THE EARLY CHURCH

AND THE

LORD'S SECOND ADVENT.

To the Editor of the Truth-Seeker.

Y DEAR SIR:-Many years ago, when I was a very young man, I was anxious to obtain a satisfactory solution of a difficulty arising from the prevalent opinion amongst the early Christians that Christ's second coming, and the day of judgment, would take place before the end of the generation then living-an opinion founded on the prophecy of our Lord, recorded by Matthew (xxiv. 29-35), and on the declaration of the apostle Paul in his First Epistle to the Thessalonians (iv. 15-17): and, for this purpose, I wrote to the late excellent and revered Mr. Belsham, soliciting his aid in the solution of my difficulty. His valuable observations on this subject are contained in the enclosed letters, which I forward to you for insertion in your pages, should you think them likely to be of service to the cause of Christian Truth, as tending to lessen, with ingenuous and enquiring minds, the injurious impression liable to be produced by the following insidious statement of the sceptical author of "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,' in the fifteenth chapter of that celebrated work, where, with most elaborate art, he attributes the progress of our divine religion to secondary causes.

"In the primitive church, the influence of truth was very powerfully strengthened by an opinion, which, however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, has not been found agreeable to experience. It was universally believed that the end of the world and the kingdom of heaven were at hand. The near approach of this wonderful event had been predicted by the apostles; the tradition of it was preserved by their earliest disciples; and those who understood in their literal sense the discourses of Christ himself, were obliged to expect the second and glorious coming of the Son of Man in the clouds before that generation was totally extinguished which had beheld his humble condition upon earth, and which might still be witness of the calamities of the Jews under Vespasian or Hadrian. The revolution of seventeen centuries has instructed us not to press too closely the mysterious language of prophecy and revelation; but as long as, for wise purposes, this error was permitted to subsist in the church, it was productive of the most salutary effects on the faith and practice of Christians, who lived in the awful expectation of that moment when the globe itself, and all the various races of mankind, should tremble at the appearance of their Divine judge."

Before closing this communication I would observe, that in the Bishop of Landaff's admirable answer to Gibbon, there are some weighty remarks tending to show that the Apostles did not expect the second coming of Christ to judge the world in their day (see Bishop Watson's 'Apology for Christianity,' p. 23-9, Edin. ed. 1823), and that even had such been their expectation, it would not have lessened their credit as witnesses of the life and resurrection of Christ. That Christ himself could not predict the arrival of this grand event as about to take place during the existence of the generation to whom he foretold it, will be sufficiently evident from some of Mr. Belsham's remarks in the enclosed letters: those who are not fully satisfied with these, may, perhaps, find more complete satisfaction in the interpretation of Mr. Cappe, who explains our Saviour's prophecy, as referring not to the coming of Christ to judge the world, but to the destruction of Jerusalem. Yours truly,

Rotherham, February 1st, 1848.

J. BRETTELL.

LETTER I.

Essex Street, February 6, 1815.

My dear Sir-I request in the first place that when you do me the favour to write to me, and I shall always be glad to hear from you when you think I can be of any service to you, you will have the goodness not to interline your letter-I would much rather pay double postage. My eyes were never very good: and the sight not improving with advancing years, it is with considerable difficulty that I can decypher an interlined letter.

Your remarks do great honour both to yourself and to the truly respectable institution in which you were educated. You have stated a very important case with great clearness and precision, like one who has thought and read upon the subject: and it is in fact one of the greatest difficulties in the New Testament: as an objection to revelation, it has been strongly stated by Gibbon in his sneering way; and I do not know that it has been fairly met either by Dr. Priestley or any other of his antagonists: though I think that Dr. P., in the passage to which you refer, has advanced some very important observations, which considerably alleviate the difficulty (vol. 3, p. 269).

I must confess, for my own part, I could never see the insurmountable objection against what is unfortunately called the double sense, but which I would rather denominate the figurative or typical sense of prophecy, as explained by Hurd and Lowth, in which the less and more immediate event is figurative of the more important and more remote; which is a very different thing from denoting, like the heathen oracles, two events which have no relation to, or which perhaps are even contradictory to, each other. But this by the bye.

To interpret Matt. xxiv. in the way that Mr. Cappe and Mr. Nisbet have done, of the destruction of Jerusalem, which was also the interpretation adopted by my late learned friend Mr. Dodson, is in my estimation to subvert the meaning of language, and to make every thing uncertain. I would not have recourse to such a hypothesis, but in case of a necessity, which does not appear to me to exist.

The difficulty stands thus: Our Lord declares his ignorance of the time of his second appearance; yet he solemnly predicts that this event will take place immediately after the destruction of Jerusalem, and before the then existing generation should pass away. But this event did not then take place. How then is our Saviour to be vindicated from the charge of being a false prophet?

The following considerations are satisfactory to my own mind. I wish they may relieve the difficulty to yours.

1. It is clear from our Lord's own declaration, that he did not know the time of his second appearance to judge the world.

2. I must assume that he would not so palpably contradict himself as officially and solemnly to foretell the period when it would take place.

