whether the similarity would not lead him to conclude that both are speaking of the self-same enemy.

S. Paul.

That man of sin, the son of perdition; who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called GoD. (ὁ ἀντικείμενος καὶ ὑπεραιρόμενος ἐπὶ πάντα λεγόμενον Θεόν.)

The mystery of iniquity doth already work (ἤδη ἐνεργεῖται).

S. John.

He is antichrist (ὁ ἀντίχριστος) that denieth the FATHER and the SON.

As ye have heard that antichrist (ó avríxpotos) shall come, even now are there many antichrists (ἀντίχριστοι sine articulo). This is that spirit of antichrist (τὸ τοῦ ἀντιχρίστου) whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world (νῦν ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ἐστὶν ἤδη).

In our ordinary parallel bibles the seeker is alternately referred from one set of these texts to the other as correspondent. Popular editions of the Greek Testament (e.g., Valpy's) make no doubt of the agreement. Martin Luther, in his famous commentary on the Galatians, never hints at more than one power which, in his judgment, fulfils these several conditions. Calvin (on 2 Thess. ii.) makes a special reference to the passage of S. John. Hammond treats them as practically one. The sainted doctors of the early centuries, Justin Martyr, Hippolytus, Chrysostom, Cyril of Jerusalem, and many more, fearlessly commingle the phrases of these apostolic prophets, believing them to bear upon one and the same subject. Nulli dubium est, comments Augustine on the passage of S. Paul, eum de antichristo ista dixisse, meaning evidently the antichrist. For presently he adds, "men believe it to pertain to the same mystery, of which John the Evangelist speaks in his Epistle," and proceeds to cite these texts. And whatever difficulty of explaining detail may arise from the obscurity of prophecy, there is no ambiguity, says this great father, on certain points, namely, those which we have already touched upon under our first head of inquiry.

Easy it were, we believe, to multiply authorities of very varied times and tempers. But we pause to ask, what authorities does Dr. Wordsworth adduce in favour of the separation he proposes? Of course there may be many such, whom we in our ignorance have overlooked. But we are certainly unable to discover them in these

1 De Civ. Dei, XX. 19, § 2. Our previous extracts from the fathers will be found on reference to illustrate the point.

volumes. Twice or thrice is the assertion made, but in vain do we look for the usual mass of references. It is an "I am persuaded" (pp. 512, 274, 364), a mere ipse dixi. If this be all the authority that he can urge (and it looks suspicious, when so learned a man does not mention any other), then we must frankly avow that it does not weigh heavily in our scales. Indefatigable in research, and admirable in skilful combinations of the riches of antiquity, he will hardly, we imagine, be recognised by posterity as one endowed with the genius, the acuteness, and the instincts which are required to form the original commentator upon the inspired volume.

We have said that this distinction between the Antichrist and the man of sin, however untenable in our judgment, is yet thus far gratifying, that it does recognise the possibility of the early interpretations proving partially correct and sound. On the other hand, we have admitted, that it may cause us some apparent confusion and embarrassment. And for this reason. If we cite a passage from any author denying the Pope to be Antichrist, Dr. Wordsworth and his disciples may rejoin, " And so do we." Yet that author assuming the justice of an identity allowed all but universally, as we conceive, both by Papist and Protestant, may have intended to deny at the same time, that the Pope was the son of perdition. Where, however, this is not expressed, the applicability of certain quotations in our favour may be denied. But we cannot suffer that which we believe a righteous cause to be in any way unfairly thwarted. By the context of passages, and by the general tone of the writers, we shall judge whether their voice is given for or against the opinions which we oppose, and our appeal must in such cases be made to the common sense and candour of the reader.

