2 Thessalonians
THE scope of this passage may be stated thus. The Thessalonians had been alarmed by something which they had heard regarding the second coming of the Lord, of which the apostle had written to them in his previous epistle. What that special something was, I do not inquire. It is admitted by all to be something pertaining to the literal and personal advent of the Lord, in reference to which there had been some misapprehension. Hug thus states the matter, “Whilst they were anxiously expecting the advent of the Lord, they received the first epistle of the apostle. Soon after another epistle appeared under the apostle’s name, which announced the approaching moment of the Lord’s appearance, Nothing more was wanting to render them completely disconsolate. j Paul was soon apprised of the state and perplexity of the Thessalonians, and he could no longer leave them in so lamentable a condition. Under these circumstances, he wrote his second epistle.”* So that while the first epistle dwells upon the advent as an event which the Thessalonians were expecting, the second epistle dwells on it as an event regarding which there had been some error on their part. In both epistles, however, it is obviously the same advent that is spoken of. Thus, then, the following things seem to be undeniable : —
1, It was of the literal second advent that the apostle had written in his first epistle, making mention of it six times in the course of five brief chapters. - 2, It was the literal second advent that the Thessalonians were expecting. We have no evidence that they knew of any other; but whether this is the case or not, they were expecting nothing but the personal coming. 3
3. It was some mistake as to the approach or arri-
- val of that advent that had caused their trouble and
alarm.
- 4. It was to correct their mistake as to the time of this same advent that the apostle wrote his second epistle, in which he mentions that event six times.
5. It was not to tell them that there was no such * Hug’s Introduction, translated by Dr Wait, vol, ii. p. 553.
advent as they were expecting, that he wrote, nor that the promised advent was altogether spiritual and figurative.. 6. It was to repeat his declarations as to the certainty of that literal advent, but also to inform them that there was a certain event between them and it. 7. It was to tell them that as soon as that intervening event had come to pass, then that very advent which they had been expecting, that very advent which had been troubling them, that very advent which seemed to be waiting for the accomplishment of the one intervening event, would certainly come.. Is not the following his statement to them? “You are expecting the coming of the Lord, and you are right in so doing; only, remember that there is an event to take place first; but as soon as that event has taken place, then that very coming you are expecting shall arrive; not another coming, but the same that you are expecting. Antichrist must come first; but as soon as Antichrist has come, then shall the Lord come the second time to destroy him.” How is it possible to explain away this coming into a spiritual one? What meaning have the apostle’s words if that very coming by which Antichrist is to be destroyed, were not the very same coming as that which they had been previously expecting? What could be the meaning of saying, “don’t be so troubled about the Lord’s coming, for that day shall not arrive till Antichrist be risen, and then the Lord will come in spirit”?
I put this question to Mr Brown. Js not the advent by which Antichrist was to be destroyed, the very same as that which the Thessalonians were expecting? Let me illustrate this a little.
On the fifth of November 1688, William of Orange was expected to land at Torbay. If, when the crowds were waiting to receive him, a courier had come from him with this message, — the Prince will not arrive to-day, something has fallen out which delays him, but he will certainly land to-morrow, — could it ever have entered into the minds of the waiting multitude, that this delay would so alter the kind of coming, that whereas he was to have come in person to-day, he would not come in person to-morrow? Had he come to-day, it would have been the Prince in person; but to-morrow it will be but a figurative coming! He will not land im person. He will remain in Holland, merely transmitting his orders and instructions by certain agents or representatives! On the contrary, would not every one expect that the very William who had been expected in person on the fifth, would fulfil his promise, and come in person on the sixth? Can the delay alter the personality? Can the intervening event transform the arrival from a reality into a figure, from a personality into a proxy? Yet this very absurdity they are guilty of, who, admitting that it was the literal advent that the Thessalonians were waiting for, say that it was not the same literal advent they were to expect, when the unexpected delay was terminated.*
Again, the expression “coming of Christ” occurs twelve times in these two epistles. In the other eleven it is allowed to be literal, in this alone it is affirmed to be figurative? Why this difference? Why must it be figurative here and literal elsewhere? Is there a reason for it? Does the context demand it? Does the argument require it? Is there something feebler in the expression indicating a less literal sense? Nay, not one of these things can be asserted; least of all the last... For it is united with a word which makes it much stronger, and more imperatively and necessarily literal than the other eleven, — the brightness of his coming, the epiphany of his presence. Does not this addition absolutely preclude the figurative? And
* In confirmation of this, a friend has called my attention to the insertion of the article by the Apostle, tripuvesm ris rugovvias. It is not simply a coming but the coming, 7. e. the coming already referred to and expected by the Thessalonians.
if Mr Brown insists on its being figurative, will he allow me to use his own words, and remind him of
the “necessities” and “conveniences” of his system?
