Matthew and Acts

Iv expounding this chapter Mr Brown sets out with the following assertion : — “From the intimation which closes the strictly prophetic announcements, — ‘ Verily, I say unto you, THIS GENERATION SHALL NOT PASS TILL ALL THESE THINGS BE FULFILLED, (Matth. xxiv. 34,) we conceive it manifest that he meant the whole proto apply to the destruction of Jerusalem.”* “There are other considerations which occur, as we think, to show that the whole prediction was to receive

us fulfilment ere the generatian then living had passed away. +

* P, 254,

+ P. 255. Kuinoel, (a Neologian), insists strongly on this view of the passage, Vov. Test. p. 292, explaining the preceding part of the passage just as Mr Brown does, ib. 287 — 8. So does Coquerel, (Christianity, p. 466.)

Now it is remarkable that many able commentators who were no millennarians, reason in the very opposite way. Thus Petto, a famous divine, observes,* “this generation cannot be meant of that wherein this was spoken by Christ on earth, for that and many generations are passed since, and yet the things are unfulfilled. But in other evangelists, especially Luke, it is applied to the parable of the fig-tree; that generation, when the fig-tree shall begin to put forth by these distresses of nations, é&c., — that generation wherein these things begin, shall not pass until all be fulfilled, 2. e. tilk the kingdom of God shall come, — till they shall see the Son of Man coming in a cloud. All shall be accomplished in the very same age or veneration wherein they have their beginning.” In like manner, Faber, even when arguing strongly against millennarianism, maintains that the verse cannot have the restricted meaning affixed to it by Mr Brown. It might be supposed, perhaps, that they who are guilty of perverting this passage were millennarians, and that it was the convenience of their theory that required

the perversion. But here is one of their ablest oppon-

* Petto’s work was republished about twenty years ago, with a recommendation from Dr M‘Crie, Professor Paxton, and others, The passage quoted above is from the second part of the volume, “the fulfilling of the prophecies,” p. 182, - ents doing the very thing of which it is generally supposed that none but a millennarian could be guilty. It is now about twenty years since a writer in the Edinburgh Christian Instructor made the same affirmation as Mr Brown, and challenged any one acquainted with Greek to show them any passage where the words n yevecd Gury, ever signify any thing else than the men living at thetime.* An anti-millennarian writer soon after accepted the challenge in these words, “Though I may not be what the writer would denominate an abettor of the millennial advent, I will venture to accept his challenge, and request him to read Psalm XXlv. 5, aurq 4 yeved Cnrovvrwy aurov.t [intimate no concurrence in the interpretation of Mr Faber or Mr Vint; but it may show Mr Brown that the matter is not so “manifest” as he thinks it. It may also be well for Mr Brown to remember that a writer in the Christian Instructor for June 1815, says that the above passage “is on all hands acknowledged to be attended with difficulties.” We need not cite others, though many might be

* Vol. xxvii. pp. 490 and 534, There are three successive papers in this volume against millennarianism, written fairly, though without meeting the main points, but trying to bring millennarians into several dilemmas, from which, were this the place, I think I could point out the escape,

t Vint’s Illustrations of Pr ophecy, PLR

2 oP, 398)

cited, who, though no millennarians, are decidedly opposed to Mr Brown’s view. It strikes us as singular, that Mr Brown should come to so confident a conclusion as to the meaning of the verse referred to, without examining it somewhat minutely. He only notices one interpretation, (Faber’s,) and having rejected that he makes no further inquiries. Yet without trying to settle the meaning of the words themselves, he sets out with what ought to have been the conclusion of a minute critical discussion, and announces as indisputable, that the words, “this generation shall not pass,” d&c., settle the whole question. Is this fair? Is it either like a logician or a critic? He forecloses discussion upon the whole chapter by assuming that this verse settles all. Yet he enters into no examination of the verse in order to fix its meaning! Such an investigation was indispensable if he meant to hang anything upon it. How much he hangs upon it we have seen.

After having stated thus broadly, that the “whole prophecy” applied to the destruction of Jerusalem, and that the “whole prediction was to receive its fulfilment ere the generation then living had passed away,” he proceeds with what appear to us very inconsistent statements.

