supposed. In the first place, we must bear in mind that he has elsewhere used very similar language (1 Cor. xv. 51, 52). Nor is this mode of speaking peculiar to St. Paul: the language of the apostles, and of the primitive Church for some ages after, was that of men who believed that there was nothing to prevent the immediate appearing of the Lord in the lifetime of the Christians who were then on earth......If we are to take these passages in their literal signification, the apostles really believed, and taught their converts to believe, that the second advent of the Lord might, for aught that was revealed, take place in the course of that generation. This, indeed, has proved that this expectation has not been realized; but it does not therefore follow that the apostles were in error...... It was natural, therefore-nay, more, it was their express duty, to assume that the coming of the Lord was near at hand..............No man could surely say that the day of Christ was not to come in his own lifetime or that of his contemporaries. The apostle, therefore, in comforting the Thessalonians, takes for granted that he and they might live to the day of judgment."

Another passage to the same effect, and still more extreme in its statements, has been already quoted. It is there affirmed, that "although the result has shown that many centuries have, in fact, intervened, we have no reason to believe that this formed any part of the counsel of God. Our Lord's coming may have been delayed by the continued unbelief of the Jewish nation. To suppose it revealed as a part of the immutable counsel of the Most High, that so long a time was to elapse before the day of Christ would come, is manifestly irreconcilable with those numerous passages in which we are exhorted to watch and pray, because we know not when the time is. The knowledge that the time was long and distant would be as inimical to this watchfulness, as the knowledge of the precise hour at which the master of the house was to come." (pp. 260, 261).

These views are held, I believe, in substance, by most of the writers who object to the year-day system, from the repeated failure of its predicted close. Let us now

compare the two principles together, and the total contradiction between them will at once appear.

(1). And, first, the view of these writers falls doubly under their own censure. Every generation of the Church, on this hypothesis, have been bound, by an express duty, to expect the second advent in their own lifetime. Therefore every generation in succession was bound to believe an error, and to experience a repeated failure of its expectations. How can that be a conclusive disproof of the year-day system, which, by their own plain admissions, was an imperative duty to the whole Church at large?

(2). But, secondly, the failures which the Church, on this hypothesis, was bound to expose herself to, were both longer in continuance, and larger in degree, than those which are traceable to the year-day exposition. These latter have prevailed through twenty generations at the most, and the greatest error or anticipation has been five centuries. But the failures on the other view, necessary failures, the result of fulfilling an express duty, have lasted through sixty generations, and the error has reached an extent of nearly two thousand years. Thus, without a metaphor, the objection lies tenfold against their own theory; for the error it involves has been more than three times as great, and has lasted for thrice as many ages.

(3). But, further, the objection brought against the year-day by these writers is most destructive to the very purpose which they profess to keep in view—a sustained and lively hope of the speedy coming of Christ. The year-day is condemned as worthless, because many expectations have been formed under it, and all of them have proved to be premature. Therefore, in the words of Mr. Maitland, we are to fling this compass overboard as delusive; to reject all helps from the sacred numbers

:

in judging of the nearness of the end; and to hold fast simply by the general declarations of Scripture. But, for the very same reason, these declarations themselves must be set aside, or explained away. Taken in the meaning assigned them by these writers, they have led to errors greater in amount, to failures more numerous, to disappointments more lasting and complete, than the rejected theory. So that the necessary result of the objection is to place the Church in the position of the unfaithful servant, or of those scoffers who inquire, "Where is the promise of His coming?"

4. The whole objection, then, as urged by the Futurists, and made an argument for casting aside all prophetic chronology, is self-destructive and worthless. But let us proceed further, and inquire whether these failures, as they are called, do not really afford a presumption in favour of the year-day system. And this, I think, by a few remarks, will become evident to demonstration, when tested by the principles of reason and of the word of God.

In the first place, it is clear that there are numerous passages which enjoin the Church to be ever watchful for the coming of her Lord. In some of these also her ignorance of the time is one motive assigned for the duty. In several, the time is declared to be near at hand. Yet eighteen centuries have passed, and the event is not hitherto fulfilled.

The reason for this concealment of the time was clearly to keep alive and stimulate expectation; and this, in connexion with the weakness of faith and earthliness of Christians. A soul which had fully realized the vastness of eternity would require no such veil interposed to sustain the utmost instancy of watchfulness and desire. But where the impression of eternal things is so dim and faint, it is profitable that the view of earthly events to

intervene should be contracted and foreshortened, that it may not thrust the other more entirely from the view.

Now there are three different notions which may be formed of the possible course which it would please God to adopt in after times, in the knowledge of the seasons to be given to the Church. It might please Him to keep her in total ignorance to the last; or to translate her suddenly, whether at or before the coming of Christ, from complete ignorance to full knowledge; or, finally, to bestow gradually increasing light, till at length the Day-star should arise in His glory. Let us first examine which of these is best suited to sustain the lively expectation of the Advent, and agrees best with the analogy of Providence; and then we shall clearly see the full vindication which it supplies of the year-day theory and its imaginary failures.

5. First, let us suppose that the Church was left with nothing but the general statements for her guide—“ the time is at hand; behold, I come quickly." Christians of the first generation might have some reason for applying the words strictly to themselves, and for supposing that they implied, in their literal sense, that the Lord, would return while some of themselves were still alive. But with the first generation this presumption would have lost its power. Every succeeding generation which arose would have less and less warrant for inferring the strict nearness of the advent, in the common meaning of the term, from these passages alone. The whole time which had elapsed would form an unit, always enlarging, by which alone they could form any conjecture as to the future prospect. If one century had clearly passed since the time was said to be near, there would be little reason, from the phrase alone, why another might not intervene. When ten centuries had passed, it would be just as reasonable to expect ten cen

་

turies more, as before to expect one. They might borrow a limit to their expectations of delay from some other source; as, for instance, from a vague impression that the world would last only about six thousand years. But this would be a prophetic date, only in disguise; and therefore a trespass on forbidden ground. So far as the general warnings alone are concerned, each successive generation will be warranted in expounding them with a greater latitude; and these grounds for expecting the Advent to be really near will be weakened more and more with the length of the past delay.

Hence it is a clear and certain truth, that if all prophetic dates and collateral light be excluded, that very ignorance of the times, which tended in the first age to quicken the expectation of the Church, would tend, by necessary consequence, in later times, to indifference and careless unconcern. Now, since the continued denial of all further knowledge would frustrate the very end for which it was withheld at the first, we might infer from this alone, that in the latter days a fuller insight into the times and seasons would be given to the Church of God.

6. Assuming, then, that further light would be given, is it likely that the transition would be sudden and complete? The opponents of the year-day argue throughout on this supposition. If the times are mystical, then they must have commenced long ago. The Church could not fail to be aware of so remarkable an event. It would doubtless have been distinctly known, and registered in her calendar. The commencement being known, the end would be known also. The Church would therefore be utterly unable to fulfil the direction

"Watch and pray, for ye know not what the time is.” Such is, in substance, the objection which most writers of this school bring against the Protestant interpretation.