What but these could. lead any one to attempt to
wring a figure out of words so plain? And must not that system be inexorable and importunate indeed, when in the consciousness that the natural sense would
be fatal, it insists upon spiritualizing words so simple
and clear?
Can Mr Brown give one reason why the literal is
inadmissible here, save that it would be fatal to his
system?
But farther, the word ex:paverw which the apostle uses here, occurs just six times in the New Testament. In one of these it refers to the first advent, which we know was literal and personal.. In fourit is admitted to refer to the literal and personal second coming. The fifth is the one under discussion, and it is the
strongest and most unambiguous of all the six! Not
one of these others is so explicit, yet no one thinks of
explaining them away. Why then fasten upon the strongest, and insist on spiritualizing it? If the strongest can be explained away so as to denote the second coming, much more may the others, and then
we shall have no passages to prove the advent at all!
If the anti-millennarian be at liberty to spiritualize the most distinct, why may not the Straussian be allowed to rationalize or mythologize the less distinct /*
That I am stating the hermeneuties of the word correctly, the following extracts will show. The first is from Stockius, “1. generatim not at apparitionemgquamcunqgue. 2. Specratum, proprie not at APPARI-TIONEM REI CORPOREH ET LUCIDM guce cum splendore emicat. Metaphorice adhibetur ad designandam appariiionem Christi (1) gratiosam, in carne quam adventum gus primum vocant, 2 Tim. 4. 10. (2) gloriosam, ad judicandum orbem terrarum que erit gratiosa
* If these statements be correct, and especially if the opinions of the lexicographers be correct, what force can we attach to Mr Brown’s statement that the expression “apart altogether from the context, does not necessarily denote a personal advent. It may dosooritmaynot,... there is nothing in the phrase which ties it down to a personal coming,” p.271. Why is it that Mr Brown does not take up ev:@avesw as he has done ragoucin, and why, in commenting on Mr Wood’s statement, does he confine himself to the word ‘‘ outshining.” If he had used the apostle’s word ex:Payvesz, he could not surely have ventured to say that it isa mode of conception, and a style of speaking which does anything but necessarily suggest to the Scripture student a personal manifestation, p. 276. Yet the only other places in the New Testament where the word occurs, are those in which it is admitted to mean a personal manifestation. This is a most unguarded statement. ‘To have said that it does not necessarily suggest a personal manifestation was saying much; but to say that it does anything but necessarily suggest, is saying a great deal more. How was it suggested to all these eminent lexicograplicrs of it does anything rather than suggest it?
pus et fidelibus, terribilis vero impiis et infidelibus, quamque adventum ejus secundum vocant. 2 Thess. wi. 8. 1 Zim. vi. 14. 2 Tim. w. 1, and ww. 8. Titus w. 13. Sepius in N. T. non legitur.* To this I add Pasor’s definition, “ex:paverw, apparitio. Semel accipitur pro nativitate Domini nostri Jesu Christi. 2 Tim. i. 10. Czeteris Scripturee locis pro illustri ejus adventu ad judicium. 2 Thess. ii. 8, &c.t Leigh says, “this word signifieth a bright, clear, glorious appearing, from which word we take our epiphany, specially Adventus Numinis. It is taken for the first coming of Christ, 2 Tim. i. 10; for his second coming, as 2 Thess. ii. 8, dc.”t Scudtetus, after telling us that the pagan writers used to call any appearance of their gods éripuvern, adds, “Apostolus quoque priorem et posteriorem Christi adventum ex:pavesny dixit.”§ Sué- cer, after mentioning the use of the word — l, the heathen use of it in reference to a manifestation of one of their gods; 2, in reference to the first advent — thus proceeds, “3, de secundo Christi adventu qui erit ad * Stockit Clavis, vol. ii. p. 1147. This lexicographer seems to have interpreted the verse under notice, as referring to the literal advent. He had no theory to serve.
+ G. Pasor’s Lewicon on N. T. p. 1889. This lexicographer also assumes the literality of our passage.
£ Critica Sacra, p. 161. This lexicographer also takes, as undoubted, the literality of our passage, § Ever. Evang. lib. ii. ch. 1.