“But does it follow from this, that the prophecy

CONTRADICTIONS. old

‘relates to no other events — that the whole intent of this sublime prediction was exhausted by the events to which it primarily points? By no means, That view of it, though it has too often been taken, is a most meagre and unsatisfactory one. ‘There are solemn events in the Gospel church precisely analogous, couched under this whole prophecy.”*

We are at a loss to reconcile these statements. We do not understand how a whole prophecy should be fulfilled at a certain specified time, and in a certain well-known event, and yet that “this prophecy relates to other events,” and that “to say that it does not relate to other events, is to take a most meagre and unsatisfactory view of the case.” If he means merely to say that this prediction of Christ is an example of a “double prophecy,” we see his meaning though we may not concur in it. But if this be all, there was no need of laying such stress upon the 34th verse, and insisting that the whole prophecy must be fulfilled before that generation passed away.t

mre, 20D.

+ That generation did pass away before Jerusalem was destroyed. That event did not take place till forty years, at least, after our Lord spoke these words, and hardly any, save the children of that day, would be alive at the siege. We generally reckon thirty years to a generation, and when God purposed to shut out the generation of Israel that sinned, he allowed them

just forty years for the existing generation to be consumed,

As to the passage itself, we would remark that its very commencement proves that the destruction of Jerusalem was not the fulfilment of “the whole prophecy.” The disciples asked two questions: 1st, When shall these things be? 2nd, What shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?* The Lord proceeds to answer these questions. I?fthen Christ’s purpose was to tell them the sign of his coming, and of the end of the world, he could not mean that the whole prophecy should be fulfilled before that generation slept. We need not traverse the whole chapter, verse after verse, but we shall content ourselves with pointing out a few things which should startle those who are bent upon compressing the whole prophecy within the forty years succeeding the time when it was spoken.

1. Verse 14. “This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world, for a witness unto all nations, and then shall the end come.” The end here

* To show what the Lord, as well as the disciples, must have meant by the “end of the world,” we throw together the following passages: —

Matt. xiii, 39. ‘0 08 Segieuds cuvrereia rou dimvos toriy®

pans — 40.“Ourws tora: iv rH ovvrertio you aiwvos ToUToU

ay — 49,” Ovrws toras tv 7% cuvrérAcia Tov aiwyos.

—xxiv. 3. Tas cuvrereias rou aiayos.

—xxviii. 20.“Ews r7s cuvrerAcias rou diwvos.

predicted must be the end already spoken of, ver. 12, “the end of the world.” Mr Brown may say that amy Means age, not world, and that it means the end of the existing dispensation, but he has a great dislike to the thought of a change of dispensations, and objects strongly to millennarians on that account.

2, Verse 27. “For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west, so shall the coming of the Son of man be.” How was this fulfilled either at or before the siege of Jerusalem? That slege was a work of years, not sudden, and it was confined to a single spot, not flashing from east to west. To say that it refers to the Roman invasion, is to say that “the coming of the Son of man” is the coming of the Roman army, and that Titus was the Son of man.

3. There were more false Christs after, than before the destruction of Jerusalem.* So that the arising of these could be no special sign of that event.

4, Verse 29. “Immediately after the tribulation of those days, shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken.” When were these things fulfilled? Mr Brown does not tell us. He says they are figurative,t and there he

* See Mosheim’s Hist. of the First Century.
+P, 260.

leaves them. He says, moreover, that “none but ex-. treme pre-millennialists interpret them literally, and that “the sober advocates of the personal advent interpret them figuratively.”* We must reckon ourselves among the “extreme” ones, and ask Mr Brown for proof that the language is figurative. We take the natural sense of the words; he ought to be prepared to prove the other. 8. Verse 30. “Then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven.” This is the answer to the question of the disciples, “What shall be the sign of thy coming,” which, of course, they understood literally, and which our Lord must be understood as replying to literally.+ When, or what was the sign of the Son of man seen at, or before, or after the siege of Jerusalem? 6. Verse 30. “Then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn.” — Is not this the same as Rev. i. 7, “Behold,

he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him,

* Yet Dr Ranken, no millennarian, does interpret them literally, referring them to “the dissolution of nature,” (Institutes of Theology, p. 523); and many others besides him, such as the Dutch Annotators, (vol. ii. 2x loc.,) and Poole, who, after stating both opinions, declares that he is “more inclinable to interpret them of the last judgment,” (in loc.) Why then must we be singled out, or censured for interpreting the passage literally, — as these expositors did? Why say that our system forced us to this? What system forced these others? Ve

