QV<at-7~ f4CfrJ
Bl~~~xi I~,   /   4-~~~ dc~~' ~7
i~~~C    c~;ci
















A
DISCOURSE
DELIVERED AT THE OPENING OF THE
SYNOD OF NEXW JERSEY
IN TIE FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF ELIZABETH, N. J.,
OCTOBER 16, 1866,
BY THE MODERATOR,
THE REV. JOHN T.'"'IDUFFIELD, D. D.
WITH NOTES AND AN APPENDIX.
PUBLISHED BY REQUEST.
PHILADELPHIA:
JAMES  S. CLAXTON,
SUCCESSOR TO W3. S. & ALFRED HARTIEN,
1214 CHESTNUT STREET.
1866.








PREFACE.
A resolution, which had been prepared and was about to be submitted to the Synod, requesting the publication of the following
Discourse, was withheld at the request of the author. He subsequently received the following communication, signed by some
forty or fifty members of the Synod:
"' The undersigned, members of the Synod of New Jersey, heard
with interest and gratification your sermon at the opening of its
sessions. They cannot but acknowledge the importance of the
subject therein discussed. Believing that its publication would be
of great advantage to any who are disposed to examine these
views, as it certainly would be gratifying to the undersigned, they
request you to put it into this more permanent form."
The same reason which led to the preparation and delivery of
the sermon, constrains me to consent to this request for its publication-the deep conviction, that "THE BLESSED HOPE of the
glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ"
does not occupy that place in the experience of His disciples now,
that it did in past ages of the Christian Church; and that this is
due to a departure, not only from the doctrine of the Standards of
our Church and the other Churches of the Reformation, but from
the faith of Apostolic times.
As many regard the whole subject of unfulfilled prophecy as
obscure and of little practical value, and consequently feel
justified in treating it with comparative neglect, it may not be




4                       PREFACE.
out of place here to direct attention to the fact that the particular
subject of this discourse does not belong to that portion of the
Scriptures which is distinctively prophetic. It has nothing to do
with the interpretation of prophetic symbols or prophetic numbers. Whilst it undoubtedly has an important bearing on-I
might say, lies at the basis of-the whole subject of Eschatology,
its prominence in the word of God would not be diminished, but
would probably be only the more distinctly apprehended and fully
appreciated, had the book of Daniel and the Apocalypse of John
never been written. It occurs most prominently in the discourses
of the Saviour and in the Apostolical Epistles-the very portion of
God's word which was given for the special purpose of directing
the faith and practice of New Testament saints. It is presented
there repeatedly, and always as of the highest practical moment;
so that we cannot either ignore it or mistake it, without serious
spiritual detriment.
The single aim of this discourse is to "hold it forth" as it is
presented in that portion of "the word of life" just mentioned.
The number and character of the signers to the above request, encourage the hope, that, by the blessing of God, the publication of
the sermon may contribute somewhat to the end for which it was
written.
It may be proper to add, that in accordance with the suggestion
of several of the signers of the request for its publication, the discourse, as here printed, is a more full discussion of the subject
than was possible in a sermon prepared for delivery.
An Appendix has been added containing an examination of every
passage of Scripture not noticed in the discourse or the notes, supposed to have any bearing upon the interpretation of the text.
J. T. D.




DISC OU RSE.
W' atch, therefore, for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come."
MATTHEW xxiv. 42.
THE most momentous fact recorded in history is
the incarnation-God on earth in the likeness of
men. The most momentous event revealed in prophecy is the return again to this earth of the incarnate God "in His glory, and all His holy angels
with ITim."
Whilst all who receive the Scriptures as the word.of God agree as to the fact that Christ shall come
again, the Church-at the present day, at least-is
divided in opinion as to what we should believe in
regard to the time of the glorious appearing.
Some undertake to determine from prophecy, not
the day and hour indeed, but the precise year in
which the Advent shall occur; and many, as you
are aware, suppose that this present year is the
year indicated.
An opinion directly opposite to this, is that
which prevails so largely at the present day, that it
may be said to be the common theory on the subject. It is, that the precise time of the Advent cannot be known beforehand, but of this we may rest




6             THAT BLESSED HOPE.
assured, it is not near at hand; that this event shall
not occur until after certain other predicted events
yet future, and requiring a long period for their fulfilment; that the world is yet to be converted; that
a long era of universal righteousness and peacesymbolized by the Apocalyptic binding of Satan for
a thousand years-is to follow; that Satan being
loosed again for a season, an apostasy, to a greater
or less extent, shall occur; and that then, and not
before, Christ shall come to judge the world, destroy
his enemies, and set up his everlasting kingdom.
It is accordingly maintained that to look for the
Advent of the Lord in our day, or for centuries to
come, is an idle expectation, originating in a narrow
and superficial view of unfulfilled prophecy.
A third doctrine on this subject is that taught in
our Standards-the closing article of the Confession of our Faith. It is there expressed in these
words, that Christ "will have the day of His coming
unknown to men, that they may shake off all carnal
security and be ever watchful, because they know
not at w4iat hour the Lord will come, and be ever
prepared to say, Come, Lord Jesus, come quickly."'
This doctrine of our Confession differs, as you perceive, from both those previously mentioned. As
opposed to the former, it teaches that Christ "will
have the day of his coming unknown to men." As
opposed to the latter, it teaches, that the very reason why He will have the day unknown, is that men
may be "ever watchful" for it. Our doctrine does
not say, "the coming of Christ is certainly just at




THAT BLESSED HOPE.               7
hand;" much less does it say, " the coming of Christ
is certainly not at hand;" it says, "the coming may
be just at hand"- the time is unknown, the event
is therefore ever imminent, and as such, should be
ever looked for with expectation and preparation.
In the discharge of the duty which devolves upon
me on this occasion, I venture, brethren, to submit
for your consideration some of those reasons which
constrain me to adhere to the at present unpopular
doctrine on this subject-the doctrine of our Confession-particularly, as it stands opposed to the
theory which says, "my Lord delayeth His coming."
Allow me to say here, that this subject, as it presents itself to my mind, has an interest far deeper
and more sacred than that of mere curiosity in regard to the future. Whilst the doctrine of the
Second Advent, as every other doctrine of holy
Scripture, may be discussed, and too often doubtless
is discussed, without any practical end in view;
whilst, moreover, comparatively unimportant questions, connected more or less intimately with this
particular theme, have been the occasion of so much
dogmatism and "doubtful disputation," as to render
the whole subject, to many minds, distasteful; it is
nevertheless undeniable, that next to the mystery of
redeeming love, no truth of our holy religion is
more prominently presented in God's word as a
constraining motive to vigilance and fidelity in the
Master's service, to personal holiness, to the resisting of temptation and the patient endurance of suffering, than "THAT BLESSED HOPE"-as Paul cha




8             THAT BLESSED HOPE.
racterizes it-" the glorious ca22learing of the great
God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.   " Watch, " is
the Master's repeated admonition to the disciples,
"be ye also ready, for in such an hour as ye think
znot the Son of Jlan comneth." Matt. xxiv. 44.  "And
what I say unto you I say unto all, watch." Mark
xiii. 37. "The night is far spent, the day is at hand,"
says Paul, "let us, therefore, cast off the works of
darkness, and let us put on the armor of light."
Rom. xiii. 12.  "What manner of persons," asks
Peter, "ought ye to be in all holy conversation and
godliness, looking for and hasting unto the coingin  of
tileo day of God." 2 Peter iii. 11, 12.  "Every man,"
says the beloved disciple, "that hath this hope in
him, purifieth himself." 1 John iii. 3. "Be patient,
brethren," is the exhortation of James to suffering
saints, "'the coming  of the Lord  draweth nigh."
James v. 7, 8.
Not only is "this blessed hope'" thus prominently
held forth as an incentive to duty-thie cherishing
of it is presented as the distinctive characteristic of a
follower of the Lamb.  "There is laid up for me,"
says Paul, "a crown of righteousness, which the
Lord, the righteous Judge, shall give me in that
day, and not to me only, but unto all tzhemn also thzat
love His apllpearing.'" 2 Tim. iv. 8.  "Unto them that
look for Him shall He appear, the second time, without sin, unto salvation." Heb. ix. 10.
As "His appearing and His kingdom" are conjoined, 2 Tim. iv. 1, Matt. xxv. 31, Christ has
made the desire for- His "appearing" part of the




THAT BLESSED HOPE.               9
first petition of our daily prayer. That His followers might have it ever in view, He reminds them of
it in every administration of that Holy Sacrament,
in which we "do show the Lord's death until le
covme."  "Paul in all his Epistles, speaketh of these
thing/s." 2 Peter iii. 16. Peter speaks of it again and
again in his first Epistle, and then makes it the one
theme of a second Epistle. James and John, and
even Jude in his brief Epistle, fail not to hold it prominently forth. The Apocalypse opens with the
announcement, "Behocld, Ile co'meth;" and the parting breath of inspiration is heard uttering, " Surely,
I come q?,icichy. Aen..   ven so, comre Lord Jesus.'"
The anti-millennarian Dr. Brown of Glasgow, in
his work on the Second Advent-the ablest treatise,
by the way, we have met with in defence of the
common theory-with a candor worthy of all imitation, says, " Premillenialists have done the Church
a service by calling attention to the place which the
Second Advent holds in the word of God and the
scheme of divine truth. WVhen they dilate upon
the prominence given to this doctrine in the Scriptures, and the practical uses which are there made
of it, they touch a chord in the heart of every simple lover of the Lord, and carry conviction to all
who tremble at his word. With them we affirm,
that the Redeemer's Second appearing is the very
pole-star of the Church. That it is so set forth in
the New Testament is beyond all dispute."
Brethren, if any apology be deemed necessary for
selecting as the subject of discourse on this occa



10            THAT BLESSED HOPE.
sion, a theme occupying such a place in the word of
God, I should find the apology in the very fact that
an apology was deemed necessary.
We propose then for consideration the inquiry,
Is the above-mzentioned doctrine of our Confession the
doctrine of God's world?
You will have observed, that on the particular
subject of our inquiry-a subject so wholly a matter of revelation-fthe framers of our rStandards
wisely incorporated, as the formula of their faith,
the very language of our text, "Watch, for ye know
not what hour your Lord doth come." It might
have been supposed that whatever other article of
our faith  would be controverted, this one-expressed in the words which fell from the Master's
lips-would have been permitted to pass unchallenged. And yet exception has been taken to the
doctrine of our Church on this point as on others.
The question has been raised, not indeed as to the
final authority of the language of Christ when
rightly interpreted, but as to whether the true
interpretation is that indicated by the connection in
which the language is introduced in our Standards.
It occurs in the chapter which treats of "The Last
Judgment," and in the paragraph which teaches
what we should believe in regard to the time of the
Second Advent. The interpretation thus indicated
has been called in question in two particulars.
First, as to what coming of the Lorcd is referred to
in our text? It is maintained that Christ may be
said "to come" in several different senses; that He




THAT BLESSED HOPE.                11
is not only to come again personally, but that He
comes to each individual at death; that He comes in
the events of Providence; that he comes by the operation of His Spirit; that He comes with special presence whenever two or three meet together in His
name; and that He comes to every one who hears
His voice and opens the door of the heart and is
willing to receive Him. It is accordingly alleged,
that when the Scriptures speak of "the coming of
Christ," the language is ambiguous; that we cannot
confidently say which of the comnings above-mentioned is referred to, and probably err if we restrict
the meaning to any one to thee exclusion of all the
others. It is frequently alleged further, that in our
text the coming pignmarily referred to, was Christ's
coming at the destruction of Jerusalem, and secondarily, His coming to each individual at death-in
which latter sense alone is the admonition applicable to us."
To this we reply, that even if it were true that in
the Scriptures Christ is said "to come" in the several
senses mentioned, it would not follow that the meaning of the expression in any particular passage was
either doubtful or double. The context may indicate what particular coming is referred to as unequivocally as if the different comings were ex* As this notion of a double sense of Scripture has been the fruitful source of so much obscurity and positive error in the interpretation of God's word, we would call attention to the fact, that
our Confession, Chap. I. Sec. ix., expressly teaches, that "the
sense of any Scripture is not manifold, but one."




