natural for the Thessalonians to suppose this coming to be an event taking place in a literal sense in their own day. It seems, besides, from other passages of the New Testament, to have been a very common apprehension of Christians of that age, that the final manifestation of Christ was something immediately at hand; hence, we may suppose that there was, with many, a Legree of disappointment, and a wavering of their faith, and perhaps even on some occasions a relapse into paganism. By the scoffer it was said, What has become of the promise of his coming? while the impatient disciple exclaimed within himself, Why are his chariot wheels so long delayed? While others, hardened by the forbearance, used the language of the unfaithful servants: "Our Lord delayeth his coming." To guard against this disappointment and its effects, the explanation of the passage under consideration appears designed.

The word translated now, in our common version, at the commencement of this chapter, would be better rendered but or and; as it is the ordinary Greek conjunction dé, (Lat. autem, G. & L.) With this alteration, bearing in mind that the division into chapters and verses is no part of the original composition, we perceive the connection between the two representations here;-as if the apostle had said, The Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with flaming fire, for which cause we pray for you, &c., but we beseech you not to be shaken in your faith because he does not appear immediately; for you are to understand that, prior to his appearance, there must be a detection and exhibition of the existence of a spirit, power, or principle, of an entirely opposite character. The revelation of this opposing power, he tells them, is to be a preliminary operation in the manifestation of Christ. The apostle then explains further, that there is something which for a time lets or prevents, and which will let or prevent the making of this preliminary revelation. The inference, accordingly, is, that although the Lord Jesus delayeth his coming, this coming, whatever be its nature, will certainly take place. Meantime, the attention of the disciple is to be directed to the detection of the opposing spirit here described, as this detection is to be instrumental in the revelation so much desired.

'Except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition.'-The word rendered falling away, ȧnooracía, has been adopted in our language, (apostacy,) and perhaps expresses, as it is commonly understood, all that was intended to be conveyed in this passage by the original: Except there come first an apostacy-a falling away from the truth-some egregious error in matters of faith. The primary meaning of the term is applicable to the conduct of an individual leaving his party, or to the revolt of a number of individuals against the lawful authority; but, from the connection, it is evident that it is not in this primary sense, but in something analogous to it, that the word is to be taken. The primary mean

ing of the term, however, is expressive of an open revolt or rebellion, something declared or manifested, as distinguished from a mutinous disposition, or secret conspiracy. So, we suppose the apostacy here contemplated to be not merely the existence of a departure from the truth, but the manifestation of such a departure;-the falling away may have existed in fact for a long time; as another apostle says, 'Even now there are many Antichrists.' The coming of the Lord was not delayed in the time of Paul, because the error itself did not then exist, but because it was not yet openly manifested. There was already a falling away or departure from the faith amongst many who professed to be followers of Christ; but the apostacy, or open repudiation of the truth, was yet to take place.

'And that man of sin be revealed.'-The apostacy consists in the revelation of the man of sin, not merely in his existence; as the open revolt of a party is a revelation of the previous rebellious spirit of the conspirators. The man of sin may have been in existence from the creation of the world, but in the time of the Thessalonians he was yet to be revealed. The whole connection of the passage shows us that this man of sin is not literally a man, or human being; it is something personified as a man. Common sense immediately suggests this application of the term. If not a man literally, neither can it be any body of men, in a literal sense, as the description subsequently given would not apply to such a body or collection of human beings. To understand the figure, however, we must understand what would be the signification of the term man of sin, in a literal sense. It is evident that it is not merely a sinner, or the sinner, that is here contemplated; for the revelation had been made of old time, and was so referred to repeatedly by this apostle, that all have sinned; that there is not a just man upon earth that doeth good and sinneth not. Christ, it is said, came into the world to save sinners, even the chief of sinners; yet we cannot suppose he came to save that which is here denominated the man of sin; especially, when it is said in the eighth verse of this chapter, that this wicked is to be consumed and destroyed by the coming of the Lord.