But if this proposed distinction between the objects, respectively indicated by S. Paul and S. John in some degree confuses the array of arguments and witnesses on our side, still greater embarrassment will it ultimately, we think, be discovered to create in the camp and ranks of our opponents in this field. Gladly as ultra-Protestantism will momentarily hail as an ally, a Divine possessed of those gifts of learning and calmness in which its own spirit is most deficient, the warmth of its first welcome is not likely to prove very durable. It will be disappointed and reject him, both for what he holds and proclaims, and likewise for what he shrinks from proclaiming, and therefore also most probably from holding. Deeply as it must rejoice over his answers to the questions we are now about to discuss, it will dislike his Sacramental teaching, his declared reverence for the voice of the universal Church, his desire to accept in some modified form, the primitive teaching concerning the nature of the Antichrist. Its disciples may possibly oppose what he has written on the subject of the Millennium: they will certainly regard him as a defaulter upon the question of the

Apostacy foretold in the first Epistle of S. Paul to Timothy (iv. 13). If they patronise these volumes for a season, we predict that they will rapidly return to their old favourites, Keith or Newton, Bishop Hurd or Mr. Elliot. Sad to them must seem the havoc which Dr. Wordsworth makes among their old authorities. Do they desire to regard Mede as a great name recorded in their favour? This latest commentator might be ranged by his side, but then he utterly rejects the theory of numbers, upon which Mede's scheme is entirely founded. Do they rest their cause upon Bishop Newton? Dr. Wordsworth follows that writer in many respects, but then he drops the application of those Pauline prophecies just referred to, in which Newton coincides with Mede.

? If

And we, who differ from both these schemes, the numeric one of Mede and the later one now before us, how can we be expected to attach any great importance to a list of authorities, of which the citers only accept exactly so much as may suit their purpose? Dr. Wordsworth be inclined to recognise in part the outlines drawn by primitive Fathers, why may not we step onward and accept them (as to substance) altogether. If he may take upon himself to deny that S. John in his Epistle prophesied of the Bishop of Rome, perhaps we may be found in as good company, when we deny that S. Paul so prophesied. If he must subtract from the fabric raised by Mede, both the scheme of numbers, and the theory of the apostacy, where is our recklessness, if we attempt to remove the shattered remnants of the building? In fact, one half of the witnesses whom Dr. Wordsworth summons, will be found, if examined, to prove too much; and his admirers must not be surprised, if this be considered, in the eyes of many, as a close approximation to proving nothing at all.

Before however we proceed to enter more fully upon these topics, it may be well to see if there be any common ground of agreement, from which, as a starting point, we may commence afresh. Such ground does, we trust, exist between us and most of those who think otherwise on these points, and will not therefore fail us in the case of Dr. Wordsworth.

Our opponents would, we presume, frankly admit thus much. concerning the sense affixed by them to the son of perdition and the mystic Babylon: that it is an opinion and not a doctrine, not an article of belief, which, when once propounded, men reject at peril of their salvation. Even Chillingworth,' protestantium protestantissimus, declares that these are open questions.

It will be indeed urged by some, that in accepting Holy Scripture as the infallible Word of God, we do of necessity accept, by implication, the propositions which they lay down. But this is a manifest petitio principii, the very question at issue being whether

Works (Lond. 1742,) p. 20, quoted by Todd on the Apocalypse. Preface, p. xxiii. note.

these statements are really the teaching of the Scripture. On this point we cannot do better than borrow the clear and nervous language of Dr. Wordsworth. The italics, we may observe, are of his choosing.

"We would remind you of what is too often forgotten, that a wrong interpretation of Scripture is not Scripture; and that it is only the true meaning of the Bible which can properly be called the Bible; and that they cannot be said to be really zealous for the perfection and sufficiency of Holy Writ, who would impose upon you their own notions of Scripture as Scripture. They do, in fact, substitute human imaginations for the Divine Word; and so they make Scripture to be very insufficient and imperfect; and when they speak of Scripture as sufficient and perfect, they are not contending for the sufficiency and perfectness of Scripture, but for the sufficiency and perfectness of their own wit. . . . . Remember that Scripture, as a whole, is your rule of faith, and receive nothing as the sense of any particular passage which is at variance with this rule. . . . Remember also that Almighty God has not only given us Scripture as our rule, but He has also vouchsafed to us a guide for its application; namely, the Christian Church. In the words of our twentieth Article, the Church hath authority in controversies of faith.' . . . . By so doing [i.e. neglecting these rules] ... you would be giving up the fundamental principle of Christianity. Scripture, as interpreted by the Universal Church would cease to be your rule of faith; and when this foundation is gone, the whole fabric falls. pp. 45, 46.