12               THAT BLESSED HOPE.
pressed by different words.*'We reply further, that
whatever other passage of Scripture may be anmbiguous, the particular coming referred to in our
text is indicated by the connection beyond the possibility of a reasonable doubt.
The language in question occurs in the memorable discourse of Christ in answer to the inquiries
of the disciples, "when shall these things (the destruction of Jerusalem, of which Christ had just been
speaking) be?   And what shall be the sign of thy
coming (in the original, thy "' zoouz'a,") and of the
end of the world?"  Now we ask particular attention to the fact, that two distinct events are here
referred to -the destruction of Jerusalem  and the
"'ra.oow  C." of Christ.  The disciples evidently supposed that these two events would occur simultaneously; that at, and not before the coming of the
Lord, Jerusalem would be destroyed; and that this
epoch would  be "the end  of the  world."t  The
* For an examination of the different passages of the New Testament not noticed in the Discourse or the Notes, in which a coming
of Christ other than the Second Advent is supposed to be referred
to, see Appendix A.
f Dr. Schaff, in Lange's Commentary, here remarks: " It should
be kept in mind that when' the end of the world' is spoken of in
the New Testament, the term acrre-the present dispensation or
order of things-is used, and not mo50xog —the planetary system, the
created universe." This distinction is ordinarily, though not indeed invariably, observed in other connections than that mentioned,
and the precise meaning of many passages is often misapprehended
from not recognizing it.
By "the world," in the passage under consideration, we are unn




THAT BLESSED HOPE.                  13
point to be observed, however, is, that they speak
of the two events mentioned as cfistinct-though, as
they then supposed, synchronous-events.
The Saviour, not regarding these inquiries of the
disciples as many seem to regard similar inquiries
now-as of trivial importance, not to say as indicating  a spirit of carnal curiosity, to be repressed
rather than encouraged-replies in a discourse that
occupies a larger place in the Gospel histories than
any other of his recorded discourses, not even excepting the Sermon  on the Mount.  Mark  xiii.,
Luke xxi., Matt. xxiv. and xxv.
He first informs them, Matt. xxiv. 4-14, as to
what would be the character of the present aowv or
dispensation, up until its very end-wars, famines,
pestilences, earthquakes, in the world; and the
Church in tribulation by reason of persecutions
from  without, and  heresies and  deceivers within.
He seems to intimate that the trials of the Church
would  increase as the end drew  near.  "Because
iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax
cold, but he that shall endure to the end shall be
saved."  The sign of the end which IIe then mentions, is an event which we have certainly much
reason to believe is well nigh accomplished. "This
doubtedly to understand, the "Ct iv u-V0os," the "vvv alcv" of the New
Testament, as distinguished from the "'alv Axv" —" this world,"
Matt. xii. 32, Luke xx. 34; "this present world," 2 Tim. iv. 10,
Titus ii. 12; "this present evil world," Gal. i. 4, as distinguished
from "the world to come," whereof Paul speaks, which is to be
in complete subjection to the God-man, Christ Jesus. Heb. ii, 5.




14              THAT BLESSED HOPE.
gospel of the kingdom  shall be preached in all the
world, for a witness unto all nations; and then shall
the end come."*
After this general introduction, so to speak, the
Savioir proceeds to reply ~particularly to the inquiries of the disciples.  In reply to their first inquiry, in reference to the destrulction of Jerusalemn, he
informs them, fully as to the events which would
immediately precede, and accompany, the desolation
of the Holy City; adding, according to Luke, a
declaration which is frequently overlooked, and yet
is of much importance as connecting chronologically
his answers to the two distinct questions of the disciples, "and they-that is, the Jews who survived
the destruction of their city-shall be led away captive into all nations, and Jerusalem shall be trodden
down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles
be fulfilled."  Luke xxi. 24.   Much of the obscurity which is frequently attributed to this discourse of the Saviour, arises from a neglect of the
passage just quoted, and the consequent assumption
that the judgments here predicted as in store for the
Jewish nation, were completely fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem  by the  Romans.  The pre* "The apostacyof the latter days and the universal dispersion
of missions, are the two great signs of the end drawing near."Alford.
"' The preaching of the gospel throughout the Roman world preceded the end of the Jewish state; the promulgation of the gospel
throughout the whole world will be the sign of the end of the Ocuv
u~oro."-D-r. Schaf.




THAT BLESSED HOPE.                15
diction here made of the calamities that were to
befall the Jews, is in the progress of fulfilrnent unto
this day. They are still scattered "among all nations," Jerusalem  is still "trodden down of the
Gentiles," and not "until the times of the Gentiles
be fulfilled;" shall the fulfilment of the languaoge of
Christ in reply to this first question of the disciples
be consummated.
As the disciples supposed that the destruction of
Jerusalemn, and that coming of Christ of which they
had spoken —His ra,ooea -awould be synchronous
events, the Saviour in connection with His reply to
their first inquiry corrects their error.  He informs
them  that at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, "false Christs" would arise; and he forewarns
them, "Then, if any man shall say unto you, Lo here
is Christ, or there-believe it not. If they shall
say, Behold he is in the desert-go not forth; Behold he is in the secret chambers-believe it not.
For as the lightning cometh out of the east and
shineth even unto the west, so shall also' the coining
(the rapooaea) of the Son of man be."  Now the
points to be here noticed are, first, that here for the
first time in the Saviour's reply is a coiming of
Christ mentioned; second, that the cominy here mentioned is "the za.,oouaa," mentioned by the disciples
in their second inquiry; third, that this coming was
not the destruction of Jerusalem, but an entirely
distinct event; and, fourth, that it was that cominy
of Christ, of which the coming of the "false Christs"




16            THAT BLESSED HOPE.
was the counterfeit-the personac, glorious, advent
of the Lord.
Having answered fully the first inquiry of the
disciples, He proceeds to reply to their second inquiry, "what shall be the sign of thy corning-thy'Immediately,"' says He, "after the tribulation of
those clays-that is, after the destruction of Jerusalem, and the dispersion of the Jews, and the treading down of the Holy City' until the times of the
Gentiles be fulfi.lled'- shall the sun be darkened and
the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall
fall from heaven, and the powers of heaven shall be
shaken."  Luke adds what Matthew omits-indicating, possibly, though we may not say certainly, the
literal meaning of the language of Matthew taken
figuratively-" and there shall be distress of nations
with perplexity, the sea and the waves roaring;
men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking
after those things which are coming on the earth"language, by the way, which every one must feel is
a strikingly accurate description of this very present time.  "And then," says Luke, "shall they see
the Son of man coming in a cloud, with power and
great glory."  Matthew's record at this point is
more full, and is made with evident reference to the
precise language of the inquiry the Saviour is now
answering —which inquiry Matthew alone records.
"'And then," says he, "shall they see the sign of
the Son of man in heaven, and then shall all, the
tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the




THAT BLESSED HOPE.                17
Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with
powrer and great glory."
Here we have the coming, which was the subject
of the disciples' inquiry and the Saviour's answerthe ra.pouooea of Christ-distinctly defined, as "the
comiing of t/he Son of man in the clouds of heaven with
power and great glory."
After admonishing the disciples by the parable
of the fig-tree putting forth its leaves, to be watchful for the signs of His coming, the Saviour tdds,
"but of that day and that hour knoweth no man,
no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.
But as the days of Noah were, so shall the coming
(the raoouvaa) of the Son of man be. For as in the days
that were before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day
that Noah entered into the ark, and knew not until
the flood came and took them  all away; so shall
also the coming (the 7aoouata) of the Son of man be.
Then shall two be in the field-the one shall be
taken and the, other left. Two women shall be
grinding at the mill, the one shall be taken and the
other left."  Then follows the exhortation of our
text, " TITCatch, therefore, for ye know not what hour
your Lord doth come."*
Now we respectfully submit, whether anything
- The single passage of doubtful meaning in the entire discourse
of the Saviour, is His declaration, " this generation shall not pass
(away) until all these things be fulfilled." Matt. xxiv. 34, Mark
xiii. 80, Luke xxi. 32. In regard to the meaning of this passage,
see Appendix B.
2,




18            THAT BLESSED HOPE.
further than this simple synopsis of our Saviour's
discourse up to this point, is necessary to justify
what we asserted above, that whatever other passage
of Scripture might be ambiguous, the particular
coming of Christ referred to in our text, was indi.
cated by the connection, beyond the possibility of a
reasonable doubt? Can any other coining be possibly referred to, than that coming which was the
subject of the disciples' inquiry, and the Saviour's
answer-the rapoouca of Christ-which He himself
describes as'the coming of the Son of man in the
clouds of heaven with power and great glory'"? If
we are at liberty to attribute to the language of
Scripture any meaning which the mere words, taken
without reference to their immediate connection,
may bear, is it not evident that the word of God
may be made to mean anything or nothing according to the ingenuity of the interpreter? If this be
admitted as a principle of interpretation, would it
not be difficult to frame a proposition that might
not be either proved or disproved at will, by the
language of Scripture?
To avoid the manifest conclusion to which the
interpretation of our text just given would leadthe cluty, of watching for the personal coming of the
lord —it is commonly alleged  that the coming
referred to in the text, was the figurative or providential coming of Christ at the destruction of Jerusalem. This objection involves a two-fold assumption; first, that the destruction of Jerusalem was, in
Scripture phraseology, a coming of Christ at all.




THAT BLESSED HOPEo             19
If at all, the only instance is the instance in question-and with what reason, or rather the absence
of all reason, the assumption is made here, we have
already seen-and one other doubtful passage, "there
be some standing here which shall not taste of death
until they see the Son of man coming in His kingdom."
Matt. xvi. 28.*  But a second, and still more gross
assumption, is, that the coming of our text refers to
the destruction of Jerusalem  exclusively-exclusively, be it observed, of the event with which the
text is in immediate connection; and an event,
moreover, which is not merely by a figure of speech,
a coming of the Lord, but literally and eminently,
the coming of the Lord —"the coming in the clouds
of heaven with power and great glory." AVe have
said exclusively, for if any one chooses to maintain
that the coming of the text refers to both eventsthat the full meaning of the Saviour's exhortation
was, until the destruction of Jerusalem his disciples
were to watch for that event, and after the destruction of Jerusalem His disciples were to watch for
HIis p)evsonal capplearing-the main point, the practical point, for which we are contending is admitted:
Jerusalem has certainly been destroyed, and that it
is now our duty to watch for Christ's personal appearing, would be as fully established by the interpretation just mentioned, as if this were the only
duty to which the text was intended to be an exhortation.
The objection to our doctrine, just mentioned, is
* See Appendix A.




20               THAT BLESSED  HOPE.
so common, and  made with  so much  confidence,
that we may be allowed to state again distinctly the
reply to it. Two events are the subject of the
Saviour's discourse. One of these events, if it may
be called  "a coming of Christ" at all, may be so
called, in any case, only by a figure of speech, and
in the case in question, there is not the slightest intimation that any such figure was employed.  The
other event is the literal, personal, coming of the
Lord.  In immediate  connection  with  this  latter
event, is an  exhortation  to  watch  for the  Lord's
coming.  Now  do we use language not justified by
the fact, when we say, it is a gross assumption  to
maintain. that the  exhortation  refers, not to  the
latter event, but to the former-and to to the former
moreover, exclusively?*
* As the destruction of Jerusalem was to precede the Parousia6' the coming of the Son of man in the clouds of heaven with power
and great glory"-the destruction of Jerusalem was of course the
immediatce object of expectation of those living before that event,
who gave heed to the Savicur's exhortation. It does not follow
from this, however, that the destruction of Jerusalem was itself
either a coming of the Lord, or the coming of the Lord referred to
in the text. The Psalmist furnishes us with an exact illustration
of the duty enjoined in the text, as it applied to the disciples"Mly soul wait-eth for the Lord more than they that watch for the
morning." Psalm cxxx. 6. Whlile it is yet night, the immediate
object of the watcher's expectation is not the rising of the sun, but
the dawn and the day-star. And yet'neither the dawn nor the
day-star is the sun. The watcher is on the look-out indeed for the
day-star, but it is for the sun that he is " watching."
This relation of the destruction of Jerusalem to "the coming" of
which the Saviour is speaking, is brought out distinctly in the
parable of the figtree.  " When his branch is yet tender and




THAT BLESSED  HOPE.                    21
But, again, it is frequently alleged, that the comzing
referred to in our text is /Christ's coming to each individu6al cat death.  This is, if possible, a still more
gross assumption.  The  destruction of Jerusalem
was at least, one of the subjects of the disciples' inquiry and the Saviour's answer, but death is not
even alluded to by either.  To maintain, nevertheless, that death is the coming referred to-what is it,
but an entirely gratuitous assumption?  We confess
to the difficulty of replying to it by any argument,
inasmuch as it has not even the pretence of an argument in its favor.  All that can be done-and  we
cannot but feel, all that is necessary-is to state distinctly the question at issue. It is not whether it is
our duty to be ever prepared for death; nor even
whether decath may be legitimately spoken of as C
coming of Christ; but the question is this, Is death
the coming referred to in the text?   Or more precisely still, is death the event exclusively referred
to?- for we again remark, that if any one sees fit to
maintain that the exhortation of the text refers to
both events-to  Christ's coming to each individual
at death, and also His literal "coming in the clouds
putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh. So likewise
ye, when ye shall see all these things (the things that were to precede the coming, including of course the destruction of Jerusalem)
know that it (the coming) is near, even at the doors."
It should be noticed, further, the Saviour declares of the event
of which he is here speaking, " of that day and that hour knoweth
no man, no, not the angels in heaven, but my Father only."  Now
this cannot refer to the destruction of Jerusalem, for Daniel had
predicted the precise time of that event. Daniel ix. 24-927.