+ Matthew Mead takes for granted, that this passage predicts the literal advent, See his Sermons on the Jews, p. 117.

and they also that pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him.” The two passages are very like each other.

Matth. xxiv. 30, “Tore xépovrrou wiioas ks Durdcs ris yns.”

Rey. 1.7, “Koovras ex’ curov recon cs QuAd Tis

99

yng. When was this accomplished, either at or before the

destruction of Jerusalem?

7. Verse 80. “They shall see the Son of man commg in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.” — We have already shown, that the expression, “coming with the clouds of heaven,” has special reference to the second advent. And any one may confirm this, by comparing the different passages, and especially the one just noted, “Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him.” What was there at the destruction of Jerusalem that in the very least resembled a fulfilment of this?) What were the clouds, or the coming, or the power, or the great

glory, or the vision of Him by every eye!*

* Dr Carlile does not hesitate to apply this verse to the second coming of the Lord, (p. 8.) I suspect that there is not one of the disputed passages about the meaning of which anti-millennarians are agreed among themselves!

8, Verse 31. “He shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet.” — Does not this correspond with such other passages as 1 Thess. iv. 16, “The Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God,” And in the parable of the wheat and tares, are we not told that, at the end of the world, “the Son of man shall send forth his angels.” Do not these passages all point atone great event, still future? How is it possible to apply these to what took place at Jerusalem? when

were the angels sent, or for what purpose? when was the sound of the great trumpet heard?

9. Verse 31. “They shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.” — How were the elect gathered together from the whole world, at or before the siege of Jerusalem? In what sense was this fulfilled then? Yet Mr Brown affirms of all these nine passages quoted above, that they were fulfilled at the destruction of that city, and before the generation then living had passed away!

10. Verse 36. “Of that day and hour knoweth. xo man, no, not the angels of heaven, but the Father only.” — Of what day and hour was it that He here spoke? Was it not of his literal second advent? We know of

no expositor who denies this. But if so, then the

THE ADVENT PRE-MILLENNIAL. SZ!

meaning of the previous prophecy is at once fixed down to the same event, for “that day and hour” must be the day and hour previously referred to.

Let these suggestions suffice. They are few; whereas they might have been many. But they are enough to show how impossible it is to apply the whole of this prophecy to the destruction of Jerusalem. And if THE CoMING here predicted be indeed the literal second advent, it is plain that this advent must be pre-millennial. For here is a prophecy in which our Lord is giving his disciples the signs of his coming, yet he never says one word about a previous time of holy blessedness. Yet would not that be the most vivid of all signs? He intimates that tribulation, sorrow, and darkness, were to overshadow the earth until He should come again. In this case, there is no room for a millennium before the advent. It must be after. And this view is greatly confirmed by the corresponding passage in Luke xxi. 24, “They shall fall by the edge of the sword, and 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.” As to the meaning of the “times of the Gentiles,” we agree substantially with Mr Brown, who says — “With Mede, Faber, and all the most accurate interpreters of prophetic language, we take this to be a direct reference to the times of Daniel’s Gentile monarchies, under the last of which, as Paul teaches, a ‘fulness of the Gentiles is to come in, which can be no other than as many as are to be gathered from amongst the Gentiles until their time of trial shall expire, and their period of judgment arrive.”*