Earnestly desiring to bear in mind these important cautions, we may now advance to the statement of what appear to us some few of the leading difficulties in the way of receiving the interpretations maintained in these volumes. In so doing, we assume throughout the Catholicity of the English Church and the rectitude of her position: we assume too that the rejection of Dr. Wordsworth's conclusions, if they be erroneous, can in no wise injure the reality of her solemn claims on our allegiance. Indeed, to imagine for one moment that any cause can be a gainer by the prestige of an admixture of error, is virtually an abandonment of that cause as hopeless and untenable.

1. It is then a real difficulty, which does not affect the primitive belief upon these subjects, but which does strike at the very root of the theory before us, that we are invited to regard the object of these prophecies not as a person, but as a series of persons. Personality, as is well known to all who have studied the controversy with Pantheistic tendencies, is a leading feature of the Christian religion. That religion teaches its disciples to believe in a personal Triune JEHOVAH, a personal Creator, a personal Redeemer, a personal Sanctifier, in whom all abstractions, such as power, wisdom,

1 We may perhaps be excused for referring to one of our early articles, headed, "Socinianism and Pantheism." Ecclesiastic, vol. i. p. 164.

holiness, find their true and sole realization. It tells us of personal messengers encircling the throne of grace, and succouring weak and sinful humanity; and of personal enemies, the evil spirits; each band being headed by personal leaders, S. Michael and his adversary, Satan. A person, the first Adam, is the head of the earthly race, created man; a person, the Second Adam, the LORD from heaven, is the head of the spiritual race, regenerate man. The son of perdition (S. John xvii. 12,) in the days of CHRIST'S sojourn upon earth, is an individual person, Judas Iscariot. How natural then, how consonant to all experience and analogy is the expectation of the early Church that a personal enemy, an antiMessias, was to be expected ere the days of trial ceased. Believing, with the great majority of Christians of our own day, that the little horn of Daniel, the man of sin of S. Paul, the Antichrist of S. John, referred to one and the same object, they considered that the very title 'AvTi-xpIoTos must signify one who did not in any way acknowledge CHRIST as his superior, but set himself up as an antagonist. And let any possessor of a Greek Lexicon look carefully over the list of words compounded with av, how few will he find which can be even tortured into the ultra-Protestant notion of an Antichrist. Doubtless in Holy Scripture, a king may sometimes stand for the kingdom which he rules (as is frequent even in ordinary conversation), and a neuter or feminine noun1 may indicate a system or community. But does there exist, from the first page of the sacred volume to the last, a single instance of a man being placed to represent a continuous series of men? We may be extremely prejudiced, but we certainly have not yet seen in the works of those whose opinions we are controverting, anything that looks to us like legitimate proof of such an usage. The common

appeal to the case of the "High Priest," in the epistle to the Hebrews (ix. 7, 25) is irrelevant. The term there signifies the man who held the office at any given period (the ròv xparouvт' asì of classical Greek)2 and not, as Newton would maintain, "the series and order of high priests."3 The other examples given by the same commentator are assumptions, being self-chosen interpretations of the very passages in dispute.

1 Neuter, for it may be regarded as a thing, as indeed may all irrational objects, of whatever gender: feminine, for it constantly involves the idea of maternity. Thus e.g. the Church, like the Mother of the LORD, is at once et Virgo et Mater. (2 Cor. xi. 2. Gal. iv. 26.)

2 Esch. Prom. Vinct. 937. (Ed. Dind.)

The difference may be thus exemplified. When we read in Blackstone, “The king is the fountain of honour," we understand him to signify, not this or that person, but the Sovereign of England, as such, the abstract Monarch. Just so, if it may be said with reverence, does the Apostle here speak of 8 apxiepeús, the abstract high priest. But if an orator predicted that a king would arise in England, who should attempt to gain the power of the purse, who would suppose him to mean, "a series and order of kings !" In neither case is the phrase correct, yet still less so with reference to the future, than to the past.