY. BY THE REV. GEORGE STANLEY FABER, B.D. RECTOR OF REDNARSHALL, IN THE COUNTY OF Durnam. |