3. Our Lord therefore never could have connected the two events, the destruction of Jerusalem and the day of judgment, together, in the manner stated by the Evangelists, and particularly by Matthew.

How is this error to be accounted for?

1. It is I think evident that the Apostles themselves believed that the day of judgment was very near at hand. The apostle Paul expresses himself so strongly upon this subject, in his First Epistle to the Thessalonians, that he excited an alarm which made it necessary to write his Second Epistle, in which he quiets them by telling them that the day of judgment would not come immediately, that year. See Grotius. But though an apostacy was to intervene, it by no means follows that he might not expect the appearance of Christ during the existing generation.

He could not believe in the intermediate state, or he would not have omitted this topic of consolation in writing to his bereaved friends.

He must have believed a speedy resurrection, or he would not have preferred to depart and to remain insensible and inactive in the grave, to a life of labour and usefulness in the world. 2. As Dr. P. observes in the passage you refer to, our Lord himself might possibly be under the same misconception: and might express an opinion, though not announce it as a prophecy, that his second appearance to judgment might immediately succeed the desolation of Jerusalem.

3. The evangelist Matthew, under the same impression, might possibly use stronger language than our Lord himself used: for he was not inspired to relate the prophecy which Jesus was inspired to deliver. The variation in the three accounts proves that the narratives were not verbally correct.

4. If Matthew's original was perfectly correct, the universal persuasion that the day of judgment was at hand, might naturally bias the early transcribers, and betray them into the error of adding, inadvertently or otherwise, a word or two to render the language of the prophecy conformable to their own feelings and opinions.

All this may be called hypothesis. But it is founded on the principle that Jesus could not err in delivering a prophecy, but the evangelist, or his transcribers, might err in recording it. And it is a hypothesis, which if admitted, solves the difficulty, and clears our Lord's character. Various interpolations appear to have found their way into the gospel of Matthew: perhaps the account of the soldiers sleeping on guard-and the form of baptism.

I shall be very glad if the above hints (they are mere hints) may be of any use in relieving your difficulties, and wishing you the best success, and a divine blessing upon your labors in your present important situation, I remain, dear Sir, very sincerely yours,

LETTER II.

T. BELSHAM.

Essex Street, March 6, 1816.

My dear Sir :—I do not consider myself as at all entitled to those flattering compliments which you are pleased to bestow upon me in the beginning of your letter. I have devoted a considerable portion of time to the study of the Scriptures, and as I have never blinked a difficulty, but have determined to follow evidence wherever it led me, confident that truth wherever found, must be favorable to virtue and happiness, I have allowed myself, and have found it necessary, to treat the sacred writers, or rather the canonical writings, with more freedom than many of my brethren venture to do. Having therefore taken great liberty myself, I feel very indulgent to a similar liberty taken by others. And where, as in your case, there appears to be a sincere desire to discover truth, and not merely to start objections, I regard it both as a pleasure and a duty to contribute to the utmost of my power to assist the inquiries of my younger brethren, and to state those solutions of difficulties proposed in which my own mind most readily acquiesces, leaving my arguments to make their proper impression on others.

And now, my dear sir, let us set out right, and with a thorough understanding of each other upon the question before us.

In the first place, assume it as a principle not to be doubted or called in question, that the difficulty here stated does not in the slightest degree affect our Lord's character and mission: which is abundantly established upon other and independent evidence, external and internal, philosophical, prophetical, miraculous, and historical.

I grant that if the evidence of our Lord's divine legation rested upon this single prophecy, that the difficulty proposed would throw a doubt upon the whole. But as the case now stands, we assume the principle that Jesus is a true prophet, and the question is, How is it consistent

with this character that he should have foretold an event as about to take place immediately. which was not to come to pass till some thousand years afterwards?

Now, sir, I most readily admit that it was quite impossible that our Lord should have delivered a solemn prediction of the time of an event, without being conscious that he was fully authorized so to do. And I am fully convinced that every prophecy uttered by Christ was or will be accomplished in its full extent, in its proper place and time. In the case before us, therefore, we either misunderstand the prophecy when we apply it to the coming of Christ to judgment immediately after the destruction of Jerusalem; or the account in the evangelists is incorrect. The case admits no other alternative.

I cannot agree with those who limit the whole of the prophecy to the advent of Christ for the destruction of Jerusalem. And I agree that the impression conveyed by the language of the evangelists is, that the advent of Christ to judgment would iinmediately succeed the destruction of Jerusalem. And this is allowed to have been the general faith of the primitive age.

Mr. Towers, however, in his Illustrations of Prophecy, interprets yevea as a race of men, and understands that the Jewish race, or nation, will not be extinguished till our Lord's second coming. In this interpretation Dr. Priestley acquiesced.

Upon the whole, however, it appears to me probable, that the account given by the evangelists themselves is incorrect.