These times then are still to run on, and as long as they run on, Jerusalem continues to be trodden down. Now, as this treading down of Jerusalem cannot be during the millennium, it is plain that we are not to look for the dawn. of that day of glory till these times have expired. Now, what happens at their expiry? No less an event than the coming of the Son of Man! It is the second advent that terminates the times of the Gentiles and the down-treading of Jerusalem. The 25th verse tells us what ends these times; “there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars, and upon the earth distress of nations with perplexity, the sea and the waves roaring; men’s hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after the things that are coming on the earth; for the powers of heaven

shall be shaken: AND THEN SHALL THEY SEE THE SON

* Pp, 257, 258.

or MAN COMING IN A CLOUD WITH POWER AND GREAT eLtory.” Must not the millennium succeed the advent? It will not be found possible to apply these words of Luke to the destruction of Jerusalem, for they are still awaiting their fulfilment, inasmuch as Jerusalem is still troddendown. So far then from its being possible to apply these terrible descriptions to the siege of Jerusalem, this passage of Luke shows us that this is absolutely umpossible. For this darkening of the sun and moon, — this shaking of the powers of heaven, — this coming of the Son of man, are not to take place till the tames of the Gentiles are fulfilled. These times are not yet fulfilled. ‘Therefore, these, other events are still future. This passage also shows us, that Mr Brown’s meaning of “this generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled,” cannot be correct. For one of the chief things mentioned by Luke, is the fulfilling of the times of the Gentiles, which Mr Brown admits is not yet arrived. If so, then, “all these things” were not fulfilled in the ewisting generation, seeing, according to Mr Brown’s own admission, some of them are still future.

§ 2. Acts 111. 21.

“Whom the heavens must receive until the times of restitution of all things which God had spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets.” From this passage the argument in favour of a pre-millennial advent is as follows: ‘There is a peridd here described as “times of refreshing” and “times of restitution”. This second (no less then the first), seems to be the millennial one. Now, as it is said that Christ is to remain in heaven only until this period, the inference is, that he is to come at the beginning and not at the end of the millennium.

Mr Brown admits that the “times of refreshing” are the millennial times, but denies that the times of restitution have any reference to this period. Suppose he were right, what does he gain? He admits that the “sending of Christ” points to his second coming; and is it not obvious that these times of refreshing and this sending of Christ, are synchronous? The words seem necessarily to imply this, “when the times of refreshing shall come; and (when) he shall send Jesus Christ.” We do not discuss the meaning of oxws ay. Let it either mean “when,” or “that,” still

AND RESTITUTION SYNCHRONOUS. BS PAs

it governs both the verbs come (iAdwor), and send (aroorésAn), and thus seems to place these two events together. In this way, Beza evidently understood the synchronism, for while making the “refreshing” the blessedness of eternity, he shows that this is only to be entered on at the coming of Christ. “Quwm venerint tempora refrigerti vos quogue hoc refrigervum sentiatis, quum venerit Christus ad judicandum orbem, wpsum redemptorem non judicem sentiatis: vita eterna rfrigerium dicitur quia refrigerat fessos,” &c. Calvin also maintains the synchronism in the same way, and takes some pains to show how the day of judgment may be called a time of refreshing.* Clarius, another Reformation divine, gives the same exposition, — “Hie secundi adventus admonet; pulcre appellant tempora refrigeru, illum judicu diem, post cestum videlicet laborum et erumnarum.” But we need not quote others.t Indeed, most commentators have taken the synchronism for granted, as if no other meaning could be affixed to the words. There may be difference of ‘opinion as to the meaning of the “refreshing,” but we

- do not see how there can be any as to the synchron-

* See his Comm. on Acts.

+ Modern German critics have taken up precisely the same ground. Hence Krebs expounds the passage, “Ut vobis respiratio et recreatio a laboribus, tempore felicissimo resurrectionis ‘mortuorum contingat.”

ism. If so, and if refreshing be, as Mr Brown admits, the millennial refreshing, then is not the pre-millennial advent demonstrated? Christ is to be sent for the purpose of introducing these times of refreshing, and so, of course, must come previous to the millennium.