22            THAT BLESSED HOPE.
of heaven, with power and great -glory, we should
not regard the question raised as worth controverting, since all for which we are contending would be
admitted.
WVhether death is ever referred to in the Scriptures, as a coming of Christ, we are not called on here
to discuss. It is, to say the least, extremely doubtful. As however the second coming of the Lord
and death are alike, in that both events are ever imminent; and also, in that the occurrence of either
would fix our everlasting destiny, the admonitions
and exhortations of the Scriptures, with reference
to the former event, are of course readily —and we
may say, legitimately-applicable to the latter, by
way of accommodation, but we should ever bear in
mind, by wcay of accommodcation only.  WTe do
greatly err, if, beyond this appropriation of Scripture language to a subject not in the mind of the
sacred writer or speaker, we lose sight of the sense
primarily intended; much more do we err if we
presume to regard the one sense as a full and adequate substitute for the other. For whilst the two
events in question are alike in the respects mentioned, they are wholly unlike-we might almost
say, opposite-in other and most important respects; especially in this eminently practical respect, in the different feelings which the anticipation of the two events is calculated to excite in the
mind of the believer.  "Death, says Baxter, "appeareth to me as as an enemy, and my nature doth
abhor and fear it, but the thoughts of the coming of




THAT BLESSED HOPE.            23
the Lord are most sweet and precious. Christ's servants can submit to death, but His coming they
love and long for." Dr. Brown, in his work on the
Second Advent, previously referred to, remarks,
"The coming of Christ to individuals at death,
whatever profitable considerations it may suggest,
is not fitted to take that place in the view of the
believer, which the Scripture assigns to the Second
Advent. The death of the believer, however changed
in virtue of his union to Christ, is intrinsically, not
joyous but grievous. The Redeemer's second appearing, however, is an event of unmingled joyousness. How then can the former event awaken feelings, I will not say equally intense, but even of the
same kind, as the latter."  If this be so, brethren,
is our whole duty with respect to the Master's repeated exhortation fulfilled, when we appropriate
the language in admonishing mien to prepare for the
hour of death? Shall we be "found faithful" to the
trust committed unto us, if we give not at least
equal prominence to the exhortation, in the sense
which the Master intended when He uttered it, and
admonish our fellow-men to watch for the personal,
glorious, appearing of the Lord, "because they
know not at what hour the Lord doth come"?
In our defence of the doctrine of our Confession
on the point immediately under consideration, we
have thus far confined our attention to the evidence
furnished by the connection in which the text
occurs. However complete, of itself, this evidence,
we have by no means exhausted the scriptural ar



24              THAT BLESSED HOPE.
gument on the subject.  The interpretation of our
text given in our Standards is atbundantly confirmed, were confirmation necessary, by the repecated
ancl unnformlz teaching of the Apostles.
Whether death, or any other event of providence,
or the operation of the Spirit, may with propriety
be called a comzing of Christ, or not, we affirm, without fear of successful contradiction, that the familiar
New Testament expressions' "the coming of Christ,"
"the coming. of the Lord," "the coming of the Son
of man," have a fixed and invariable meaning —
that they are used to denote the second personzac
a3Searing of the Saviour, and in no one instance are
they used with reference to any other event.
The term  in the original corresponding to "the
coming"y'  of our version is not, as our translation
mlight leadtus to suppose, a word derived from  the
ordinary Greek verb denoting "to come" (,0Zo/fac).
In one single instance, 1 Cor. i. 7, the word in the
original is " arozx.v;ubot"-literally, the apoccalypse, the
revelation of the Lord.  In the other seventeen instances in which the expression "the coming" occurs
in our version, the term in the original is " wrap.oovaea"
-a term which denotes as precisely as possible by
any single word, personalpresence.*  The meaning
* The following are all the passages of the New Testament in
which the term ragcoti, occurs in other connections than that in
question.
1st Cor. xvi. 17. " I am glad of the coming (7rreagou) of Stephanas and Fortunatus."
2d Cor. vii. 6, 7. " God comforted us by the coming (Zegogtr.)




THAT BLESSED HOPE.                 25
of the expression-" the coming"-in the single
exceptional case mentioned, will not, we presume, be
called in' question. Paul commends the Corinthians in that they "came behind in no gift, waiting
for the coming (uaoxRUotf) of our Lord Jesus Christ."
No one, we take for granted, will seriously maintain that Paul here means, that the Corinthians were
waiting for death, or some event of providence, or
some operation of the Spirit, or Christ's presence in
their religious assemblies, or in the heart of the believer. Their " waiting for the coming of our I4ord"
was undoubtedly the same as that of the Thessalonians, whose conversion from heathenism  to Christianity the Apostle in his first Epistle to that Church
describes in language, which we commend to the
consideration of those whq would charge us with
over-estimating the importance of the doctrine of
the Second Advent: "ye turned to God from idols,
to serve the living and true God, and to wait fo, Hfis
Son fr'0o  hecaven."  This language at least, is unequivocal. Observe in passing, by these two strokes
of his pencil-" serving the living God and waiting
for His Son from he&ven"-Paul sketches the portrait of a Thessalonian convert.  Do we recognize
of Titus, and not by his coming (rgcu-il) only," &c.; x. 10, " His
bodily presence (vnrgou-) is weak."
Phil. i. 26. "' By my coming (ragorv-i) to you again;" ii. 12,
"6 Not as in my presence (ragovU-it) only."
2d Thess. ii. 9. " That wicked one —whose coming (n-ugvoirs) is
after the working of Satan."




26            THAT BLESSED HOPE.
in it the likeness of a disciple now?  And if not,
brethren, why not?
As to the other, and with the single exception
mentioned, the invariable word in the original, corresponding to "the coming" of our version —the
word'"a,oouoaea"-its strict etymological signification of itself, goes far toward establishing what we
have asserted as to its meaning. But it is the connection in which it ordinarily occurs, and the manner of its use by the Apostles that completes the
denponstration. They speak of the 7rm,oovua  of Christ
as familiarly as they do of the resurrection of Christ,
and with no more intimation of the possibility of
misapprehending their meaning in the one case
than in the other. Frequently the meaning of the
expression is clearly indicated by the context; frequently the  meaning is not thus exp-ressly indicated-the term being used as one well-understood
and iunmistakable-and in no single instance is
there the slightest ground for doubt as to its signification. It is used, moreover, as convertible-and
hence identical in signification-with that other
familiar New Testament expression, "the clay of the
Lord"-the meaning of which, we take for granted,
is beyond dispute.  Compare 1 Thess. iv. 15 with
v. 2. See also, 2 Thess. ii. 1, 2; 2 Peter iii. 4, 10, 12.
The force of these statements can only be appreciated by quotation.  The term  in question first
occurs in the inquiry of the disciples already referred to, " what shall be the sign of thy wcaoouat, and of
the end of the world?" The Saviour in reply tells




THAT BLESSED HOPE.              27
them of "the sign of the Son of man coming in the
clouds of heaven with power and great glory," adding, "as the days of Noah were, so shall the wae,ou0o'a
of the Son of man be," and again in the next verse
but one, "they knew not until the flood came and
took them  all away; so also shall the ra-.,oocua. of
the Son of man be."  The use of the expression
here seems to have settled its signification in the
minds of the Apostles, and it is henceforth used by
them as a technical term, so to speak, to denote the
seconcd personcti ca2p2pectring of the Lorct. WVe cannot,
of course, quote here all the passages in which the
word occurs. WVe take as an example, its use in
the first Epistle to the Thessalonians, where it occurs
no less than four times.  "WVhat," asks Paul, "is
our hope or joy, or crown of rejoicing?  Are not
even ye in the presence of our Lord at his -caoogaa'?"
Again, he prays, " the Lord make you to increase
and abound in love one toward another-to the end
HIe may stablish your hearts unblameable in. holiness before God, even our Father, at the o:o:,ouo.ec
of our Lord Jesus Christ with  all his saints."
Again, he says, "we which are alive and remain
until the 7auoooaau. of the Lord, shall not prevent
them that are asleep."  Again, his prayer is, that
"God would preserve their whole spirit and soul
and body blameless until the iapo:a.a of our Lord'
Jesus Christ."
1NCow we respectfully submit, is the meaning of
the Apostle in either of these passages, obscured, or
in any way affected, by the fact-if fact it be-that




28                THAT BLESSED  HOPE.
elsewhere  Christ is said  "to  come" at death, or in
providence, or by His Spirit?  That the meaning of
the  expression  in  question  is less clear and  unequivocal in any other passage of the New Testament
Epistles, we have no hesitation  in saying, that no
one, after examination, will venture to assert.* And
if this be so, can there be the shadow of a doubt as
to what coming is referred to by the Apostles when
they speak of "the coming-the zaoouaca —of the
Lord?'"
* That the reader may have at hand the evidence of our assertion as to the meaning of the expression,'the coming" of our
version-the ireiul  of the original-we give here all the passages
of the New Testament in which the expression occurs, except those
which have been already quoted above.
1st Cor. xv. 23, " Afterwards, they that are Christ's, at His
2d Thess. ii. 1, "INow we beseech you, brethren, by the  aumovni
of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto Him;
ii. 8, " Then shall that wicked be revealed, -whom the Lord....
will destroy with the brightness of his suetauor-t."
James v. 7, "Be patient, brethren, unto the  arcv Tlni of the
Lord;" v. 8, " The n agcvut of the Lord draweth nigh."
2d Peter i. 16, "We have not followed cunningly devised fables,
when we made known unto the power and zucgquunr  of our Lord
Jesus Christ;" iii. 4, "Where is the promise of His zagsnu-ut?"
iii. 12, "Looking for and hasting unto the zragcu-;  of the day of
God."
1st John ii. 28, "A Abide in Him, that when he shall appear we
shall not be ashamed before Him at his,7rcguvx."
As confirmatory of what we have said, as to the scriptural usage
of the term, ragecvuni, it is worthy of notice that in the four instances in the New Testament where the firet Advent of Christ is,
in terms, referred to, the expression employed is not n-vcmun-.  In
three instances the terma  employed is a derivative from  the ordi



THiAT BLESSED HOPE                   29
The important bearing of the conclusion we here
reach is evident. Firsts it exposes the utter groundlessness of the common assumption that the teach.ing of the New Testament, in regard to ihe cominyj
of the Lord, is obscure and ambiguous.  It makes
manifest that the alleged reason for this obscurity
— namely, that Christ mnay  be said  "to  come"
(sEoxo/oa:) in  several dlifferent senses-has nothing
at all to do with the question-the question being
as to the meaning of the expressions, " the coming
of Christ," "the coming of the Lord," "the coming
of the Son of man," as they occur in the word of
God. Is there any language of the Scriptures more
unequivocal?  Is not Peter justified in saying, with
reference to this very  subject —"the power and
coming of our Lord  Jesus Christ"-" we have a
sure word, of prophecy"?   Have we, brethren, the
slightest ground for maintaining that it is an uncer..
tain word, and that we  may  therefore disregard
the Apostle's significant admonition, "w hereunto
ye do well to take heed as unto a light shining in a
dark place"?   Secondly, the settled meaning of the
term wrapoouaqa in the Apostolical Epistles puts beyond all dispute the question, as to what coming of
nary Greek verb, denoting -to come, (EgXc atI,) and in the other instance, the term used is taken from the Septuagint version of?Meal.
iii. 2, "Who shall abide the day of his coming —e-Jc'u?"
MaItt.'xi. 3, and Luke vii. i9, " Art thou he that should comeliterally, the coming one — ge, o,uvors."
Acts vii. 52, " They have slain them which showed before of the
coming (      oonrnu-) of the Just One;" xiii. 24, " When John had first
preached, before His coming —r ~;-un.)