3546 LEXICOGRAPHERS.
judicium: ita frequenter sumitur ab apostolo, nimirum. 2 Thess. il. 8, &c.”*
These are the testimonies of unbiassed lexicographers, — men who were simply concerned with the sense of the words. They seem to have found no difficulty in coming to a conclusion as to the literality and personality of the advent spoken of.t Strong
* Thes. Eccles. vol. i. p. 1202, where this lexicographer also takes for granted the literality of the words in question.
+ After these testimonies, what are we to think of a late anti-millennarian writer (after trying to prove that ragovci« does not always mean personal presence), telling us with authority that as the words ta@avem ris ragovcims do not necessarily express bodily presence when taken separately, it is ¢mposszble they can do so when united”! (Morrison, p. 81.) In other words, because two do not make fowr, therefore it is impossible that two and two can make four. Let me give another example of this author’s demonstrations. In 2 Cor. x. 10, he finds the phrase ragoveim rév cwuuros, “bodily presence,” as our translation has it: and planting his foot on this expression, he asks, “does this expression not imply that there is a presence which is not bodily?” Those who know what a syllogism is, “will have the hardihood” to answer, No. I am not asserting that there is not a presence which is not bodily, I am merely affirming that to deduce it from this passage is a perversion of reasoning. When repouci is joined with wwe, it means the presence of the cwua, and when it is joined with vvevua, it means the presence of the axvevwe; but does this prove that wzgoveiw cwumeros means Raoovoin mvevaros, — does it prove that bodily presence means spiritual presence? Mr M. should have asked, “does this expression not imply that there is a bodily presence which is not bodily?” If he can demonstrate this, I shall admit the force of his whole argument. Again, in refuting the assertion that the reasons will require to be adduced by our opponents for the invalidating or oversetting of such testimony. If they are to be listened to, then, the passage mu refer to the literal advent, and cannot refer to anything else,
We come now to the testimony of trusty expositors, — men who had no theory to bias them.
1. Luther. On Dan. ix. 25: “The apostle expresses this pope’s destruction thus — whom the Lord, &c., 2 Thess. ii. 8. The laity, therefore, shall not destroy the pope and his kingdom. No: he and his wicked rabble are not deserving of so light a punishment. They shall be preserved until the coming of Christ, whose most bitter enemies they are, and ever have been.” *
2. Calvin. In his Institutes he evidently takes the
words in question always mean a corporeal presence, he tells us that before our system “can derive any support from this admission, we should require to prove that the advent of Christ to Judge the world will take place before and not after the millennium’! That is to say, before I am at liberty to use these words in proof of millennarianism, I must first prove millennarianism to be true! So that we are precluded from using Scripture in proving our system, until we have first proved the system; ¢. e. until there is no need of proving it. What a strange admission this, that Scripture must be expounded by systems!
* The Pope Confounded, &c. I regret that I have not the original at hand. I quote from Mr Cole’s translation, p. 177; see also p. 180.
‘
literal view of the passage, making the Lord’s coming the consummation of all judgment upon Antichrist, and quoting 2 Thess. ii. 8. (Book iii. ch. 20, § 42.) Lest this, however, should be thought a mere allusion, I turn to his commentary on Thessalonians. There I find the following statements. Speaking generally of the two expressions consume and destroy, he says incertum est loguiturne de ultima Christi apparitione quum judex e celis patefet. Then he remarks that such is the apparent meaning of the words; only it is to be understood that this consummation is not the work of a moment, but protracted and only brought to a close guum ultimus ille instaurationis omnium dies adveniet. He then makes a distinction between “consuming by the spirit of his mouth,” which he refers to the effects of the word, and “destroying by the brightness of his coming,” which he makes the full consummation ; — the one being the light of dawn, the other the rising of the sun.
3. Beza. Ste placuit convertere nomen éaipaveras guod usurpavit Paulus de industria, ut ejus posterioris adventus jubar wlud maxime illustre oculis nostris repreesentaret;* and again, verbo Domini tandem illa empretas detegetur et adventu Christi penitus abolibetwr.
* See in loc.
4, Jewell, This reformer makes the “spirit of his mouth” to mean the gospel, — and then on the last clause, he thus writes, “the Lord shall come and shall make his enemies his footstool: then the sun shall be black as sackcloth, and the moon shall be like blood. Then shall Antichrist be quite overthrown ... he will overthrow the whole power of Antichrist by his presence and by the glory of his coming.”*
5. Usher, “The glorious appearance of the Son of God in the latter day shall also be the overthrow of Antichrist, whence we gather that before the last day he shall not be utterly consumed.” +
6. Merguson. “He shall utterly destroy him, that is utterly abolish, enervate, and make void; — and that with the brightness of his second coming, for the word rendered brightness is usually joined with his coming to judgment.”
