III. " So that he, as God."]-It is difficult to hazard a decided opinion as to whether this reading be erroneous. I must confess that I feel disposed to adopt the opinion of those learned men who, like Griesbach, reject the s Oog as an interpretation, because it appears to me, when viewed in conjunction with the words, "showing himself that he is God," to be a very useless pleonasm. Certain it is, they are not to be found in Pus Irenæus, Origen, Cyril, Jerome; in the Codex Alex, or the Vulgate; and though there are also very high authorities in its favour, yet it is still so doubtful, that it were a vain employment to build up any system of interpretation for this prediction, on so uncertain and debatable a foundation. Happily, too, there is no need of such a waste of time, for as our controversy here is with the Church of Rome, she has decided the matter in our favour herself, by rejecting the reading "as God" altogether. In her anthorised editions of the Vulgate, the words are omitted, and the prophecy runs thus-" ita ut in templo Dei sedeat," while in their authorised English version, there is the same omission, that translation running thus-“ Sa that he sitteth in the temple of God," thus erasing the words " as God" altogether. We need, therefore, be at no pains to discover the import of words which she has herself rejected altogether.

IV. [" He sitteth in the temple of God."]-St. Paul speaks in a variety of places of "the temple of God," and in all those places he means the Church of God, the body of Christians in general, or of individual believers in particular. He says, "Ye are built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone; in whom all the building, fitly framed together, groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord, in whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God, through the Spirit."-Eph. ii. 20; and again, "Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you: if any man defile the temple of God, him will God destroy, for the temple of God is holy, which temple are ye."-1 Cor. iii, 16: and again, "What agreement hath the temple of God with idols, for ye are the temple of the living God, as God hath said, I will dwell in them," &e.-2 Cor. vi. 16. In all these places, and, indeed, throughout St. Paul's writings, the import of the phrase is very plain, and, therefore, in his prophecy concerning "the man of sin," the phrase should be interpreted in the same way as every where else, so that, when he says that this man of sin "sitteth in the temple of God," he must be understood to teach that he is a member of the Church, and has his seat, or "chair," among the body of Christians. That this characteristic of the man of sin is strictly applicable to the papacy, requires no detail of proofs; for he sitteth in the Church, he holds his seat, or "chair," among the body of Christians, here called, as elsewhere, the temple of God, which is more than can be said of Mahomet, for although some pretend that it is applicable to him, because he converted some Christian temples into Mahometan mosques, yet it is certain that, in no one place in the whole New Testament, is the phrase "temple of God" applied merely to the building in which the congregation meets-it is only applied to the congregation itself.

It was a very weak argument for so clever a man as Cardinal Bellarmine to say, that if the papacy was the man of sin, whose seat was to be in the temple of God, then the Church of Rome, in which he sits, must be that temple, and, of course, the true Church of God: for that Roman Church is only a division of the universal Church, only one member of "the mystical body:" and though it be corrupt, and tainted, and infected with a fatal leprosy, still it is a member, one which will yet be cut off by

the great Physician of souls, but, until then, it continues a part or member of the mystical body, and a chamber of the temple of God, and, as might be expected, it is in that leprous member, or in that decayed and infectious chamber, that the man of sin does hold his "chair."

V. ["Showing himself that he is God."]-It is manifest that these words cannot be interpreted in a literal and proper sense, because it is utterly impossible that the man of sin, or any one else, not excepting Satan himself, could show himself literally and properly to be God!! They must does import that the man of sin would either assume the title of Deity, or claim e? { the attributes of Deity: this is the only possible way of expounding this place, if we take the word "God" in its strict sense. That this is applicable to the papacy is most evident, for all the names, style, and title of divinity have been assumed, as J. D. S. himself admits, though he strives to palliate the assumption, in a manner that reflects but little credit on himself. The title of God, God's Vicar, God upon earth, Lord God the Pope, King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, have all been assumed, and it is passing strange that any Protestant should endeavour to palliate such hideous blasphemies, in order to efface the brand of the man of sin from the forehead of the papacy! These men, too, have gone further, for they have assumed all the high prerogatives of the Godhead-infallibility, absolution from sin, changing the law of heaven, governing, as set to root up, pluck down, and destroy kingdoms, so that they show themselves to be God, not indeed literally and properly such, for that were impossible for them, or even for the arch-fiend himself, but so far as is possible for any created being. And let it be noted here, that this cannot be said of Mabomet, for, with all his impostures, he never affected the style or prerogative, the names or the powers of the Deity.

There is a somewhat curious effort made by J. D. S. to save the papacy from the name of Antichrist, as well as that of the man of sin, which, like all his other approaches to the form of criticism, do place his critical acumen in a very untoward" light. He says, that "it is the characteristic of Antichrist to exhibit himself in the stead of Christ," and in this he is very correct; but, strange to say, though he assures us that the pontiff exhibits himself as "Vicar" and as "Vicegerent" of Christ, yet he does not exhibit himself instead of Christ! J. D. S. very well knows that ȧvri signifies pro, vice, in loco, as well as contra, and that the word ȧrrißariλEVÇ is a viceroy, that is, one in the stead of the king, the vicar or representative of the king, and that the word ȧvoumaroc is a proconsul, that is, one in the stead of the consul, his vicar, or representative; and so the word ayrıXotros means one who is "in the stead of Christ," and is his "Vicar," his "Vicegerent," or " representative," as J. D. S. seems to admit, though with an inconsistency peculiarly his own, he struggles to vindicate, or rather to extricate, the papacy from the conclusions so palpably deducible

from this!