30            THAT BLESSED HOPE.
the Lord was the subje6t of the disciples' incquiry
and the Saviour's answer, when they spoke of the
7rTloo'aca. of the Son of man. And it has a still further bearing on the interpretation of our text.
With reference to "the -,ra;oovoea of the Lord,"
(2 Thess. iv. 15,) and the synonymous expression,
"the day of the Lord," (v. 2,) Paul repeats the very'
exhortation of the Saviour, "let us not sleep as do
others, but let us watch and be sober." (v. 6.)  The
same exhortation in terms, if possible, more unmistakable, occurs in Peter's reply to the scoffers' question, "TWhere' is the promise of his 7raoouva?"
"'The day of the Lord," says he, "will come as a
thief in the night.  What manner of persons then,
ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, Zoo7cayngfor and hasting unto the coming of the
day of God." 2d Epis. iv. 7. Of similar import is
his exhortation in the first Epistle, "the end of all
things is at hand, be ye therefore sober and watch
unto prayer." These Scriptures, it does seem to
me, establish beyond all controversy the interpretation which the framers of our Standards have
given to the language of our text. They do more.
If it could be demonstrated that we have misapprehended the Saviour's meaning in our text, it would
still, on the ground of these Scriptures, remain true,
that the doctrine of our Standards is the doctrine of
God's word.  Whatever be thle meaning of the
Saviour's exhortation, if the Apostolical Epistles be
accepted as the rule of our faith, it is a clearly revealed duty to be "ever'watchful" for "the glorious




THAT BLESSED HOPE.              81
appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus
Christ."
WVe proceed to the consideration of the second
question which has been raised in regard to the interpretation given to our text in the Confession. It
is, as to what is the precise force and meaning of
the exhortation to "zwatch" for the comino of the
Lord. Admitting, it is said, that the coming of the
Lord here referred to is His second personal appearing, it does not follow from the exhortation to
"watch" for this event, that we are to live in expectation of its occurrence, as an event near at hand
and ever imminent; the duty here enjoined is
fulfilled if, believing that Christ shall certainly come
again, we endeavor so to live that we shall be accepted in that day, and that this we may do though
we believe the event is yet in the distant future.
That thecfact of Christ's coming again is, in itself
considered, a truth of the highest practical moment,
and one under the influence of which we should
continually live, is undeniable, and so far as we
know, undenied. That, however, is not the point
here at issue. The question is this, do the Scriptures teach us nothing more on this subject than the
mere fact of the Second Advent?  And does, be.
lieving that the event shall certainly occur-but in
the distant future-and endeavoring to live accordingly, fulfil the particular duty to which we are
exhorted in our text, and in similar passages of
God's word-the duty of "watching" for ('ozyToospe-,)
"looking for and hasting unto" (7,oo'8ox(oz-ag z.ae




32            THAT BLESSED HOPE,
6sw3u oVra.,l) "waiting for" —literally "expecting"9
(aU.7sxc s/oXlsZou)-the coming of the Lord?   Our
Confession, as you will find by reference, expressly
discriminates between the practical uses which
should be made of the momentous fact of' the Advent, and that wactcfulness for it to which we are
exhorted in the text; and the question is, whether
there is any just ground for this discrimination?
Brethren, slight as the distinction here may seem
to be, it is nevertheless one of no ordinary import..
ance. AVhatever the particular duty in question
may be, the frequency with which we are exhorted
to its performance indicates the estimation in which
it was held by Christ and the Apostles. Now if the
exhortation mean, that we should be ever watchful
for the personal appearing of the Lord, as an event
ever possible, and we understand it to be simply an
exhortation to prepare for Christ's coming in the
distant future, the error is a threefold evil. It leads
to the neglect of the commanded duty. It causes us
to regard the very performance of the duty as the
indulgence of an idle-not to say, hurtful-expectation; and it destroys in a great measure the practical effect of the prospect of the Advent, as an incentive to the performance of all other duties. The
difference in the practical effect of the prospect of
the. Advent when we believe it to be far distant, and
when we believe it to be ever imminent, is illustrated,
by the different effects which the prospect of death
produces, when in carnal security we imagine that
our life will certainly be lengthened out for many




THAT BLESSED HOPE.              33
years to come, and when by some providence of
God we are brought to feel that "this night" our
soul may be required of us. It is therefore a matter
of eminent practical importance that we rightly apprehend the precise mleaning of the repeated exhortation, "watch, for ye know not what hour your
Lord doth come."
To determine this aright, we remark: It will not
be denied that preparing for an event which we believe to be in the distant future, and watching for it,
looking for it, expecting it, are entirely different attitudes of the mind. Now to say the least, it would
be strange, if Christ and the Apostles intended to
express the former idea, and yet should uniformly
use the very terms they would have used, had they
intended to express the latter.
But not to dwell upon the fact that these terms
should be understood in their ordinary and proper
signification, unless there be some manifest and conclusive reason to the contrary, we maintain that
their precise meaning in the connection in question,
is indicated explicitly and unequivocally, by the
reason annexed to the exhortation. It is not the mere
fact of the Advent, but the uncertainty as to the time
of it, that is urged as the reason for the particular
duty here enjoined. The language of the Saviour
is not, "watch, for the Lord shall surely come
again," but it is, "watch, for ye know not what hour
your Lord doth come."  To put, as it were, His
meaning beyond all doubt or questioning, the
Saviour goes on at length, to illustrate and enforce
3




34           THAT BLESSED HOPE.
it. "If the good man of the house," He adds, h ad
known at what watch the thief would come, he
would have watched and would not have suffered
his house to be broken up. Therefore, be ye also
ready, for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of
man cometh."  Then follows His commendation of
the faithful servant who lived in expectation of his
master's return, and Hiis condemnation of the faithless servant' who said in his heart, My lord delayeth
his coming."  Observe, the sin of this faithless servant was not that he denied or doubted thefact of
the master's return-he acknowledges the fact in the
very words attributed to him. What led to his
condemnation was, saying in his heart, "My lord
delayeth his coming."  To impress yet more distinctly and deeply on the minds of the disciples the
precise duty to which He had exhorted them, the
Saviour adds still further, the parable of the ten
virgins; and as if to avoid the possibility of mistake
as to its meaning, He himself interprets it, by repeating at its close the exhortation which it was designed to illustrate and enforce, "watch, therefore,
for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein
the Son of man cometh."
On another occasion, according to Luke, He addresses to the disciples a similar exhortation. "Let
your loins be girded and your lights burning, and ye
yourselves like unto men that waitfor their lord when
he will return from the wedding. Blessed are those
servants whom the lord, when he cometh, shall find
watching. Be ye therefore ready also, for the Son




THAT BLESSED HOPE.             35
of man cometh at an hour when ye think not."
Luke xii. 35, 36, 37, 40.
Now in view of this full and explicit instruction
of Christ, on the very point under consideration, is
it possible to attribute any other meaning to the
language of our text than that given to it in the
Confession? Is it conceivable, that after all, we
can fulfil the duty to which we are here exhorted,
and yet at the same time say, My Lord delayeth
His coming-the event is in the distant future-to
watch for His appearing now is a vain and hurtful
expectation?  What is this but to make the very
reason for the exhortation, which the Saviour urges
with so much earnestness, to be wholly irrelevant,
not to say, wholly erroneous?
But further, the doctrine of our Confession, on
the point immediately under consideration is again
confirmed, were confirmation necessary, by the
uniform language of the Apostolical Epistles.
The holy Apostles, writing "as they were moved
by the Holy Ghost," in imitation of the Master continually urge, not the mere fact of the Advent, but
the nearness of it, and the uncertainty as to the time
of it, as the incentive to continual watchfulness and
fidelity. " The night is far spent; the day is at hand;
let us therefore cast off the works of darkness and
put on the armor of light." Rom. xiii. 12. "Let
your moderation be known unto all men-the Lord
is at hand." Phil. iv. 5. " Be patient, brethren, the
coming of the Lord draweth nigh.  Behold the
Judge standeth at the door." James v. 7, 9. "The




36            THAT BLESSED HOPE.
end of all things is at hand, be ye therefore sober arnd
watch unto prayer." 1 Peter iv. 7. "The day of
Lord cometh as a thief in the night —therefore, let us
not sleep as do others, but let us watch and be
sober." 1 Thess. v. 2, 6.
Brethren, is this uniform language of the inspired
Ap6stles accidental? Or is it wholly meaningless?
Or if not wholly unclesignecl and without meaning,
does the word of God teach any duty more distinctly
and repeatedly than the duty-not merely of believing in the fact of the Lord's Advent-much less
that it is to be regarded as an event in the distant
future-but believing in the necarness of it, regarding it as ever irzzminent, and looking for it continually with expectation and preparation?
The argument on the point immediately under
consideration, however conclusive already, is not
exhausted. We remark further, we all-and especially those of us who reject the doctrine of our
Confession-habitually use the language  of our
text, "Watch, for ye know not what hour the Lord
doth come," and the parallel passage, " Watch, for
in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man
cometh," as language, if not intended for, at least
precisely adapted to our purpose, when we would
admonish men to prepare for the ever-imminent
hour of death. Now when we use this language, is
it simply to remind men that death, sooner or later,
is inevitable? Or is it not for the very purpose of
reminding them that death is ever irrrmminent?  Suppose one of our hearers should say, "death is in



THAT BLESSED HOPE.             37
deed inevitable, and I endeavor to keep that fact
constantly in view; but I do not believe that I shall
die to-day, nor for many years to come." TWould
we say to such an one, "that is the view of death
which we are exhorting you to cherish-that is precisely what we meant when we said, "Watch, for
ye know not the hour"? Or if the very supposition
that we could make such a reply is preposterous,
is it less so to attribute a similar meaning to the
language as it camle from the Saviour's lips, and
maintain that Hle simply exhorts us to prepare for
His coming as an event in the distant future, when
He says, "Watch, for ye know not at what hour
your Lord doth come"-" Watch, for in such an
hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh"? Is
not the habitual appropriation of these words, as an
admonition to prepare for death as ever immninent,
an emphatic acknowledgment by those with whom
we are contending, that the language immediately
under consideration-" WVatch, for ye know not the
hour"-admits of no other possible meaning than
that attributed to it in our Confession?
The argument is not yet exhausted. That the
doctrine of our Confession on both the points that
have been called hfi question is the doctrine ofGod's word, is established-independently of all
that we have thus far said, and yet, as it seems to
me, in itself, conclusively-by the acknowledged
fact, alluded to above, that the Apostolic Church,
under the immediate instruction of the holy men
who spoke as well'as wrote "as they were moved




38            THAT BLESSED HOPE.
by the Holy Ghost," regarded the personac comring
of Christ as an event near at hand, and " looked for'"
it with longing expectation.  This fact-so important in its bearing on the question as to the meaning
of the repeated exhortations of Christ and the Apostles with reference to'the coming of the Lorcl'"-is
not, so far as we know, disputed. Dr. Hodge, in his
Commentary on first Cor. i. 7, says, " The Second
Advent of Christ, so clearly predicted by Himself and His Apostles, was the object of longing
expectation to all the early Christians. So general
was this expectation that Christians were characterized as those who'love His appearing."' Ie remarks further-and we commend it, brethren, to
your consideration-" If the  second  coming of
Christ is to Christians of the present day less an
object of desire than it was to their brethren during
the Apostolic age, it must be because they think
the Lord is'slack concerning His promise,' and forget that with Him' a thousand years is as one day."'
On the same passage.Mr. Barnes says, "the eainest
expectation of the coming of the Lord Jesus became
one of the marks of early Christian piety."
Now if the question were as to the meaning of
some obscure and unimportant passage of Scripture,
the interpretation of the Apostolic Church imight
not be regarded as authoritative and final. But
when the question is, as to a subject repeatedly and
prominently presented, by both Christ and  the
Apostles-presented too as a matter of the highest
practical moment, and in terms moreover which im