The Greek term quaoría, primarily signifies a missing or mistaking, (Donnegan ;) a taking of that which is false for that which is true, (error, Thuc. i. 32, Rob. Lex.) The epithet here employed might, therefore, more properly be rendered, the man of error; the man of sin of Paul thus corresponding with "the spirit of error" (zò пvɛvμa ris nìárns) of the apostle John; the first appellation expressing the nature of the thing spoken of, the last the nature of its influence upon others, (the power of delusion.) It is not merely error in the general that is here contemplated, it is a peculiar error in matters of religious doctrine, the worst of errors ;— the fountain and source of all errors-an erroneous principle, from which, perhaps, every departure from Christian faith originates.

This man of sin is also termed "the son of perdition." The son or child must be the offspring ;-this evil spirit would seem to be, therefore, the offspring of perdition, rather than the parent or cause of it. But, by metonymy, the term perdition may be put for that which causes perdition; thus this evil spirit is the offspring of that which causes perdition. That which causes perdition, in a doctrinal sense, is the spirit or power of accusation, under the law bringing the sinner to justice, subjecting him to the full penalty of his transgressions;-a power spoken of in Scripture as Satan, or the Devil-the legal adversary or accuser. This man of sin may be, accordingly, considered the offspring of Satan, the accuser; owing his existence to Satan, as the beast from the sea, in the book of Revelation, was indebted for his power to the dragon. The appellation, son of perdition, occurs nowhere else in the Scriptures, except where it is applied to the traitor Judas, and where it would seem to indicate an individual destined to perdition, (John xvii. 12:) "Those that thou gavest me I have kept, none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled." We cannot suppose, however, that the term, as used by Paul, is intended merely to indicate the man of sin as destined to perdition, for this is afterwards expressly described. There may be, nevertheless, a strong analogy between the characteristics of the traitorous apostle and those of this traitorous principle; the one betraying his Master with a kiss, the other betraying the cause of the Redeemer under the garb of professed adherence to the faith of the gospel.

'Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped.'-To make one's self equal with God, according to the Jewish construction of the crime, is blasphemy against God; and such we have supposed to be the blasphemy of the ten-horned beast of the Apocalypse, (Rev. xiii. 4-6.) He made himself, both directly and indirectly, through the false prophet, and through the fabrication of his image, an object of worship; his character corresponding very precisely in this respect with that of the man of sin. In fact, we can hardly read the descriptions of these two subjects without taking their identity as granted.

In remarking upon the apocalyptic beast, we have shown that if a man represent himself to be the efficient author of his own salvation by his own righteousness or merits, or by some propitiation of his own, he vir tually makes himself in appearance equal with God. We may add here, that he makes himself, in the same sense, superior to God; for if the law of God condemn, it is God that condemns; and if man justify when God condemns, man must be superior to God;-the case supposed by the prophet being reversed, (Is. 1. 8,) as also that stated by the apostle, (Rom. viii. 33, 34.) The law of God condemns the sinner. If we suppose this sinner, then, to make some propitiation of his own equal to counteracting this con

demnation, we suppose him to be even more powerful than God himself. Thus claiming the honour or glory of his own redemption, instead of ascribing that glory to God, he opposeth God; and professing to justify himself, and overcome the requisitions of divine justice by some propitiatory power or strength of his own, he exalteth himself above all that is called God. Man, making himself in his own estimation the efficient cause of his salvation, makes his own self the object of his own adoration. If, for example, a man say, God makes me an object of his favour, because I fear him, or because I trust in him,' such a man makes himself the source of the benefit he receives. So if he say, 'I am saved through Christ on account of my faith, or on account of my repentance,' he makes his own faith or repentance the cause, and himself the efficient author of his own salvation, although he may professedly ascribe that salvation to Christ. If he say, 'I am saved, indeed, by grace; but God predestinated me to this favour before I was created, because he foresaw that there would be in me some good quality deserving of it; the disciple here again represents himself as the efficient cause of the grace bestowed, and thanks himself rather than God for the blessed effects of his own goodness; although, perhaps, he professes at the same time to thank God that he is not as other men are.