Leaving, however, the inconsistencies of this sagacious critic, I may proceed to observe, that there is another exposition of these words, "showing himself that he is God." When the word Oos occurs without the article, it may sometimes mean those temporal dignities which are called gods, as was before observed; but when the article is prefixed, it imports the one true God. Now, in this prediction of the Apostle, the word occurs three times, as, "above every one that is called a God," —λeyoμevov Otov; "in the temple of the God,"'επὶ νὰον τε θες; “ showing himself that he is a god," or EOT OEOC. In the second instance it is plainly the one true God that is alluded to, and accordingly the article is prefixed;

VOL. XI.

C

but in the other two instances, the meaning is dubious, and the article is absent; from which it may be argued, that the Apostle is teaching that the man of sin, after exalting himself above all those temporal authorities and dignities, anciently called gods, and after taking his seat in the tem ple of the one true God, proceeds to display and show himself as one possessed of that authority and dignity which he had already opposed in others, thus showing himself to be a god in that ancient sense.

VI. ["The mystery of iniquity doth already work." Here it is stated, that this mystery of iniquity which was to generate the man of sin, or was necessarily connected with him, was already working among the Christians of the Apostle's days, and that this was true of that system of popery, which is so intimately connected with the papacy, is apparent from many instances. Firstly, the popish doctrines concerning angels, teaching that a certain ambiguous worship is to be paid unto them, and pretending humility as an excuse for approaching God through the mediation of these his favoured creatures, was already working among them, for the Apostle alludes to them in Col. ii. 18 and 23; and we are informed by Theodoret, that St. Paul wrote this part of this epistle against certain Christians, who at Colosse were in the habit of praying to the angel Michael, and pleading the humility of the thing as an excuse for it, precisely as Romanists do now. Secondly, the popish doctrines concerning justification by works, was certainly working among them in the Apostle's days, for he is careful to inform us of the fact, and to write at some length against it, both in the epistle to the Galatians, and in that to the Romans, warning the church of Rome, especially, as if he foresaw how deeply it would take root within her borders. Thirdly, the popish doctrines concerning holy days. "Days and months, and times, and years," and concerning distinctions of meats, although "every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused," did also work among the Christians in the Apostle's days, as appears from Gal. iv. 10, and Col. ii, 16 and 21, precisely as they are now held among the Romanists; and on the very same authority, namely, not the law of God, but 66 after the commandments and doctrines of men." Col. ii. 22. Other instances could be easily adduced, as Diotrephes loving to have the pre-eminence, just as the bishop of Rome does now, to show how the first seeds were already working in the ground which afterwards generated the abominations of popery, some being formed by engrafting Jewish errors, and others by engrafting heathen errors on the Christian doctrine, so that the Apostle's declaration that this "mystery of iniquity already worketh," is in all respects applicable to the system of popery.

Now, as this is applicable to popery, so it is not in any degree applicable to Mahometanism, or any other system, notwithstanding all the ingenuity of some persons to prove it, for none of them did already work in the Apostle's days, as did this "mystery of iniquity," of which the Apostle speaks in connection with this "man of sin," and, therefore this part of the prediction does annihilate all these millenarian fancies, and all those popish quibbles, which would persuade us that all this is still future-this mystery of iniquity is long since working, and is now in full activity in the shape of popery,-and this man of sin has been long since revealed, and is even now apparent in the form of the papacy. Here I must note the marvellous inconsistency of J.D.S. who admits that "the falling away" or " apostacy," v. 3. (which is identical with "the mystery of iniquity, v. 7.) is the system of popery, but denies that the man of sin is the papacy!-if the love of system has not dimmed his vision, he may see that they are most intimately connected with each other, the man

of sin being the head or leader of the mystery of iniquity, or "the falling away," so that if this latter be popery, as J.D.S. admits, then the former must be the pope, although the conclusion be not exactly suitable to the system which our millenarian friends have invented for themselves.

