into two great portions, The FORMER and LATTER times. By the former, is meant the times preceding the Christian era; by the latter, the times subsequent to it. Correspondent to this partition of time, is the double advent of Christ, of which I before gave a distinct idea. His first advent was, when he came in the flesh at Jerusalem: his second advent is to be understood of his coming in his kingdom, through all the ages of the Christian church. But though the latter times, in the general sense of scripture, be thus comprehensive, they are further subdivided into other constituent por tions, in which some particular state of Christ's kingdom is administered, and within which it is completed. In reference to this subordinate division of time in the Christian dispensation, the coming of Christ is, also, proportionably multipli ed. He comes in each division; that is, as oft as he thinks fit to interpose by any signal act of his power and providence. The whole period, in which any distinct state of his kingdom is carrying on, is likewise called the latter time; and the concluding part of that period is distinguished by the name of the last hour: as if the whole of each period were considered as one day; and the close of each period, as the end, or last hour, of that day. Thus, the time that elapsed from Christ's ascension to the destruction of Jerusalem, being one of the subdivisions, before mentioned, is called the latter times; and the eve of its destruction, is called the last hour. He was coming through the whole time: he came in the end of it. And the like use of these terms is to be made, in other instances. We are to apply them in the same manner to the reign of Antichrist-to the Millenium-to the day of judgment. Each of these states, into which the latter times, or the times of christianity, are divided, is likewise spoken of under the idea of the latter times; and the season, in which each is drawing to an end, is the last hour of that state.* Thus much being premised, it is easy to give a just exposition of the text. Little children, it is the last time, or hour-that is, the destruction of Jerusalem is at hand; as indeed it followed very soon after the date of this Epistle. And, as ye have heard that Antichrist shall come-that, in some future period, called the last times, an hostile power, which we know by the name of Antichrist, shall arise and prevail in the world, even now, we * What is here said of the scriptural division of time, with re. gard to the affairs of the church, is enough for my purpose. There is another division of time, in the prophetic scriptures, with regard to the kingdoms of the world; concerning which the reader may con sult BISHOP KIDDER'S Dem. of the Messiah, Part iii. ch. ix.; and especially Mr. MEDE's Apostasy of the latter times, ch. xi. may see the commencement of that power; for, there are many Antichrists; many persons, now, appear in the spirit of that future Antichrist, and deserve his name: whereby, indeed, we know that it is the last hour: for Christ himself had made the appearance of false Christs and false prophets, that is, of Antichrists, to be one of the signs by which that hour should be distinguished.* The meaning of the whole passage, then, is clearly this: "That the appearance of false Christ and false Prophets (of which there were many, according to our Lord's prediction, in St. John's time) indicated the arrival of that hour, that was to be fatal to the Jewish state: and that they were, at the same time, the types and forerunners of a still more dreadful power, which should be fully revealed in the latter times, in a future period, when that calamity was past." For the truth of the assertion, That such a power should arise in the Christian church, he appeals to a tradition, then current among the disciples: and his hated name of Antichrist is here applied, by way of anticipation, to the false prophets of that time: as possessing much of his character, and acting with his spirit. * Matth. xxiv. 24. Mark xiii. 21, Hence we see the meaning of the word, Antichrist; which stands for a person or power, actuated with a spirit opposite to that of Christ. And so indeed the apostle explains himself, in another place of this very Epistle. For, speaking of certain false teachers, who preached up a doctrine, contrary to that of the gospel, he adds-" This is that spirit of Antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come, and even now already is it in the world."* And I lay the greater stress on this observation, because the etymology of the word, Antichrist, makes it capable of two different meanings. For it may either signify one who assumes the place and office of Christ, or one, who maintains a direct enmity and opposition to him. But the latter, is the sense in which the apostle useth this term; although it be true that, in the former sense, it very well suits the bishop of Rome, who calls himself the Vicar of Christ, as well as the successor of St. Peter. Nor can there be any difficulty in fixing the charge of antichristianism, in the sense of an enmity and opposition to Christ, on the Roman pontif (though I know how absurd the attempt seems to the writers on that side ;) for, to merit this charge, it is not necessary that he should formally reject Christ, which undoubtedly he does not, but * 1 Ep. John, iv. 3. † 'Avlíxçı50s—åvl, in the sense either of pro, or contra. that he should act in defiance to the true genius and character of Christ's religion: a charge, which may be evidently made good against him. In short, as the word, Christ, is frequently used in the apostolic writings for the doctrine of Christ; in which sense we are said to put on Christ, to grow in Christ, to learn Christ, and in other instances: So Antichrist, in the abstract, may be taken for a doctrine subversive of the Christian; and when applied to a particular man, or body of men, it denotes one, who sets himself against the spirit of that doctrine.* * Grotius says, "Sicut Anticæsarem dicimus qui contra Cæsarem se Cæsarem vult dici atque Cæsar haberi, sic Antichristus est qui se vero Christo opponit eo modo ut ipse Christus haberi velit." Or. t. iv. p. 490-The learned commentator did not reflect, that words are not always used according to the strict import of their etymologies. False Christs, we will say, are, in the strict sense of the word, Antichrists. But the question is, in what sense this word is used of the person called, by way of eminence, THE ANTICHRIST. This must be collected from the attributes given to him in the prophecies themselves, not from the rigorous etymology of the term. The case was plainly this. St. John is speaking of the false Christs, who had appeared in his time; and, to disgrace them the more effectually in the minds of those to whom he writes, he brands them with the name of Antichrists: not so much respecting the exact sense of the word, as the ideas of aversion, which, he knew, it would excite. For the tradition of the church concerning Antichrist, had made this appellation, of all others, the most opprobrious, and hateful.-Besides, it is not so clear, as Grotius supposes, that the strict sense of the word, Antichristus, must be-is, qui se vero Christo opponit eo modo ut ipse Christus haberi velit. Cesar, who generally expressed |