But the next verse asks our special attention, as it has been made more especially the subject of controversy, — “whom the heavens must receive until the times of restitution of all things.” The millennarian argument from this is, that the restitution of all things means the millennium, and that, as it is said here, that Christ is to remain in heaven until these times, his advent must be pre-millennial Mr Brown’s answer to this is as follows : —

“1, The ‘all things which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began,’ must refer to all the things predicted by the prophets. Pre-millennialists (!) from the time of Mede downwards, have been in the habit of reading it, ‘ till the restitution of all things concerning which God hath spoken;’ in order that the restitution of the physical creation may be thought to be the thing intended by the apostle. But no such proposition is in the original, It is just ‘all things which God hath spoken.’ And how often do we find in the Gospels and in the:

7
3
a
+
in
cai

MR BROWN’S STATEMENT, SaE

Epistles such general references to ‘all that the prophets have spoken,’ meaning the subject-matter of their prophecies, whether in general or on some specific points then in hand. Wo other sense of the words, as they stand in the text, can legitimately be given.

“2. In this case, the restitution refers to such a disposition or settlement of all matters pertaining to the kingdom and cause of God as is the burden of all prophecy. In this sense the words were understood by the ancient Christian translators, fathers, and lexicographers; as Faber has shown, whose statement to that effect we give in the foot-note.* And in this sense, the expression answers to what Paul calls ‘the end’ — an end, certainly, which will not occur before the millennium, nor till after the close of it. Tull then, ‘the heavens must receive him,’ Then he shall be ‘sent.’ “+

The former of these paragraphs we do not very well

“* Thus the clause is rendered by the Syrac, ‘ Until the ful- ‘ness of the time of all things:’ by the Arabic, ‘Until the times im which all the things shall be perfected or finished:’ by Zrenceus “Until the times of the disposition of all the things which God hath spoken by the mouth of the holy prophets:’ and by Heumenous, ‘ Until the time that all the things come to an end.’ According to the Greek lexicographers, Hesychius and Phavorinus, anoxaracracis (“restitution,” is rerciwais, (completion. ) — Faber’s Sacred Calendar of Prophecy, vol. iii, pp. 455, 456.

. + Pp. 267, 268.

understand. We have no more wish to thrust in a preposition than Mr Brown has. Nor, in point of fact, do we do this any more than he. Unless he contends that the meaning of the passage is, “the times of the restitution of all the words which God hath spoken,” he must admit of something like a preposition. So long as he makes it things, he must do this; for we cannot say that God hath spoken things or events; we say he has spoken concerning things or events, or times. We have no wish to alter the construction. What suits him will suit us, unless he denies that the “all things” refer to events, which we do — not find him doing. One of the statements of this passage certainly does surprise us. “Pre-millennialists, from the time of Mede downwards, have been in the habit of reading it, — the restitution of all things concerning which,” &c. By this it is intimated, that this illegitimate reading, as Mr Brown thinks it, is chargeable against pre-millennialists, and pre-millennialists since the days of Mede. The correctness of such a statement will be seen from what follows. Beza translates the words thus, usgue ad tempora restitutionis omnium de quibus locutus est Deus. Was Beza a pre-millennialist? Yet he uses the very words (de quibus ) which Mr Brown charges against pre-millennialists. Lampe, whose interpretation nearly coincides with Mr

Brown’s, thus translates the passage, “usque ad conjirmationem seu consummationem omnium de quibus locutus est Deus.”* Teller, a German theologian of the last century, thus paraphrases the words, ewm rediturum ad restitutionem omnium parandam que restituenda sint ex promissione divina;t where the ex promissione are equivalent to the de qguibus. Doddridge translates it, “the times of the regulation of all things which God hath spoken of by the mouth of all his holy prophets.”= We shall not add to these quotations, though we might do so largely. These are specimens; and from them the reader may judge of the correctness of the charge made above against pre-millennialists by Mr Brown. It is by no means fair to insinuate such things against pre-millennialists, as if they were violating grammar in order to build up a theory, when it turns out that, if they are in error, they are so in common with the great mass of critics,

* De Aiternitate Penarum, in vol. ii. of his Dissertations, p, 82.