7. Salmasius. This commentator dwells at considerable length upon the passage, refuting Grotius, and showing the absurdity of understanding a literal advent in the beginning of the chapter and a spiritual one at the 8th verse, in which the apostle is bringing out the apodosis of his statement; — eo redit apostolus
* Comment. on Thessalonians, in loc. t Body of Divinity, ch. 45, ap. nos., p. 539. £ On the Epistles, a.D. 1656, in loc.
‘
unde fuerat profectus exprimityue apodosin orationis sue que adhuc wntelligendo tantum fuit. He then adds, vocem adventus Domini nos ecodem ubique modo accipimus .... verisimile non est Paulum in eodem orationis complexu ita varium esse et de alio Ohristt adventu incepisse dicere, de alio finire. ... unde ipsa per se exipavere, vow de Christo usurpata, ut arbitror semper apud hune ipsum apostolum Christi ultimum illum adventum designat.*
7. Assembly’s Annotators. Destroy with the brightness, &c., that is at the day of judgment, for then shall he come in flaming fire, &c.
8. Glassius. Referring to the passage, he says, simplicissime 7 exipavesa, de. est ejus ad judicium adventus qui éaipavere dicitur hoc loco et 1 Tim. vi. 14, &.+
9. Schoetigen. exipavys, ejusmodi adventus qui in omnium oculos luculenter incurrit, cujus majestatem ac splendorem insignem nemo negare poterit.t
10. Kuttner. Adventus Messi, splendore et majestate ensignis.§
11. Bloomfield. “It (ex:pavern) is especially suitable, as here, to his final advent to judgment.”|
* Note in H. Grotit Comment. super 2 Thess. vi.
+ Philologia Sacra, p. 562.
t Hore Hebr. in loc. p. 846.
§ Hypomnemata in loc. p. 465.
Recensio Synopt, in loc.)
12. Jebb. It is singular that this eminent scholar should, by means of his principles of parallelism, come to the same conclusion as to the literality of the words. Others have brought out the literality from the words themselves, others from the argument of the apostle, others from similar passages; but Jebb takes up the principles of the parallelism, and applies them to the words. He first translates them thus:- —
“Whom the Lord Jesus will waste away with the breath of his mouth, and will utterly destroy with the bright appearance of his coming.”
He then remarks, that there is an advance in the sense, “the bright appearance of the Lord’s coming” being a manifest rise above the “breath of his mouth,” and that “a similar progress is observable in the words consume and destroy; and, indeed, it is demanded by the laws of parallelism.” Having explained the difference between the words, he adds, “it may not be improbable, that the apostacy is first to be gradually - counteracted by the diffusion of Christian truth, and
then to be ultimately put down and annihilated by the last triumphant advent of the irresistible Messiah,”*
* Sacred Literature, pp. 151, 152. So striking does Jebb deem this passage as an illustration of parallelism, that he reverts to it at p. 312. He also draws attention to the resemblance between this and Dan. vii, 26, “Lhe judgment shall sit, and they shall take
13. Dr Chalmers, After making some remarks on Antichrist as predicted by the apostle in this chapter, he says, “meanwhile, let us wait the coming of our Lord, who will destroy all adversaries, and will dissipate every darkening influence by the brightness of his appearance... I desire to cherish a more habitual and practical faith than heretofore, in that coming which even the first Christians were called: to hope for with all earnestness, even though many centuries were to elapse ere the hope could be realized; and how much more we, who are so much nearer to this great fulfilment than at the time they believed.”*
14. Professor Gaussen. Having expounded the seventh of Daniel, in reference to Antichrist and his destruction, he turns to Paul, and remarks respecting the passage before us, “At the termination of the reion of the man of sin, the Scriptures uniformly show us that of our Redeemer, his glorious appearing, our gathering together unto him, the blessed millennium, and the reign of the saints.”+
15. Dr James Buchanan. He thus speaks: “We are differently situated now from the disciples in the apostolic age. They were told that the coming of the
away his dominion, to consume it, and to destroy it for ever, giving it as an instance of an “ascending parallelism.”
* Sabbath Scripture Readings, vol. i. p. 311.
+ Geneva and Rome, near the close.