THAT BLESSED HOPE.              39
ply that the subject was familiarly known and well
understood-is it not simply incredible, that after
all, not merely here and there an ignorant believer,
but that the whole body of believers-the Church,
in which dwells the Spirit promised as a guide to
truth-should have entirely misapprehended the
meaning of their inspired teachers, and have been,
not merely in doubt, but in positive error, as to
what the duty was to which they were exhorted?
But it is said, since eighteen centuries have actually passed and Christ has not yet come, has not the
result demonstrated that the Apostolic Church was
in error on this subject?  The answer to the plausible objection implied in this inquiry, is simply
this; if the early Christians believed that Christ
would certainly come in their day they certainly
were in error, but if they believed, as they did believe-just what the framers of our Standards believed-that for aught that was revealed Christ rnigAt
come in their day, and accordingly lived in longing
expectation of the occurrence of the event as everpossible, they were not in error, but both in faith
and practice fulfilled an eminent Christian duty.
If one should say, "I may die to-day," and endeavors
to live with the possibility of his speedy departure
from this world constantly in view, will it be said
that he was in error, and cherished a mistaken apprehension, if his life be lengthened out for years to
come? Just this, and no more, was the error of the
Apostolic Church as to the time of the Advent.
But, again it is said, the Apostolic Church did




40            THAT BLESSED HOPE.
undoubtedly expect the speedy coming of the Lord,
but does not Paul in his second Epistle to the Thessalonians endeavor expressly, to correct their misapprehension on this subject. It must be admitted
that in our version of the Scriptures, Paul, in the
passage referred to, is represented as contracdicting in
terms what not only the other Apostles, but what he
himself elsewhere repeatedly and uniformly teaches
-namely, that "the day of Christ is at hand." VWe
need not repeat the familiar passages to this effect,
many of which have been already quoted. low
then are we to reconcile this apparent contradiction?
The explanation is simply this; our translators
have used the same expression-" at hand"-for two
entirely different words in the original, the precise
meaning of one of these words being "is near," the
precise meaning of the other, "is present." Now the
former is that which the Apostles uniformly employ
when they are represented as teaching that the day
of the Lord is "at hand."  What Paul does write to
the Romans is, "the night is far spent, the day is
near (/rjtxzie)" Rom. xiii. 12; and to the Philippians,
"let your moderation be known unto all men; the
Lord is near (esyyv)" Phil. iv. 5. So Peter in his
first Epistle, "the end of all things is near (^qrt!)"
1 Peter iv. 7. So James in his exhortation to suffering saints, "Be patient, brethren, the coming of
the Lord is near (q2/xz)" James v. 8.:Now in the passage in question-that in the 2d
Epistle to the. Thessalonians —where Paul is represented as admonishing them to "be not soon shaken




THAT BLESSED HOPE.                 41
in mind as that the day of Christ is at hand," 2 Thess.
ii. 2, the Apostle uses the other term referred toevisar~ixzv —the precise meaning of which is, "is present."   And that this is its precise meaning  is
established beyond controversy, by its undoubted
meaning in other connections in which the same
Apostle uses it-as in Rom. viii. 38, " things plresent"
(sve,a(owr) as contrasted  with  "things to come;"
1fst Cor. iii. 22, "thlinzys present" (s,~arwT a) again as
contrasted with " things to come;" 1st Cor. vii. 26,
"the present distress" (r, sCr-oaa  o:5.U yZ;) Gal.
i. 4, "this present evil world" (roev sVEarrour   aeCw)oo
=oq,,co;) Hleb. ix. 9, " the  time  then  present"
(sv1ar-zxora.)'*  Brethren, whatever the Apostle intended to teach in the passage under consideration,
he is not guilty of a contradiction in terms.
Another common misapprehension, as we believe,
in regard to the Apostle's meaning in the passage in
question-of less moment than that just mentioned,
and yet deserving of notice-is, that when Paul exhorts the Thessalonians to "be not soon shaken in
mind or troubled," he refers to agitation and alarm
in the Thessalonian Church in view of the immediate
coming of Christ.  Apostolic Christians were not so
affected by the prospect of Christ's speedy coming.
It was to them a "blessed hope," and they "looked
for" it and "hasted unto" it, with desire and longing.  \We understand the meaning of the Apostle
- The only other instance in which the verb in question occurs
in the New Testament, is in 2 Tinmothy iii. 1, "In the last days
perilous times shall come." (Ovo-iv~v~.)




42            THAT BLESSED HOPE.
here to be, that they should not be shaken in their
faith, or troubled zwith cdoubts as to the doctrine he
had taught them in regard to the personal coming
of the Lord. We so understand his meaning, not
only for the reason just mentioned, but from the
terms in which he repeats his admonition, after he
had mentioned the reason why they should not "be
soon shaken in mind or be troubled, neither by
spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from  us."
" Brethren," says he, "stcandfast, therefore, and hold
the traditions which ye have been taught, whether
by word or our Epistle."  How fully and explicitly
he had taught them, in the Epistle here referred to,
the very doctrine which we are defending, may be
seen by reference.
We understand, then, the Apostle's admonition in
the passage in question, to be this-be not soon
shaken in your faith, or troubled with doubts, "as
that the day of Christ is l)3esent."  Whether he here
refers to the doctrine of those whom he elsewhere
mentions, (2 Tin. ii. 18,) who held that "the resurrection is past already"-whose heresy, as is
generally supposed, was, that the only resurrection
was a spiritual, not literal, resurrection, and who
doubtless held similar views in regard to the cognate
subject, the coming of the Lord-or whether he
refers to an expectation in the Thessalonian Church
that Christ would certainly immediately appear, we
need not stop to inquire. The Apostle undoubtedly
goes on to teach, not only that the day of the Lord
was not then present, but that it was not inume



THAT BLESSED HOPE.             43
diately to occur; that there would first be "a falling
away"-'-an apostasy-andi the revelation of "the
man of sin, the son of perdition;" and that then
Christ would appear to destroy him, "by the spirit
of His mouth and the brightness of His coming"literally "the Epiphany of His Parousia."  But
now, mark-as if to guard the Thessalonians against
assuming that the Parousia was in the distant future,
and saying in their hearts, My Lord delayeth His
coming, the Apostle admonishes them, that "the
mystery of iniquity cloth al~rectcy work;" that they
knew "what withholdeth that the man of sin might
be revealed;" that as soon as this power or agency
which prevented for the time the revelation of the
man of sin was "taken out of the way," that wicked
one should be revealed; and that then the Lord
would come for his destruction. Now is there anything here in conflict with the elsewhere repeated
and uniform teaching of the Apostles, that "the day
of the Lord is near?"  Is there anything even inconsistent with what the Apostle certainly seems to
intimate in his first Epistle, the possibility —for aught
that was revealed-that some of those whom he was
addressing might be "alive and remain until the
coming of the Lord"?  What was to intervene was
but the development of an agency "already" at
work. What, at the time then present, prevented
this developnment, was an agency which God could
at any time take out of the way. Is there anything
here taught which would have justified the Thessalonians in assuming that this preventing power
0                ZD I-LI CI~u




44            THAT BLESSED HOPE.
might not be soon "taken out of the way," the man
of sin revealed and suddenly destroyed by the
brightness of Christ's cominig?
In this connection, the language of John in his
first Epistle, written some years later, deserves to be
noticed.  "Every spirit," says he, "that confesseth
not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is not of
God, and this is that spirit of Antichrist, whereof ye
ha/ve heard thct it should comote and even now calreadcy'is in t1he zworflc." 1 John iv. 3. Again, "as ye have
heard that Antichrist shall come, evenz now are there
many antichrists, whereby we know that it is the
last time"-literally, "the last hour." 1 John ii. 18.
From this important passage in the second Epistle to the Thessalonians-so often referred to, and,
so far as we know, the only passage referred to, as a
proof-text, by those who say, My Lord delayeth His
coming —whatever else may be learned, three things
at least are clearly taught. First, that neither Paul;
nor the Thessalonians attached any other idea to
the New  Testament expression, the  zrooou(ra of
Christ —which occurs in thefirst verse and also in
the eighth-than the personal Advent of the Lord.
The Apostle uses the expression as convertible, and
hence identical in signification, with "the day of
Clhrist."  Second, the one prophetic event which, at
the time Paul wrote this Epistle, was to anticipate
the coming  of the Lord, was, not a millennial
era of righteousness and peace on earth, but, an
apostasy and the revelation of the man of sin —the
son of perdition.  That Paul should have expected




THAT BLESSED HOPE.             45
a millennium of righteousness before the coming of
the Lord, such as is commonly expected at the present day, and not have mentioned it here, when his
very object is to state what shoufld intervene before
Christ's coming, is, to say the least, inexplicable.
And third, the event-the only event-which Paul
predicted would precede the coming, we have abundant reason to believe has occurred. The firamers
of our Confession taught that it had occurred even
in their day. Chap. xxv. Sec. vi. That which, when
Paul wrote, "withheld," has been "taken out of the
way," and the man of sin has been revealed. Now
whatever the Thessctlonians were here taught to believe as to the nearness of Christ's coming, can rwe
receive this language of the Apostle as the rule of
our faith, and yet doubt, that "the night is far
spent, the day-the day of the glorious appearing
-is at hand"?
A complete discussion of the question proposed
would require an examination of the Scripture evidence-if there be any-of a millennial era of
righteousness and peace on earth before the coming
of our Lord. This, want of time forbids. Let it
suffice here to say, that the expectation of such a
millennial era before the Advent, is strictly a modern idea-a novelty in the history of the Church.
It was wholly unknown in Apostolic days. It was
unknown in the Church of the Reformation, except
to be repudiated. It is nowhere even alluded to in
our Standards. V7When proposed, as it was about
one hundred and[ fifty years ago by Whitby-who




46           THAT BLESSED HOPE.
may be said to be the father of it in the form in
which it now generally prevails-it was proposed
avowedly as "a new hypothesis."  Now, is it to
be believed, that a doctrine so long wholly unrecognized by the Church, is nevertheless a doctrine of Holy Scripture, and moreover taught there
so fully and explicitly, that notwithstanding the exhortation of our text and numerous other passages
of similar import, we are justified in saying, not
only in our heart but with the lips, "My Lord delayeth his coming"?
We have thus, brethren, endeavored to present
as fully as the occasion will permit, some of those
reasons which constrain us to accept the doctrine of
our Confession on this subject, as the doctrine of
God's word. By the full and explicit and uniform
teaching both of Christ and the Apostles, we feel
shut up to the conclusion, that it is a clearly revealed duty, urgent now not less but more than in
Apostolic days, to "look for and hasten unto the
coming of the day of God"-to be "ever watchful"
for "the glorious appearing," because "we know not
at wlh:at hour the Lord doth come." And, brethren
in the ministry of Christ and stewardship of the
mysteries of God, in view of the prominent place
this subject occupies in God's word-in that portion of it, moreover, specially given to guide the
faith and practice of tihe Church " until he come"do we "rightly divide the word of truth" if we fail
to give frequency and prominence to the exhortation of our text, " Watch, for ye know not at what




THAT BLESSED HOPE.             47
hour your Lord doth come"?  Did the inspired
Apostles — did Christ himself —overestimate the
importance of this theme? Or has its value as a
truth of the highest practical moment diminished?
Is there less force in Paul's argument now than
when he wrote to the Rornans, "the night is far
spent, the day is at hand, let us therefore put off the
works of darkness and let us put on the armor of
light?"  Or is not "the day"-the day of Christ's
appearing and our consummated redemption —
nearer than when they thus believed? Does not
each passing year but give increased emphasis to
the Apostles' frequent word of warning and yet of
comfort-" the Lord is at hand"?  And, if we fail to
proclaim this solemn, precious truth, do we declare
the whole "counsel of God"? Is "the blessed hope"
no part of the "glad tidings" which it is our high
commission to preach to men? So thought not the
great Apostle to the Gentiles-the Apostle, whom
the Spirit of inspiration has made it our duty to
imitate-.so thought not Paul, when he gave the
crowning place to "this blessed hope," in that admirable summary of Christian faith and practice
which occurs in the Pastoral Epistle to Titus —"the
grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared
unto all men, teaching us: that, denyding ungodliness
and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously,
and godly in this present woerld, LOOrING FOR THAT
BLESSED HOPE AND THE GLORIOUS APPEARING OF
THE GREAT GOD AND OUR SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST."
Learn from this Paul's estimate of our doctrine, and