+ Fides dogmatis de resurrectione carnis per quatuor priora secula, p. 33, A.D. 1766.

+ An old Jesuit commentator upon the passage gives restitution as the meaning of the word, and in quoting the Syriac, inserts the preposition (de guibus), which Mr Brown complains of as thrust in by “pre-millennialists, from the days of Mede downwards.” Loriniin Act. Ap. Comment. (1617.) This Jesuit was no millennarian, and has devoted some pages to the “refutatio

chiliastorum,” p. 16, some of whom support the opposite theory, and others were evidently influenced by no theory at all. i But let us now come to the chief word in this sentence, restitution. Mr Brown has at once adopted Faber’s views, and rests on his arguments and criticisms. Following him, or rather enlarging upon him, he tells us that, “in this sense, the words were understood by the ancient Christian translators, fathers, lexicographers.” Now, granting that the Syriac, the Arabic, Irenzeus, and Gicumenius, and even Hesychius and Phavorinus,* there are others besides these who are entitled to be heard. The Vulgate renders it restitutio, and it is a tolerably ancient translation. As to the fathers, the only one he quotes is Irenzeus; and he is doubtful. Then, as to others, we find in one of them the following definition of resurrection, “G@yaoraolg eOTIV 7 big TO Geyasov TNS DucEWS Huoawoxaracracs, (Greg. Nyss. as quoted by Suicer,) where it is plain that this Greek father, who doubtless

* We wonder that Irenzeus should be thus classed. His expression dispositio, may be taken in our sense as easily as in Mr Brown’s, for it is difficult to see what he means; and Erasmus wonders why he thus rendered it. As to Hesychius and Phavorinus, we can claim them on our side, for reAs:woig means perfection as truly as it does completion. It is curious, however, to notice that Wolfius, whilst referring to this latter meaning, as not an unsuitable one, yet adds, that no classic author can be quoted in its behalf! See his Cure Philologice.

FATHERS AND LEXICOGRAPHERS. aot

understood his own language well enough, meant by aroxaracracis, a restoring to former state. Another Greek father thus expresses himself, “dvacraoig éormeG To aeytsov aroxaraoracs. * And in another place, Gregory, giving another definition of resurrection, uses the word dyaororyeiworg where he had previously used a&roxaraoracic, making it still plainer in what sense he understood the word. Jerome has no commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, but in translating and commenting on the Hebrew word which the Septuagint translate dvoxabsornus, he uses restituteo as the corresponding word, as in Hzekiel xvi. 55, where the word oceurs twice; restituentur sicut fuerunt a principio; and, again, restitwemeni sicut fuistis ab anitio.f Then as to lexicographers, there is Suidas, one of the most eminent among the ancient ones, — what does he give? He does not take up the noun, but he notices the verb twice, and on both occasions

translates it restituo.f More modern lexicographers

* Theophanes, quoted by the same. It may be useful to give the whole passage of Theophanes, “dvacrucis eoriv n bsg 70 AOU AMOKUTUTTHOIS NY HAI Nusis amexderomsba ty rn THdIyyEvere ANCE, KUCITH TAY METACTOY LMTAYTOS DI EaYTOU HOE apbaoricavros nv Puow nua. (Suicer, vol. ii. p. 362.) There can surely be no doubt here as to the meaning of the word.

+ Works, vol. iv. p. 379.

t See under aroxabioray and aroxarerrny,

332 LEXICOGRAPHERS AND COMMENTATORS.

are uniform in their testimony as to restitution being the meaning of the word. Hedericus gives restitutio in pristinam formam vel statum; and adds, as the meaning given in the ancient Glossary, restitutio, redhibitio.. Leigh gives restitutio as the sense of the noun; and, in reference to the verb, remarks, significat proprie wm locum pristinum reponere, in pristinum restituere.* Stockius gives restitutio as the sense of the noun, and restituo in pristinum locum sive statum, as that of the verb.t Robinson, in his Lexicon, renders it “the restoration of any thing to its former state.” Kuinoel, though he ultimately adopts something like Mr Brown’s interpretation, yet sets out with stating the other as the primary and natural sense.