Lord would not take place until the man of sin was revealed. That was an event which must happen first; and it is the only event that is there mentioned as necessarily intervening betwixt the first and second coming of the Saviour. And if Antichrist has appeared, if the man of sin has been revealed, then there is no part of Scripture that gives any assurance that the Son of man may not very soon appear. O to be ready! having our loins girt about, and our lights burning, as servants waiting for the coming of the Lord.”*
The early anti-millennarian fathers interpreted this passage literally. Thus Augustine, quoting this very verse, when speaking of the last persecution under Antichrist, affirms that it is to be ended by the coming of the Lord, prasentia sua extinguet Jesus, And he leaves us in no doubt as to what he meant. by the coming, for he proceeds to quote the passage which refers to the concealment of the time of that coming.+ A little farther on, he quotes the passage again, at length, and tells us that this day of the Lord in which Antichrist is to be destroyed, is the day of judgment, dies gudicit.t Jerome also thus gives the reason why
* Warning against Popery, p, 25.
+ De Critate Dez, book 18, chap. 53.
t Ib. book 20, chapter 19.
r 2A
Antichrist’s destruction is said to be accomplished by the brightness of his coming, quia sicut fulgur ubique coruscabit in mundo, solutis commotisque elementis per agnem.*
I might have multiplied these neutral testimonies, but I need not. They show us well what men, uninfluenced by theory, thought of the passage. I do not mean to say that some sound expositors did not spiritualize the words. Diodati does so; the Dutch annotators do so; Turrettine does so; and the elder Fleming seems inclined to do so. It is striking, however, to
‘notice, that they do not conceal their reasons, viz. that
the literal interpretation would make Antichrist to last till the Lord’s coming, which their system will not admit of. The very fact, however, that it was their system that forced them to this interpretation, is a strong testimony in our favour.
But there are anti-millennarians who have (though reluctantly), admitted the literality of the passage, — constrained to do so in spite of their theory. Thus, Thomas Scott in one sentence seems to make the “brightness of his coming” the spread of the gospel; but in the next, he adds, most inconsistently, but evidently because the plain words compelled him, “he will finally condemn and punish with everlasting destruction all the
* See in loc. Op. vol. vii. p. 274.
actors in this grand delusion, when he shall come to judge the world.” What ingenuity! As if the spread of the gospel had any resemblance with the vengeance of judgment, so that the passage could mean both! Yet what a confirmation of an interpretation, when Scott was thus driven to give the latter as the ultimate sense! In like manner Dr Urwick, feeling that the words do point to the literal advent, and unable to spiritualize them, adopts the idea that the one clause refers to the beginning, the other to the end of the millennium: “I think that perhaps the two-fold overthrow mentioned, arises from a two-fold application of the prophecy; the overthrow of what is signified by it in one application being brought about by the instrumentality of divine truth before the millennium; and the overthrow of what is signified by it in the other application, being signified by the second advent of Christ.”* Dr Carlile, too, in his recent work, takes the literal view of the words,+ referring them to the time after the millennium, and maintaining that the same mystery of iniquity is then to be revived, and then finally destroyed by the brightness of Christ’s coming. If these authors so
* On the Second Advent, p. 228.
+ The First and Second Advent, p. 26.
felt the force of the language as, in spite of their system, to follow up the literal sense, how strong the presumption in our favour!
On the other hand, in looking into the figurative interpretations of this passage, I find no one of them like its fellow. Miullennarians have but one sense to give here; their opponents are thoroughly divided. Some will have it to mean the gospel; others think it does not mean the gospel itself, but the spread of it by Christ’s power; others think it refers to mingled gospel and judgment; others that it refers to pure judgment; others make it “the display of His justice;” others make it a providential, but unmiraculous, interposition; others make it a miraculous and visible manifestation, but not a personal coming; Mr Brown
seems to make it “a judicial visitation.”*
* P. 275. I cannot help thinking that the language of Mr Brown is unguarded, — * Paul, fameliar with such language, and copying not only the general style, but the precise phraseology of the prophets, including that of our Lord in the prophecy of his coming to destroy Jerusalem (Mr Brown puts these last four words within inverted commas: — Why?) — Paul, we say, absorbed. by the subject into which Christ’s personal advent had drawn him, — and describing the Man of Sin’s destruction in the very language in which his doom had been already written to his hand, must undoubtedly be interpreted according to the uniform sense of Scripture prophecy, on the subject of which he professedly treats.” Were it not Mr Brown who writes thus, I should have
What mean all this helplessness, this perplexity, this contradiction? The words are plain enough, and the interpreters confess that it is their system that compels them to shut their eyes on its plainness. The difficulty here is not “how to understand” the passage, but how “not to understand” it.