48           THAT BLESSED HOPE.
give heed to the accompanying exhortation to Titus
-and not only to Titus but to us, fellow-laborers
with Titus, in the ministry of the word-" these
things teach and exhort."
Allow me in closing this discussion, to advert to
the common-and were it well-founded, serious —
objection to the doctrine we have been endeavoring
to defend, namely, that it is hostile to the cause of
missions, that to teach that we should be "ever
watchful" for the coming of the Lord, and consequently are not to expect the conversion of the
world and a millennium of righteousness before the
Advent, is to take away, what is generally esteemed
at least, the most powerful incentive to the fulfilment of the great commission, "Go ye into all the
world and preach the gospel to every creature."
In reference to this objection, we suggest for your
consideration, first: The incentive to the fulfilment
of the great commission, which should ever occupy
the -foremost place in the estimation of the believer,
and should be regarded as of itself a sufficient motive were there no other, is not, the prospect of
success, but the command of Christ. His revealed
will is not only the rule, but should be esteemed
the most powerful incentive to the performance of
duty.
Second: As to other and subordinate motives, are
we justified in assuming that the prospect of a millennium of righteousness before Christ's comingwhich is nowhere alluded to in the word of God as
an incentive to duty-is nevertheless a more power



THAT BLESSED HOPE.              49
ful motive to fidelity in the Master's service than
that motive which everywhere throughout the New
Testament is prominently urged — "the blessed
hope of the glorious appearing" of the Lord. Or to
state the point in the language of the Anti-Millenarian, Dr. Brown, "If Christ's second coming, instead
of being kept full in the view of the Church, as we
find it in the New Testament, is shifted into the
background, while other anticipations are advanced
in its room, are we trembling at the authority and
wisdom  of God in his word, or are we not rather
leaning on our own understanding?"
Third: As either theory involves the hope of the
universal reign of righteousness on earth, is the
prospect of the speecdy manifestation of this Messianic
kingdom-its imanifestation whenever "the gospel
of the kingdom shall have been preached unto all
nations, for a witzness"-less encouraging, than the
belief that this kingdom is yet in the distant future,
and to be established only after hard and protracted
effobrt, and often for the time doubtful success, such
as has hitherto characterized the progress of the
conflict of the Church with the world.
Fourth: Was the effect of " this blessed hope" on
the missionary spirit and martyr spirit of the primitive Church such that we should dread the effect if it
prevailed now as it did then? Or is its actual effect
now, so far as it does prevail, such as should lead
us to deprecate its universal prevalence?  From all
the information we have been able to obtain we feel
well-assured the proportion of so-called Millenarians
4




50               THAT BLESSED IHOPEo
among our Missionaries at this present day is far
greater than the proportion of Millenarians in the
Church at large.  Of six young men from our own
Seminary, who offered themselves a year ago to our
Board of Foreign Missions, four of them  were
Millenarians, and so far as we know, the only Milo
lenarians at that time in the Seminary.  Is not one
such fact a conclusive reply to the objection that the
prospect of Christ's speedy conzing is hostile, or
~ven -unfavorable, to the cause of M'issions?  On
this point we submit further, the testimony of one
of our most sober-minded and devoted Missionaries-the lamented martyr, TWalter Lowtie. "I have
adcopted," he writes to a friend, "'many of the Millenarian views in regard to the second Advent.
They seem to make many things in the history of
Missions, which were dark before, much more plain
and encouraging.  I find much satisfaction in them
and, often long  inexpressibly for'the glorious
appearing.'  I have lost none of my confidence in
preaching, but rather have felt it increased by these
views."
Finally: To the lover of our Lord Jesus, is the
prospect of.His' glorious appearing" and a kingdom  in which He shall reign personally, a less' blessed hope" than the prospect of a millennium
without his personal presence.  "If I were but
sure," says Baxter, "that I should live to see the
coming of the Lord, it would be the joyfullest tidings
to me in the world.  0 that I might see His kingdom come!  It is the characteristic of His saints to




THAT BLESSED iHOPE.            51
love his appearinag" and "to look for that blessed
hope."  The Spirit and the bride say, Come.
Even so, come, Lord Jesus. "Come quickly," is
the language of faith and hope and love."'The
Lord's bride," says Rutherford,'"will be up and down,
above the water swimming or under the water
sinking, until her lovely and mighty Redeemer and
Husband set His head through the skies and give
her the hoped-for inheritance. 0, day dawn! 0,
time run fast  O0 Bridegroom post, post fast, that
we may meet!  0, heavens cleave in two, that that
bright face and lead may set itself through the
clouds 1"
Brethren  in  gospel bonds-in "'the bond of
perfectness," the bond of love-of love for one
another as lovers together of Him who hath loved
us nnto the death-the bond that "abideth" when
faith shall be exchanged for open vision, and hope
for fruition-shall we dread the prevalence of the
spirit which glowed in the hearts of these princes
among God's saints, lest peradventure our fervent
zeal grow cold, and we become less faithful servants
of the Master?  Or has the Church in this our dclay
a more crying need than to be baptized with the
baptism of their spirit, that we too be found "Zoocfing
for cand hastirng unto the coming of the day of Crocd"?
In the Master's name, I therefore exhort you personally —and beseech you to exhort others-to "zoactch,
for ye know not at whact Ahour youIr Lordc dOth come."
Let scoffers ask, "where is the promise of His
coming?"  "Brethren, ye are not in darkness, that




52             THAT BLESSED HOPE,
that day should overtake you unawares."  "Ye
yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord
shall come"- that it shall come "as a thief in the
night," "in an hour when men think not," at a time
when the world in blindness is saying "peace and
safety," aye, when even the vigil virgins are slumbers
ing and sleeping-as the flood in the days of Noahas the fire from heaven on Sodom —unexpected —
unsuspected-"so shall the coming of the Son of
man be." "Let us then, who are of the day, not
sleep as do others, but let us watch and be sober."
With trimmed lamps and girded loins, let us watch
and wait, with desire and expectation, for the
coming of the Master, for "blessed is that servant
whom the Lord when He cormeth shcZl find,'WAT'CIING"-o




APPENDIX A.
In Fairbairn's very interesting and instructive work on Prophecy,
the question as to the different senses in which Christ is in the
New Testament said to come, is fully discussed. The conclusion
which the author endeavors to establish is, that " the question of
Christ's Second Advent is not to be determined by the mere
announcement of his coming;" that is, Christ is said to come in so
many different senses, that when His "coming" is mentioned, we
cannot infer from the mere expression that His Second Advent is
the coming referred to.
That it may be seen how little ground there really is for this
opinion, so commonly  and confidently  entertained-that the
language of the New Testament in regard to the coming of Christ
is ambiguous-we present the substance of Dr. Fairbairn's argument in its favor.
To show what " the presumption is" as to New  Testament
phraseology on the subject, our author adduces a number of
passages from the Old Testament in which a " coming of the Lord"
that is not personal, is either expressed or implied. As the
question is not one of "presumption" but of fact, we need not stop
to examine the passages referred to-they prove nothing as to the
point at issue, namely, what phraseology the New Testament
writers did actually employ.
On this point-the only point in question-Dr. Fairbairn says,
"There is a coming spoken of in the New Testament which may
be designated in the proper sense terminal, and therefore visible,
so that every eye shall see it. And there are comings of a provisional kind, which all point toward the ultimate manifestation.
The reference to both modes of coming is found in our Lord's own
discourses on the subject."
The passage first adduced occurs in the parable of the wicked
husbandmen, who beat some of their lord's servants, stoned others,
and finally killed his son.  "When the lord of the vineyard cometh," the Saviour asks, "what will he do unto those husbandmen?"
Matt. xxi. 40. Now with all respect for our distinguished author,
we cannot but regard this reference as irrelevant, first, because
the coming here spoken of is part of the language of the parable,
and does not occur in the interpretation of it which is subsequently given; and secondly and especially, because the coming
here spoken of is not a coming of the son at all, but a coming of
of the lord of the vineyard. Certainly this has nothing to do with
the question under consideration-the meaning of the New Testament expression, 6the coming of Christ."




54                          APPENDIX,
The second passage adduced occurs in the charge of the Saviour
to the twelve when he for the first time sent them  forth to preach
in His name, commanding them'"not to go into the way of the
Gentiles nor into any city of the Samaritans," but "to the lost
sheep of the house of Israel."  "When they persecute you" says
Christ, "in this city, flee into another; for verily I say unto you,
ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel till the Son of man be
come." lMa-tt. x. 23.'"What possibly could be meant by this," our
author asks, "but His coming to order and settle anew the affairs
of His kingdomn  among men?   Coming not in visi3le personality,
yet in real majesty, first to endow His followers with power from
on high, and cheer them with manifestations of His presence, and
then to remove by his judgments the old polity and commonwealth
out of the w-ay."
The different interpretations according to Lange, which have
been given of this passage are the following:  1. Cntil the victory qf
the cazse of Christ'Baumgarten-Crusius;) 2. to the destruction of
JrTusalees ( hich5eelis  and others;) 3. to the out-pouring  of the
Holy Spirit (Calvin and others;) 4. till help slhall be affbrded by the
Son of man  (Chrysostom;) 5. till the second coming of Christ
(Meyer.)  Lange  very properly adds, "~But the commentators
forget that the Apostles only preceded Christ, and that this passage
refers inl the first place to that particular mission.  Hence, we
explain it: till the Son of mzan shall overtake you.   (So also
Heubner.")  That this is most probably the true interpretation is
confirmed by the record of the subsequent mission of the seventy,
where it is expressly mentioned, He "sent them  forth two and
two before His -face, into every city and place whither He himself
would come."  Lange adds, " the expression, however, is also
symbolical, and applies to the Church generally.  In this sense it
points forward cl;o the second coming of Christ; including 4at the
same time the idea, that their apostolic labors in Judea would be
cut short by the judgments impending over Jerusalem."
The third passage adduced by Dr. Fairbairn from the discourses
of Christ, in support of his position, is Matt. xvi. 28, "6verily I
say unto you there be some standing here which shall not taste of
death until they see the Son of man comning in his kingdom."'
Mark says "'until they see the kingdom  of God come with power,"9
ixo 1.  Luke, 1" until they see the kingdom of God," ix. 27.
Dr. Alexander, in his Comnientary on this passage as it occurs
in Mai\rk's Gospel, says, "This verse is one of the most difficult
and disputed in the whole book."  The different interpretations
given by Lange are: 1. Chrysostom and many others understand
the reference to be to the Tianesnfigration;  2. Groti-s, Capellus,
Wetstein, Ebrard, [Alford, Owenl,]-The destrsction qof  erznsaiem
aend the fozeunding of the Christiant ChIerch; 3. Dorner  the conzqiests
acid progress of the Go.spel; 4. -Meyer and others-the  seco2nd
Advcent. Lange himself understands the riference to be to'ChxiSt's