- The Assembly’s Annotators paraphrase it thus: “until the perfection of the kingdom of Christ, when all things shall be repaired which sin hath disordered and ruined.” John Knox understood restitution as we do evidently, for he says, “to reform the face of the earth, which never was, nor yet shall be, till that righteous King and Judge appear for the restoration of all things.”§ Mr Fairbairn says, “the apostle Peter represents the term of Christ’s second coming as ‘the

* Crit. Sacr. p. 52. + Clavis, vol. i. pp. 128, 129. t Comm. vol. iii. p. 66. § Treatise on Fasting.

HESYCHIUS, OLSHAUSEN. 333

time of the restitution of all things,’ 2. ¢. when everything should be restored to its pristine condition;” and then in a note he adds the following remark, “that this is simply the force of the original here it may be enough to give the meaning of the main word from the lexicographer Hesychius, ‘ the restoration of a thing to its former state, or toa better, restitution, consummation, a revolution of the grander kind from which a new order of things arises, rest after turmoil.’”* Olshausen, commenting on the 19th verse of the 8th chapter of the Romans, as to the groans of creation, remarks, “as there is a regeneration of the individual, there is a regeneration also of the universe, Matt. xix. 28. As paradise at first vanished from the earth with sin, and in man’s inward being the vots was subjected to sin; so does the restoration through Christ begin first with the liberation of the

vous, Rom, vii. 25, and in the creation, with the restor-

* Typology, vol. i. p. 465. While I quote Mr Fairbairn’s opinion as to the meaning of the word, I must notice that he is under some mistake as to Hesychius. That lexicographer, as he will find at p. 125 of his Lexicon, (ed. 1668), simply gives reAcmors as the meaning of the word, as Mr Brown and Mr Faber state, Suicer does not give the word at all. Suidas gives the verb in the sense of vestitwo, quoting Menander. Mr Fairbairn must have mistaken his reference. Mr Brown’s meaning I find assented to by Danovius, (Theol. Dogm. Inst. (1772) p. 441), also by Richterus, (Tabulae Theolog. Dogm. (1771) p. 327.)

oot UNANIMITY OF TRANSLATORS.

ing of paradise at the resurrection of the just, the representatives of the voids for the totality, Rev. xx. 4; to this time the prophecies of the prophets point, that the deserts shall blossom again, the lamb and the lion shall feed together,” Isa, xi. 6, xxxv. 9, lxv. 25; and in a note he adds, “In Acts iii. 21, dronarcoraoiscavrwy has a like signification, answering to the Rabbinical ebay wary venovattio mundi; Luther naively describes this glorification of nature as the putting on of God’s Haster robe, instead of the present work- day dress.”* Fenwick, in commenting on the 97th Psalm, remarks, “At the resurrection of Christ these things began to be done, and when the times of restitution, spoken of in Acts iii. 19, 21, are come, they will be fully accomplished; for then the earth, now fallen and subject to vanity, will be renewed and restored.”+ We need add no other testimonies, though many more might be cited. These are enough. The reader, we suspect, will be inclined to think, along with us, that the translators, fathers, and lexicographers, are on our side, not on Mr Faber’s or Mr Brown’s. It is curious to notice how unanimous all our own translators are

in translating the word as we do. Wicliff, Tyndale,

* Olshausen on the Romans, p. 286.
t Fenwick on the Psalms, p. 285.

SEPTUAGINT USE OF THE WORD. aap

Cranmer, the Bishops, Geneva, Rheims, all concur with our own authorised version. The most recent anti-millennarian writer, Dr Carlile, evidently understands restitution in the sense of setting all to rights.* Yet both Mr Faber and Mr Brown seem to think that no one who had not a theory to serve could so render the passage!

But let us discover the Scriptural use of the word. And, first, let us look at the Old Testament. The noun does not occur there, but the verb does. Biel gives as its meaning, restituo, reduco, constituo, and from him (as we have not Trommius at hand) we glean a few examples.+

“Hxodus iv. 7, Kas raAw awexareore, x. 7. A., and it was turned again as his other flesh.”