VII. " He who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way, and then shall that wicked one be revealed."] It is evident from this and from the previous verse, that the Apostle had informed the Thessalonians of some power which withheld and let (i. e. hindered) the man of sin from being revealed at that time, although his mystery of iniquity was already at work, and it is plain that he has not declared the name or nature of that power in any of his epistles; it is this omission which has caused the difficulty of our discovery, for by our possessing no scriptural authority on the subject, we are left only to conjecture, and that light, which the primitive Church has thrown on the words of the Apostle. As to conjecture, it may be observed that if the foregoing exposition of the preceding parts of this prophecy be correct, then there can be little doubt of this withholding or restraining power here alluded to, being the Roman empire, or the power or authority of the empire; for, as it was the grand obstacle which restrained the exaltation of the papacy and the establishment of popery, so it seems certain that the restraining power of the empire must be "taken out of the way," in order that the man of sin might exalt himself above the Zeẞarua or Imperial Divinity. As to the bart opinions of the primitive Church, there are three remarkable facts illustrative of them.-First, those fathers who lived during the more flourishing days of the empire, when its approaching fall was by no means visible, did teach that the Apostle in this place alluded to the Roman empire—it is very natural for us, who live since the fall of it, to assert this, because it so happily illustrates the prophecy before us; but it is not easy to divine what led those fathers, who lived previous to it, to teach that the withholding power was the Roman empire, unless we suppose that they had some tradition to that effect. Second, they inform us not only of this being the Apostle's meaning, but they also account for his omitting to say more expressly, even by name, what that was to which he thus alluded, saying that he concealed or rather omitted it in his epistle (he had informed them of it orally, v. 5.) lest it should give offence to the Roman authorities, who held that their empire was that of" the eternal city," and who being already opposed to the Christians, might be disposed to persecute them still more, were they to learn that the Christians openly held that the empire was so soon to fall. Third, so strongly were the primitive Christians convinced of this, that they publicly prayed for the continued prosperity of the empire, lest by its fall the man of sin would be revealed! they must have been very generally as well as very strongly impressed with this opinion, or they would not have grafted it upon their public worship. Now with these three facts before us, illustrative of the opinions of the primitive Church on this point, there is no need of particular testimonies; yet a be adduced as illustrations:-Tertullian, who had flourished in the second century, says, "The mystery of iniquity already worketh, only he who restraineth, will restrain, until he be taken out of the way,-now who is this but the Roman empire?"-and Chrysostom says, "When the Roman empire shall be taken out of the way, then shall he come, and it is very probable, for as long as the fear of this empire continues, no one will be substituted, but when this shall be dissolved, then he will seize on the vacant empire;" and Jerome says, "And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time; that is, ye know very well the

may

reason why Antichrist does not come at present. The Apostle is not willing to state openly that the Roman empire shall be destroyed, which they who govern think to be eternal, for if he had said openly and boldly that Antichrist would not come until the Roman empire be first destroyed, it might probably prove the occasion of a persecution against the church." In the same explicit way does Cyril write, and Augustine states it as a general and probable opinion; so that there is ample testimony of the sense of the primitive Church on this point, and on a subject of this kind they are the best witnesses we can have. Now is it most apparent that this exposition of this part of the prophecy is very applicable to the papacy, for all history testifies that it was immediately on the empire being totally overrun, its extent curtailed and its power limited, its glory dimmed and its authority shaken, that the papacy rose to its power. During the existence and power of the emperors' at Rome, there were no such enormous assumptions as those which afterwards raised the humble bishop of Rome into the lordly pontiff of the world, for the imperial power withheld and restrained it, but when that became weakened and unable any longer to restrain, then immediately came forth the "chair of Peter," as they love to style it-Rome imperial became Rome papal, or in other words, "the man of sin was revealed!"

I may here notice what J.D.S. says of the time of the fall of the empire, which appears to me to illustrate well the length to which a baffled controversialist can have recourse, in order to avoid grappling with the main feature of an argument; for he well knew that, when I spoke of the fall of the empire, I meant the fall of its main power and its chief glory, and not the mere name and shadow of that which once commanded the world-it was not to the mere name or shade, the long and lingering and consumptive decline, that the Apostle alludes, for the empire, when in that decaying state, could not possibly restrain the man of sin, but he alludes to something of real and substantial authority and power, such as Rome possessed before her empire was overrun by the barbarians, and her imperial city sacked by Alaric and the Goths; it was on her fall from that proud and paramount power into a weakness that lingered on for centuries, that the papacy rose on the crumbling ruins, and afterwards obtained unlimited ascendency; and it is gratifying to me to find, that in this view I am supported by all our historians, and as an instance I would refer J. D. S. to Machieval, who in his history of Florence, treats at some length on this very point, showing clearly how from the weakening of the imperial authority, and then by the settlement of Theodric and his Goths at Ravenna, the power of the Roman pontiff rose on the mouldering ruins of that of the Roman empire, and thus as one was gradually taken out of the way, the other became revealed unto its full development.

VIII. " Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan, with all power, and signs, and lying wonders."] This is the last note, descriptive of the man of sin; he comes with “signs and lying wonders." Now the expression "signs and wonders," occurs in Scripture only in the sense of miracles, and those with which the man of sin was to come, were to be "lying" miracles, that is, false signs and impudent deceptions, and if ever any thing in prophetic Scripture be applicable to popery, it is this pretence to work miracles; for, from the commencement, this claim to work miracles has been made and attempted to be supported in the church of Rome, and it has been held forth by her chief advocates as a mark or note of her being the Church of God, although it goes much closer to prove her to be the synagogue of Satan; as this very claim is set forth in Scrip

Coming in Of Papery marked bee these " signs & lying wonders?