1. Our Lord so expressly and repeatedly denies his knowledge of the time of his coming to judgment, and immediately before his ascension he so explicitly declares that the Father reserves the times and seasons in his own power, that it seems impossible that he should ever have delivered a prophecy in which the time was specifically limited. And it seems to me that day and hour' are so frequently used to express 'times and seasons in general,' that I am not disposed to understand them in a more limited sense.

2. It is universally allowed that the record of the prophecy is much confused, and that it is very difficult to know when the discourse passes from one subject to the other. Now it is more probable that the evangelists should be confused in the recollection, than our Lord in the delivery, of the prophecy. They evidently considered the two events as simultaneous : and if our Lord had, as Dr. Priestley supposes, merely given an opinion in favour of that hypothesis, however guardedly, that opinion would, as is usual in similar cases, have the weight of an oracle. So that the evangelists gave from their own ideas, inadvertently, a colour to the prophecy which the original language of our Lord did not warrant.

You very justly observe this is all hypothesis.' It is so. But the case requires a hypothesis. And this hypothesis appears to me the most plausible and satisfactory. The error lies not with the prophet, but with the historian. And it saves all far-fetched and unnatural interpretations.

، It is not confirmed by authorities.

True.

Because, upon this supposition, the error was in the writer; who of course was not inspired, but wrote from his own recollection, and his own views of the subject. The promise of bringing all things to remembrance must be understood with much limitation.

The case of Paul you have stated very forcibly. But though it should be allowed (which is not necessary, for it is denied of angels) that the time of the day of judgment should have been made known to Christ after his resurrection, it does not follow that it was revealed to Paul. I think it was not; and that Paul was clearly under a mistake with respect to the time. We that are alive'—must, I think, include himself personally, or at least the existing generation. I cannot however think that a mistake as to time affects the authority of the writers with regard to the object. Because time is so frequently, pointedly, and decidedly excepted from the range of their inspiration or information. If they had not believed that the day of judgment was near, they would not have been properly impressed with the

doctrine of a future life.' This is the reason Dr. Priestley assigns for the permission of this early delusion. It seems plausible. The same reason may hold for permitting the modern error of an intermediate state.

Upon the whole, christianity reveals a life to come and a state of just retribution hereafter. More than this it concerns us not to know, and very little more is revealed to us. I am, dear Sir, most truly yours,

T. BELSHAM,

LETTER III.

Essex Street, March 27, 1815.

My dear Sir:-I am very glad if any of the observations which I have offered to your notice have contributed to relieve your difficulties. You still, it seems, have some remaining; but I hope not considerable. I am myself inclined to regard all verbal difficulties of little account in comparison with general considerations; and I am convinced that we should have abundant evidence of the truth of Christianity, and of the nature of the christian doctrine, if every book of the New Testament were lost. Quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus, is my principle of judgment. All christians, in all ages, have believed that Jesus was a teacher sent from God; that he wrought miracles; that he rose from the dead; that he taught the doctrine of a future state of just retribution. This belief would not have existed so gene. rally and uniformly had not the fact really taken place. Upon this firm, broad, immovable ground, my faith is built. At the same time I hold the Christian Scriptures to be of inestimable importance, because they teach a thousand things which I should not otherwise have known. But my estimation of them does not rest upon their verbal accuracy. If I find difficulties which I cannot solve, and contradictions which I cannot reconcile, I pass them over: they make no impression upon me in the least degree unfavourable to the truth of Christianity; I exercise my judgment upon these writers as freely as I do upon Livy or Tacitus. If Paul reasons incorrectly, I approve his doctrine though I condemn his argument. If in the book called Matthew, I see an account of the resurrection of Christ, I believe it. If I read the story of the star in the East, I call it nonsense. Just as in reading Tacitus I believe that Agricola finished the conquest of Britain; but I do not believe that the Northern Ocean was so condensed by extreme cold upon the shores of Britain as to make it difficult for the ships to move through it.

Christ delivered a prophecy concerning the destruction of Jerusalem; and in connection with this, another, concerning his coming to judgment. What he said, was, I doubt not, perfectly correct. But he did not foretell the time, confessing himself to be perfectly ignorant of it.

Matthew records this prophecy; but he confounds the two events: he of consequence confounds the arrangement of the discourse, and he makes our Lord appear to contradict himself by foretelling the time which he acknowledges that he did not know. Collations of MS. and versions, &c., give me no assistance in solving this difficulty: I have no intention, in this of applying conjectural emendation-or, I take that part which I understand, and I leave what I cannot explain. But, in all this, the truth of Christianity is not in the slightest degree compromised.

case,

You find a difficulty in the argument from prophecy. I frankly acknowledge that I find the same. It is however clear, that the prophecies of the Old Testament did excite a general expectation of the appearance of a great deliverer in Judea about the time of Christ. Upon what this expectation was founded, I cannot comprehend. There are some prophecies in the Old Testament which appear to me to have received their proper accomplishment in Christ, viz., Jacob's prophecy; Moses's-'A prophet shall God raise up like to me'; some of the Psalms; Daniel's seventy weeks; but most of all the liii. of Isaiah. Indeed I wonder how