'So that he, as God, sitteth in the temple of God, showing,' &c.—As worship consists in service, and the characteristic of a service depends upon the motive of action, he who depends upon his own merits, can be actuated by no other motive than to serve and to glorify himself. He thus puts himself in the place or seat of God, in his own mind or estimation; which mind or estimation is, or should be, the temple of God. As it was said of the kingdom of God, Behold, the kingdom of God is within you;' so it may be said of his temple, Behold, the temple of God is within you.' It is something depending upon the state of one's mind. The disciple, whose mind is so renewed that his only motive of conduct is to serve God, has the temple of God, as it were, within himself; and in that temple he worships God, in spirit and in truth; as it was said of such by the apostle, (2 Cor. vi. 16:) "Ye are the temple of the living God;" the body of the disciple by a figure of speech being put for his mind. If then we suppose the spirit of error so to take possession of the mind of the disciple, as to make the interest and glory of self the only motive of conduct, that self takes the place of God in his temple-sitting in the temple of God, showing himself as God;-corresponding with the blasphemous pretensions of the evil principle we have contemplated as the adversary of the cross, represented by the apocalyptic ten-horned beast.

Remember ye not,' &c.-It would appear from these two verses, that the apostle had some time before given the Thessalonians a few hints, at least, of the existence of this evil principle, and of its destined revelation;

but he had not, till now, so distinctly assigned to this cause the delay in the corresponding revelation of Jesus Christ. "But now," he says, "ye know what withholdeth;" that is, apparently, what withholdeth the coming of the day of Christ, viz., the necessity of the previous revelation of this man of sin. The coming of the day of Christ is withheld, that this apostacy or manifest departure from the faith may be exhibited; which manifestation is to take place at a certain appointed time, (in its season,) and not before. The departure from the faith, however, has already taken place; existing in the time of the apostle at least in an incipient state. Its growth to maturity we may suppose to be requisite for its revelation or development. As the extreme to which an error is carried is frequently the means of exhibiting its fallacy, so this maturity of extreme error may be set down as its season when it is to be revealed; as the season or time of the coming of Christ, (Rev. xxii. 10,) must be also the season or time when this wicked (being revealed) is to be destroyed by the brightness of that coming. The revelation of this man of sin, in the meantime, we may suppose to be something progressive-gradually approximating to its time.

For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth, [hindereth,] will let, until he be taken out of the way.'-There can be no doubt but that this mystery of iniquity is identic with what was before termed the man of sin-two ways of speaking of the same thing. The man of sin we suppose to be an erroneous, delusive principle of doctrine, or spirit of errror; and the mystery of iniquity is the complicated operation of this spirit of error.

The word translated iniquity (arouía) is the substantive corresponding with the adjective άvouos, rendered immediately afterwards wicked; and to preserve the connection, we should say, The mystery of wickedness doth already work, &c.; and then shall that wicked be destroyed; or else we should say, And then shall that iniquitous be destroyed. The adjective rendered wicked, however, is precisely the same as that translated, 1 Cor. ix. 21, without law-where the apostle says, to them without law he became as without law, &c.; and where we certainly could not substitute either the word wicked or iniquitous. The adverb róuos, which occurs only once in the New Testament, is rendered in our common version (Rom. ii. 12) without law: "For as many as have sinned without law, shall also perish without law." We could hardly say, As many as have sinned wickedly, shall also perish wickedly. The same word, arouos, is rendered 2 Peter ii. 8, unlawful; 1 Tim. i. 9, lawless; Acts ii. 23, wicked; but evidently meaning lawless or unlawful-Jesus having been crucified or slain by unlawful hands, or without law: contrary to law, having done nothing amiss. So, Luke xxii. 37, Mark xv. 28, the same adjective, used substantively, is rendered transgressors, where it should have been translated the

1