APPENDIX,                            55
Advent in the glory of His kingdom  within the circle of His
disciples"-fulfilled, "iwhen the Saviour rose from  the dead otd
revealed Inimself to the7s "  Mr. Barnes understands the reference
to be to the dacy of Pentecost and the founding of the Christian
Church.  Dr. Alexander on this passage remarks, " The solutions
of this question which have been proposed  are objectionable,
chiefly because too exclusive and restrictive of the promise to a
single point of time, whereas it really has reference to a gradual
or progressive change-the institution of Christ's kingdom  in the
hearts of men and in society at large-of which protracted process
the two salient points are the effusion of the Spirit on the day of
Pentecost and  the destruction of Jerusalem, between  which
points-as those of its inception and consummation-lies the
lingering death of the Mosaic dispensation and the gradual erection of Messiah's kingdom-n.
Without presuming to decide which of these different interpretations is the true one, we would state the reasons which favor the
interpretation  first-mentioned, namely, that the language in
question was used with special reference to that manifestation of
Himsel-f which Christ was soon to make to chosen witnesses or
the Mount of Transfiguration.
1. This interpretation seems to be most in accordance with the
language of the preceding context.
The occasion on which the words in question were uttered was
a critical epoch in the Saviour's history.  It marks the beginning
of a new revelation to the disciples both of Himself, and of the
work which lie came to accomplish.  The time had come for those
who would be his disciples to make a formal, explicit profession of
their faith in Him  as the ifessiah.  In answer to His question,
"But whom  say ye that I am?"  Peter, speaking not only for
himself but for the twelve, had declared, " Thou art the Christ,
the Son of the living God."  Jesus had uttered His memorable
reply. "On this rock, I will build my Church."'From  that tinze
/forth," says Matthew, "'He began to show unto His disciples that
he must go unto Jerusalem and suffer many things of the elders
and chief priest and scribes, and be put to death, and on the third
day be raised again."  He not only revealed to them that He himself nlust suffer many things and die; He made known to them
that all who would follow 1-im must expect afflictions and persecutions even unto death for His sake.  An announcemzent so contrary to all their previous anticipations could not but be a severe
trial of their faith.  He accordingly sets before them the ultimate
consequences both of faithlessness and of fidelity.  "Whosoever
will save his life shall lose it; and whosoever will lose his life for
my sake shall find it. For the So  of mezan shall coine isn his ownc glory,
(Luke ix. 27,) cazd the glory of His Father acand with Hlis angels, and
thens shall ife recarld every naen accordiny to his sworks."  (To appreciate fally the connection between this passage and that which




APPENDIX,                            55
Advent in the glory of His kingdom  within the circle of His
disciples"-fulfilled, "iwhen the Saviour rose fronz the dead otd
revealed InTiself to the7s "  Mr. Barnes understands the reference
to be to the dacy of Pentecost and the founding of the Christian
Church.  Dr. Alexander on this passage remarks, " The solutions
of this question which have been proposed  are objectionable,
chiefly because too exclusive and restrictive of the promise to a
single point of time, whereas it really has reference to a gradual
or progressive change-the institution of Christ's kingdom  in the
hearts of men and in society at large-of which protracted process
the two salient points are the effusion of the Spirit on the day of
Pentecost and  the destruction of Jerusalem, between  which
points-as those of its inception and consummation-lies the
lingering death of the Mosaic dispensation and the gradual erection of Messiah's kingdom-n.
Without presuming to decide which of these different interpretations is the true one, we would state the reasons which favor the
interpretation  first-mentioned, namely, that the language in
question was used with special reference to that manifestation of
Himsel-f which Christ was soon to make to chosen witnesses or
the Mount of Transfiguration.
1. This interpretation seems to be most in accordance with the
language of the preceding context.
The occasion on which the words in question were uttered was
a critical epoch in the Saviour's history.  It marks the beginning
of a new revelation to the disciples both of Himself, and of the
work which lie came to accomplish.  The time had come for those
who would be his disciples to make a formal, explicit profession of
their faith in Him  as the ifessiah.  In answer to His question,
"But whom  say ye that I am?"  Peter, speaking not only for
himself but for the twelve, had declared, " Thou art the Christ,
the Son of the living God."  Jesus had uttered His memorable
reply. "On this rock, I will build my Church."'From  that tinze
/forth," says Matthew, "'He began to show unto His disciples that
he must go unto Jerusalem and suffer many things of the elders
and chief priest and scribes, and be put to death, and on the third
day be raised again."  He not only revealed to them that He himself nlust suffer many things and die; He made known to them
that all who would follow 1-im must expect afflictions and persecutions even unto death for His sake.  An announcemzent so contrary to all their previous anticipations could not but be a severe
trial of their faith.  He accordingly sets before them the ultimate
consequences both of faithlessness and of fidelity.  "Whosoever
will save his life shall lose it; and whosoever will lose his life for
my sake shall find it. For the So  of mezan shall coine isn his ownc glory,
(Luke ix. 27,) cazd the glory of His Father acand with Hlis angels, and
thens shall ifse recarld evergy nan accordiny to his sworks."  (To appreciate fally the connection between this passage and that which




APPENDIX.                          57
fulfil the very end, which the event referred to in the Saviour's promise was to fulfil, namlely, to confirm the faith of the disciples in
Jesus as the AMessiah.  This is acknowledged even by those who
do not regard the Transfiguration as the event referred to.  Owen
says, "' The I)ivine splendor which on that occasion invested the
Saviour was chiefly designed to strengthen the faith of His followers, to all of wihom, after His resurrection, it was permitted to be
told.'"  Here then is an event which in its form  corresponded with
the coming predicted more precisely than did any other coming
which those then living were permitted to behold.  -Moreover, it
fulfilled the very desiyn of the coming predicted.  Is it not then
probable that this event was the event referred to?
4. The Transfiguration is recorded by each of the three evangelists in immediate connection with the language under consideration.  Not only are the records of the two events thus connected
in plcce —they are connected in terms. "i And after six days," says
Ma'tthew; "'And after six days," says Mark;'; And it came to
pass about an eight days after these sayings," says Luke.  Was
this careful connection in the record of the Transfiguration 1and
the Saviour's promise, accidental?  Or if designed, what design
more probable than to indicate that the event thus recorded -was
the fulfilmnent of the prediction?
5. This interpretation receives strong confirmation from the language of Peter in the first chapter of his second Epistle.  "We
have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known
unto you the pozwer and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were
eye-zcitnesesse of his majesty.  For He received from God the Father
honor and glory, when there came such a voice to Him  from the
excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom  I am  well
pleased.  And this voice we heard when we were with Him in the
holy Imount."  Is it a very violent assumption, to suppose, that
the promise of the Saviour-" there be sorne standing here that
shall not taste of death until they see the Son, of manll coming in
His kingdom, with power"-was fulfilled, -when subsequently some
of those then present had granted unto them  "%a vision" (Matt.
xvii. 9) of'6 the power and coming" of the Son of man —a vision,
such that they wmere able subsequently to declare, that they had
been "eye-witnesses of His nlajesty"?
[It is sometimes remarked that John, who was the only one of
the Evangelists who beheld the Trlnsfiguration, is the only one
who makes no mention of it.  Is not the Transfiguration the particular event referred to in the introduction to his Gospel, (i. II,)
when he says, " We beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father"?]
5. Tlhat the language in question,'"thel coming of the Son of
man in His kingdom," is not any spiritual or p-rovidential coming,
is confirmecd further by the fact, that in every other instance in
Scripture in which'"the kingdom," andc "the coming" of Chri't




58                          APPENDIX.
are associated, the kingdom  referred to is that kingldon  of glory
which is to be manifested at the Second Advent.  See 1 Tim. i. 4.
Matt. xxiv. 831-34. Luke xix. 11 -27. Luke xxi. 27-31. 1 Cor.
xv. 50- 52.
The only other passage in our Lord's discourses, quoted by Dr.
Ft'iibairhail as comnt aining a reference to a coming of Christ not
terminal and visible, is our text and context.  The propriety of
this reference has been discussed in the sermon.
After these references to our Lord's discourses, Dr. Fairbairn
goes on to says " There can be no doubt that the final return of the
Saviour is often held forth in the New  Testament as the great object of hope aund expectation to the Church."  He quotes to this
effect several p assages from the Acts and the Epistles, adding, "it
is needless to mu!tiply examples.  But sz/chl pssayes alte?,atle with
olthe-k is wsich a co07Ti9ng  is s)poken of (the italics are our own) which
is neither terminal, nor marked by any outward personal display."
That we masy not sulJect ourselves to the suspicion of misrepresentation, we  ive v  i fll, in his ow-n language  our author's attempt
o substanthiate this remarkahble statement.  I-e says, "the history
detailed in the Book of the Acts, though forlmally that of the
Aposctes, appears more as the continuation of Christ's personal
agency carried  on through  the instrumentality of the immediate
actors, than of their own proper working.   The wonders of Pentecost woere exhibitecd as the evidences of Christ's exaltation and the
fruit of His power.  The miraculous healing of the poor cripple at
the temple-gnate, anndl the no less miraculous judgiment on Ananias
and Sapphira in the church were alike viewed as the result of
Christ's outstretched. hband; they happened because IHe (the Holy
One whom the Father hadt anointed, iv. 27 —30,) was present with
the power of His Spirit to do signs and wonders.  When the
Apostles bore to other lands the gospel of salvation and planted
Christioan cLiurc les, Christ himself was declared to have come and
preached peace by them. (Eph. ii. 17 )  On Him, as a present
Iivinqg  S.lviour, they laid the foundation of a living  Church."
(1 Cor. iii. 10, 1.)
This is the entire  arninent to justify the assertion, that in the
Boolk of the Acts,' and in the Epistles, "'a coroing, ct,rick is nzeit/ier
te)rzcizfZ -,o'   V;si" 5  is  n eI z 0cnJn0 of'S0  frequently, that the passages
altelonat'eC  with those referriong    to the terminal, visible, com1ingw^hvCeh are soi nulnero us theat particulra cquotpvtion is unnecessary,
eaow we  iresp ectfuly   s abmit, has the record of the evidences of
Christ's ob.ii;.di  presence in His Chursh-wvhich the sacred writers
carefully avoidl speaking  of as a coming of Christ-ars:ything to do
with the questio0 n under consideration, namiely, the lmenoling of the
s-a'ced               twriteris w'he  they do speak of Christ's' coming?"  Or is
not the legitilmate inference the very opposite of that which Dr.
F;,ai'bairn Sworuld  have us makle?  Does it not indic.ate thliat Christ's
atimdin, p~'csee, in the Clhurch-his fulifilnhent of the priomise,




APPENDIX.                          59
6Lo, I am with you always"-cannot with any propriety of speech
be called a comizng of Christ at all-or at least that the sacred
writers so judged?  Or if by an unnatural use of language an
abidingypresence might be called a "coming," did not the sacred
writers avoid that phraseology for the very purpose of preventing
all doubt as to their meaning when they did speak of Christ's
"comning"?
According to Dr. Fairbairn's own showing, the only passage in
the New Testamuent, outside of the Gospels and the Apocalypse, in
which a coming of Christ is spoken of, that can by possibility be
understood as referring to any other coming than the Second Advent, is Eph. ii. 17, where it is said, Christ'" canee and preached
peace to you that were afar off and to them that were nigh."  And
in regard to this passage, is it beyond question that the Apostle
here means anything more than the Saviour meant when he said,
"I aia come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me
should not abide in darkness-I came not to judge the world, but
to svoe the toorld"'? John xii. 46, 47.  What necessity is there for
attributing any other mieaning to the Apostle's language except
the necessity of the Doctor's argument?
At the risk of needless repetition we call distinct attention to the
fact, that on the authority of one so familiar with the Scriptures
as our distinguished author, the only passages in the New Testament outside of the Apocalypse, in which a coming of Christ is
mentioned that can by possibility be understood as referring to any
other coming than the Second Advent, are the five following:
1. The coming spoken of in our text and context.
2. The coming of the Son of man which was to occur before the
Apostles on their first mission-to " the lost sheep of the house of
Israel' —had " gone over the cities of Israel." Matt. x. 23.
3. The coming of the Son of man mentioned in immediate conlection with the account of the Transfiguration. Matt. xvi. 48.
4. The conming of the lord of the vineyard —not his son —alluded
to in the parable of the wicked husbandmen..Matt. xxi. 40.
5. The coming of Christ when he " came and preached peace to
them which were afar off and to them that were nigh." Eph. ii. 17.
After these references to passages in the Gospels, the Acts, and
the Epistles, Dr. Firbairna proceeds to remark, "'In the book of
the Revelation, more especially, where the final coming is most
conspicuously displayed, providential and invisible comings are also
most distinctly noticed."  A question might here be fairly raised
as to the propriety of deriving from the language of the Apocalypse
a rule for the int;erpretation of the phraseology of the other books
of the Nehw Testaulent, which are so different in character and
purpose, and written many years before book of the Revelation.
But passing tilis, what are the passages of the Apocalypse relied
upon in support of the above statement?
The quotalmions are as follows: from  the charge to the Church