“Job v. 18, aAyety woes nos radu aronabsornow, he makes to grieve, and again restoreth.

“Isaiah xxiii. 17, radw dronxaracrnoera: tig ro aeyasov, she shall be restored to her old estate.”

Let these specimens suffice for the Old Testament; let us turn up the New. The noun occurs only once — in the passage under dispute, but the kindred verb

occurs eight times, all of which we give, omitting the

Greek.

* Pp. 10, 18.
+ Biel’s Thesaurus Philologicus in Sept.

Matt. xii. 13, It was restored whole as the other. — xvii. 11, Shall first come and restore all things. Mark iii. 5, His hand was restored whole as the other. — viii. 25, He was restored and saw every man. — ix. 12, Elias cometh first and restoreth all things. Luke vi. 10, His hand was restored whole as the other. Acts i. 6, Wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel. Heb. xiii. 19, That I may be restored to you the sooner.

These are all the passages in which the word occurs. They are before the reader. He can decide for himself as to the meaning of the word, and as to the justice or correctness of Mr Brown’s criticisms.

The evidence against and in favour of restitution may be thus summed up. An ancient translation gives us “fulness,” as the meaning of the word.* An ancient father gives “disposition,” which, however, may “mean setting to rights;” another, not so ancient, gives “the times when all things shall come to an end.” This is the substance of what can be said agaznst our view. Then in favour of it, we have ancient translators, fathers, lexicographers; we have the unvaried authority of the Greek classics; we have the testimony of all translations and lexicons since the Reformation; we have the Septuagint use of the word; and, lastly, we have (what is decisive of itself) the New Testament

* Syriac. We do not admit the Arabic, it may mean perfection in the sense of restztution, just as Hesychius and Phavorinus.

UNANIMITY OF EVIDENCE. Sat

use of it, which is conclusive and unquestionable. Such is the amount of evidence in our favour. Our readers can form their own judgments. We think any additional remarks unnecessary.*

* Bretschneider’s testimony to the meaning of the word, both verb and noun, is quite decisive. “(1) Restitwo; — in pristinum statum seu locum restituo. De valitudine. Matt. 12, 18, &c.

- + + Test, xii. patr. p. 535, aroxaraccnen chy xeien #ov, Medicis est, ossa, suoloco mota, in sedem reponere propriam. Hippocr. De munere restituendo alicui, Gen. xl. 13, &, De urbe, regno, seu republica, Ezek. xvi. 55. 1 Mace. xv. 3. Matt. xvii. 1i. Mark ix. 12. droxarnucrnos rh rdvra, ie. ry CaosAciay, totam rempublicam parabit restitutioni: Vide Mal. iii, 1; iv. 5. Sir. xlviii. 9 — 12. Act. i. 6. Putabant seriores Judai imperium in gentes, quale habuissent sub Davide a Messia ipsis restitutum iri. Diod. Sicul. 20, 82. rois wiv worirass hv dnpoxeariay amoxaricrnce. (2.) Reduco; in patriam. Heb. xiii. 9, ut ad vos reducar, Jer. xvi. 15; xxiii. 7. Hos.xi. 12, 3 Bsdr. i, 31. Tobit x.13. Joseph, Ant.11,1,1.” In his remarks upon the noun, he gives precisely the same meanings as in the verb. As an authority, Theophyl. ad Autol. lib. ii. p..96, is referred to, Exava (res nature) aroxaracticeras tis chy dexnder (ante lapsum) necgornra. As an authority for its signifying a spiritual restoration, he quotes Clem. Alex. Strom. ii. 22, droxaracrnoti tis chy réAuayv diodeciay, And then as to its meaning consummation, or reAsiwoss, a3 Mr Brown thinks it should, he merely remarks, that the passage in Job viii. 6 will not bear out such an interpretation, but must mean restituere. We have no wish to undervalue Mr Faber’s learning; but here is the unbiassed testimony of one of the most learned of German lexicographers against him. Nor does Bretschneider stand alone. All modern lexicographers agree with him. We do not know of any testimony to the meaning of

a word more decided or more unanimous.
vA