It is answered by our opponents that the word magovore is used figuratively in the ninth verse with reference to Antichrist, and that therefore it may be so used in the 8th verse. To this I reply,
1, That it is not used figuratively in the ninth verse, but literally, in reference to a personal coming of Antichrist. I am not one of those who believe in no Antichrist but a personal one. JI believe in an antichristian body as well as an antichristian head, just as Dr Urwick does.* But though giving greater prominence to the body than futurists do, I still exsaid that the author is affirming that Paul, being so totally absorbed in one great subject, forgot himself, and used incorrect language in reference to another subject which happened to be spoken about elsewhere under similar figures. Substitute “‘ the Holy Ghost” for “Paul” here, and how would the above sentence appear? I object very strongly and solemnly to such statements; and all the more so, because I read in Coquerel the Socinian, (citing passages from the two Epistles to the Thessalonians) that Paul “evidently confounds the different comings of the Lord.” — Christianity, p. 467. * On the Second Advent, pp, 222, 225.
358; ANSWERS TO
pect a head, and in that case ragoucra will be literally. applicable to him.
2. Though one of the expressions may be spiritualized, does it follow that both may be? Though ragovo1m may vanish into a figure, must ér:paverm do the same? Or if ex:davern must also evaporate, must empavem r7¢ wweovoiag in like manner disappear? Our opponents forget that at the utmost they have only proved that ragovorm is figurative, but not ém@averm. Granting that the former is not always literal, there is no instance of the Jdatter ever being figurative. When then vagoucsm, which very often, to say the least, does denote a literal coming, is joined with em@avera Which always does; nay, when it is not merely ragovorm but 4 ragovorw, not merely a coming, but the coming, that is, the coming spoken of by the apostle in the other parts of the epistle, and expected by the Thessalonians, is not the conclusion irresistible, that the words must refer to the literal advent. May we argue thus, — “Coming standing by itself, and used respecting Antichrist may be figurative, therefore the ‘ brightness of his coming,’ (2. e. coming used in connection with a word which always denotes the literal advent) when applied to Christ, may be
figurative also’?
Granting that the “coming of Antichrist” is figurative not personal, this cannot prove that the “brightness of the coming of Christ” is not personal. For on what grounds do our opponents spiritualize “coming” in the case of Antichrist? Because they believe that Antichrist is not a person at all but a system. This must be previously assumed. But Christ is a person; his second advent is personal; and, therefore, their inference as to the figurative meaning of “brightness of Christ’s coming” is at fault. If Antichrist be not personal, then, of necessity, coming must be figurative. But this is no reason why “coming” in the case of Christ, who is a person, should be figurative also. The reason for making it figurative in the former case was, that it could not be otherwise, seeing there was no person to come; but this reason falls to the ground in the case of Christ. Who would reason thus, — “the word zaegovorm, when employed respecting Antichrist, ‘cannot be literal, because Antichrist is not a literal person, therefore emipaverm ris rugovoras cannot be literal, although Christ is a literal person”?
Mr Brown’s conclusion is simply this, “there is no necessity for taking the coming here in a personal sense.”* We may say then, that the sum of our op-
(Pa.
ponents’ argument, even weighed in their own balances, amounts only to a may be — no more. It may be but a figurative coming! Yet this passage is one
which Mr Brown admits to be one of our strongholds,
and to have “more force than all the other arguments
put together.” Yet this strongest of our arguments
he can only meet with a may be. If our interpretation
of that passage is true, post-millennialism lies prostrate; — yet our arguments are only met with a may be. Unless our opponents can get quit of that passage, they cannot stand their ground; their centre is pierced, and their flanks are turned. Yet they meet us only with a may be.
I conclude in the words of Luther, “You say it way be interpreted thus, it may also be understood thus, it may also be answered thus, it may be literally interpreted thus, it may be mystically interpreted thus; — away with all these may be’s. These, my friend Catherinus, are all refuges of lies, mere loopholes of escape, and evidently go to confirm the truths maintain. Speak thus: ‘This is the meaning of the passage, and it cannot be understood otherwise.’ You will thus keep to one simple and uniform sense of Scripture, as I always do and always have done. This
way of proceeding is ‘to be a divine; the former, a sophist. For you know in every controverted subject we must abide by the literal sense, which is uniform throughout the whole Scripture,*”
* The Pope Confounded and his Kingdom Exposed.