60                      APPENDIX.
of Ephesus, " Repent and do the first works; or else I will come
unto thee quickly and remove thy candlestick out of his place
(except thou repent." ii. 5.)  Also, from  the charge to the
Church at Pergamos, "Repent, or else I will come unto thee
quickly (and will fight against them-that hold the doctrine of
Balaam  and of the Nicolaitanes-with the sword of my mouth.
ii. 16.) (The language in the parentheses is omitted by our
author.)  Also, from the charge to the Church at Sardis, "If thou
shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not
know what hour I will come upon thee." (iii. 3.) The following
passage from the charge to the Church of Laodicea is also referred
to, but not formally quoted, "Behold, I stand at the door and
knock." (iii. 20.)
Dr. Fairbairn might have extended his references by quoting
from  the charge to the Church of Thyatira, "Hold fast till I
come" (ii. 25); and from the charge to the Church of Philadelphia, "Behold I come quickly, hold that fast which thou hast, that
no man take my crown" (iii. 11); and from the charge to the
Church of Smyrna, "Be thou faithful unto death and I will give
thee a crown of life" (ii. 10); where the coming is not indeed
expressed in terms, but is distinctly implied, as appears from
Paul's declaration, 2 Tim. iv. 8, " There is laid up for me a crown
of righteousness which the Lord, the righteous Judge, shall give
me in that day; and not to me only, but unto all them that love His
appearing."
In each of the seven charges. then, the coming of the Lord is
referred to, and is presented moreover as the one great incentive
to repentance, to constant watchfulness, and to steadfast fidelity.
And now is the co7in/g here referred to merely some "providential
or invisible coming?"  Or is it not that coming which is the great
theme of the Apocalypse-the Apocalypse itself-that coming with
the announcement of which the Book opens, " Behold, He cometh
with clouds and every eye shall see him"? (i. 7.) Are not the
Saviour's exhortations here identical in signification, with those
repeatedly given elsewhere in the New Testament —" The day of
of the Lord cometh as a thief in the night, therefore watch and be
sober;" "Be patient, brethren, the Parousia of the Lord draweth
nigh"? Is not this unquestionably His meaning when He says to
the Church of Philadelphia, "Behold, I come quickly," and to the
Church of Thyatira, "' Hold fast till I come"?  And why suppose a
different coming referred to in the charges to the other Churches?
The admonition addressed to the Churches of Ephesus, and
Pergamos and Smyrna, was not simply, that if they did not repent
He would conze to them; He was to come to all.  The admonition
was, that if they did not repent, they would at His coming be
visited with judgments-if they did not watch, He would come
upon them'" as a th2if-they knew not at what hour."
That the final coming of the Lord is the coming throughout




APPENDIX,                        61
referred to, is further evident from the terms of the promises made
at the close of the several addresses to the Churches, to "'him that
overcometh,' the blessing promised in each case being one that is
to be conferred at and not before the second Advent.
As another instance of a "' providential or invisible coming"
mentioned in the Apocalypse, Dr. Fairbairn refers to chapter x,
where John says, "I saw arrother mighty angel come down from
heaven, clothed with a cloud, &c."  Now granting that the mighty
angel here spoken of is none other than Christ himself, and that
this record of what John saw in vision has any bearing upon the
interpretation of the familiar New Testament expression, "the
coming of Christ," the question may be fairly raised, whether the
coming here symbolized is not the final coming of the Lord.  The
vision occurs after the vision of the judgments consequent on the
sounding of the sixth trumpet. The'lmighty angel" swears by Hilm
that liveth forever and ever, that " time shall be no longer, but in the
days of the voice of the seventh angel when he shall begin to sound,
the mystery of God shall be finished."  In the next chapter it is
recorded, "And the seventh angel sounded and there were great
voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become
the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ, and he shall reign
forever and ever."  The four and twenty elders are heard giving
thanks to God, and saying, "Thy wrath is come, and the time of
the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldst give
reward to thy servants." xi. 15-18.  It is true, the vision of the
prophesying of the two witnesses intervenes, but Dr. Fairbairn in
a previous part of his work has very properly interpreted this
vision as " retrospective," and "embracing the whole time between
the rise of the apostasy and its complete overthrow, which takes
place at the sounding of the seventh trumpet. During this time
the real Church is represented as occupying chiefly a witnessing
condition-she can only deliver a testimony, and is therefore
symbolized by two witnesses, the legal number for such a purpose.'2
Dr. Fairbairn refers to one other passage in proof of his position; "Behold, I come as a thief, blessed is he that watcheth.'"
xvi. 15. Here again we ask, is it to be assumed as unquestionable that the coming referred to in this passage is any other than
the final coming of the Lord?  The record immediately following
is, " And the seventh angel poured out his vial in the air, and there
came a voice out of the temple of heaven from the throne, saying,
It is done. And there were voices, and thunderings, and lightnings, and a great earthquake, such as was not since men were
upon the earth. And the great city vwas divided into three parts,
and the cities of the nations fell, and great Babylon came up in
remembrance before God, to give unto her the cup of the wine of
the fierceness of His wrath." Now when it is so distinctly foretold
by Paul that the great apostasy, the man of sin, the son of perdition, is to be destroyed by "the brightness of Christ's Parousia"his personal coming-is it to be assumed that the Apocalyptic




62                       APPENDIX.
announcement, "6 Behold, I come as a thief,'7-made oin tho very
eve of the destruction of the mystical Babylon-refotrs to any other
coming than the final, personal, coming of the Lord?
We have thus presented the entire argument in favor of the
common opinion, that in the New Testament Christ is said to come
in so many different senses that the teaching of the Scriptures in
regard to "the coming" of Christ, is obscure and ambiguous.
The questionable relevancy of some of the passages referred to by
Dr. Fairbairn, proves at least this much, that if any other passages
more to the purpose could have been found, they would not have
been omitted.
At the close of his argument on the question under consideration, Dr. Fairbairn remarks, in a note, 1' when it is remembered
how the Apostles in their more specific passages, interpose a long
series of operations and events between their day and the consummation of all things, (as in 2 Thess. ii. and -the Apocalypse,) it is
difficult to express one's astonishment atthe confidence with which
it is still often affirmed of the Apostles, that they looked for the
return of Christ before their own death."
It is difficult not to express astonishment that one so familiar
with the subject of prophecy as our author, should assume, that
because the Apostles predicted the occurrence of certain events
before the Advent, they therefore knew " what manner of time the
Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify," especially when
in reply to their inquiry as to the time, they had been told by the
Saviour, "it is not for you to know the times and the seasons,"
" of that day and that hour knoweth no man-watch, therefore,
for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come."
As to the "long series of operations and events" that were, according to the prediction of the Apostles, to precede the Advent,
it should be observed, that previous to the Apocalypse-that is,
previous to the end of the first century —the only events to precede
the Advent that had been revealed, were the destruction of Jerusalem, predicted by the Saviour about the year 33, and the apostasy and the revelation of the man of sin predicted by Paul about
the middle of the first century. The former of these predictions was
fulfilled in the year 70; and as to the latter, Dr. Fairbairn himself
remarks, (p. 364) that in the addresses to the seven churches of
Asia, "we are furnished with many proofs of an already begun
apostasy.  In some the evil had assumed the precise form of a
mystery of iniquity."  Is it then a matter of "astonishment" inexpressible, that in the Apostolic age the coming of the Lord
should have been regarded as an event near at hand?
And as to the predictions of the Apocalypse, when we remember
that it opens with the announcement that it is a revelation of
"things which must shortly come to pass," when, in the charges
to the seven churches, the Saviour is heard, saying, "IBehold, I
come quickly," when moreover, one short chapter-the first of the
Apocalypse proper-contains the entire record of the opening of six




APPENDIX,                         63
of the seven seals, and the announcement is made, that "the great
day of the wrath of the Lamb is come," (which language Dr. Fairbairn himself interprets, and very properly, as we think, as refering to the second coming of the Lord,) is it a matter of inexpressible astonishment that John himself and the first readers of the
Apocalypse should have supposed that the consummation was near
at hand?
The Apostles knew indeed that "6 one day is with the Lord as a
thousand years,"' (2 Pet. iii. 8,) and hence recognized the possibility that centuries might elapse before the Advent; they also
knew that with the Lord " a thousand years are as one day," and
hence, according to every intimation given as to their faith upon
this subject, they believed that the promise of'the glorious appearing" might receive a speedy fulfilment.
It lmay not be out of place here to notice a common objection to
the doctrine of our Discourse, akin to that just mentioned, namely,
that as eighteen hundred years have elapsed since the Apostles
declared that "'the day of the Lord was near,' uand the Siviour
declared, 1" Behold, I come quickly," it is evident that these expressions are not to be taken in their strict sense, but in the sense
indicated by Peter, when he said, that " one day is with the Lord
as a thousand years."  It is accordingly maintained that there is
nothing in the expressions just mentioned inconsistent with the
possibility that a long period may yet intervene before the coming
of the Lord.
The only reply necessary is the distinct stateamet of the question at issue.  It is not, whether a long period qmay possibly yet
intervene before the Advent, but it is, whether we are authorized
by the language of Scripture in saying that a long period will ccrtainly intervene-that to look for Christ's coming now is an unwarrantable and idle expectation.  When the Apostles taught that
"the day of the Lord was near," and the Saviour announced,
6' Behold, I come quickly," did they intend to teach that the event
was to be regarded as in the distant future?  Or did they not intend to teach, that however the event might in 6 the long-suffering
of God" be delayed, it yet might-for aught that was revealedoccur speedily, and should therefore be continually I'looked for"
as ever possible? This is the question at issue.
APPENDIX B.
"4 This generation shall not pass (actay) until all these things 6be filfilled." aatt. xxiv, 34. Mark xiii. 30. Luke xxi. 32,
It is frequently alleged, that this single passage is conclusive
that the coming of Christ referred to in the Saviour's discourse,
must be, ITis coming at the destruction of Jerusalem; and that consequently our whole theory of the discourse must be erroneous.
This takes for granted, that the only possible meaning of the passage is, that all the things predicted in the previous part of the




64                      BAPPENDIX.
discourse would be fulfilled before the generation of men then
living would pass away. This involves four assumptions, two of
which at least, are quite violent. First, that the only possible
meaning of "aVwr" }VX" —' 6this generation"-is the generation of
men then liviny. Second, that the only possible meaning of ~vre —
6 be fulfilled"-is, be comp2letely fieilfi1ed.  Third, that "the Son of
man came in the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory" at
the destruction of Jerusalem.  And fourth, that the prediction, not
only of the destruction of Jerusalem, but the dispersion of the
surviving Jews "among all nations," and the treading down of the
Holy City'"until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled;" also, the
prediction of the preaching of the gospel "in all the world, among
all nations," and "the end of the world" —all had their complete
fulfilment before the generation living at the time the predictions
were uttered, had passed away. According to Lange, the only
biblical scholars of any authority, who insist upon tl e above interpretation of the Saviour's words in question, are the rationalists
De Wette and Meyer.  The conclusion which they seek to establish
thereby is, that the Saviour here utters a false prophecy. And it
must be admitted, that if the language in question admits of no
other meaning, this conclusion seems to be inevitable.
The different possible interpretations mentioned by Lange, are
the -following: By CtrU >lvex, (1) Jerome understands, the human
race; (2) Calovius, Dorner, Stier, Nast, Alford, Wordsworth-the
Jewish nation; (3) MIaldonatus-the creation; (4) De Wette, Meyerthat present generation; (5) Origen, Chrysostom, and Lange himself-the generation of believers.  For proof that in Hellenistic
Greek, -?nme is sometimes equivalent to?nsn, a race or family ofpeople,
see Alford in loc.  Luther gives evse its ordinary signification, but
understands  svnsrte to mean, will begin to tacke place-making the
meaning of the passage to be, " all these things will begin to take
place now in this time while ye live."  Dr. Alexander, in his Commentary on Mark xiii. 30, insists on giving 7vy.o its ordinary signification, but says, "the words of Christ may be taken in their
strict sense without necessarily restricting what is said to the
proximate futurity, that is, to the period of the Roman conquest
and the destruction of Jerusalem, but applying at least some parts
(for example. verses 24-27) to the Second Advent and the final
consummation.  The meaning of the verse then will be, that the
contemporary generation should not pass away, without beholding
one great cycle of fulfilment, that is, without seeing this prophetic
picture realized, as to all its essential parts, in one specific instance,
although not exhausted of its whole prophetic import, which is yet
to be developed in a course of ages." Which of these different
interpretations of the passage in question, is the true one, we shall
not presume to decide; either, with the exception of that of the
rationalists De Wette and Meyer above mentioned, is consistent
with the interpretation we have given to the words of our text.
THE END.