dressed to the people, after the arrival of the celebrated message of John: "And if ye are willing to "receive it, (that is, to believe it,) he himself is Elias " who is about to come:” (Καὶ εἰ θέλετε δέξασθαι, αὐτός ἐστιν Ἠλίας ὁ μέλλων ἔρχεσθαι κ.)

Here, also, it is admitted that some Elijah was to come; and while it is further asserted, that if they would receive it, if they would persuade themselves to think so, John himself was Elijah in question; it would be a very unfair inference from this admission, that no other person was contemplated by our Saviour, no other in his opinion was to be expected in the character of Elijah, but John. It is not a correct version of the words, to render them, "This is that Elijah, which was for to come:" for that would make them imply that no one else was to come. It is more correct to render them, "He "himself is Elijah, who is about to come." Their force is properly, "He himself is an Elijah, who is "about to come." For, though Elijah is strictly a proper name, yet as defined by (ó μéλλw exεobα) "He who is about to come," it becomes equivalent to an appellative; and may describe a class of persons, provided they agree in that one particular, of being persons about to come, for such and such an end and purpose.

What then was the difficulty, which it is implied by our Saviour's language, the Jews would feel in assenting to the assurance that John was an Elijah, as destined to come. It is enough to reply, that they expected Elijah in person, and therefore would not readily believe that a different individual could, in any sense, be he; that they were still less prek Matt. xi. 14. Harm. P. iii. 9.

pared to believe this of such an individual as John the Baptist, whom they had long before determined to reject, and who had been now nearly eighteen months in prison; that they could not believe John to be the expected Elijah, who was to precede, without also believing that Jesus was the expected Lord or Messiah, who was to follow and this last was a point which at no time in our Saviour's ministry, and particularly after his first year was over, were they prepared generally to concede.

And hence it furnishes no ground of objection to the truth of the expectation of an appearance of Elijah as still to come, that in this very conversation with the disciples, at the time of the descent from the mountain of transfiguration, after answering their question, as we have seen, our Lord subjoined: "But I say unto you, that Elias is come "already, and they have known him not, but have "done unto him whatsoever they have listed 1:" which the disciples, it is added, immediately understood to be meant of John the Baptist. There is no inconsistency between this statement, that Elijah was come already, and the other, just before, that Elijah should still first come-if one is meant of the spiritual, and the other, of the literal, Elijah; the one of John the Baptist, as a type of Elijah, in his proper character of the precursor of the Messiah, the other of Elijah, as the antitype of the Baptist, in precisely the same relation.

Having thus considered all the texts in the New Testament, except the book of Revelation, which relate to the coming of Elijah, I shall conclude by

Matt. xvii. 12. Cf. Mark ix. 13. Harm. loc. cit. VOL. I.

M

observing, that the belief in the futurity of this coming was generally received among the fathers; who are unanimous also in considering one of the two witnesses, mentioned in the book of Revelationm, to be meant of Elijah. Proofs of both these assertions will be produced hereafter.

of

With regard to the second of our propositions ; a second advent of Jesus Christ in person, before his coming to judgment at the end of the world: in the first place it may be observed that the arguments, which tend to establish the belief of an appearance Elijah in person, first, contribute to establish the certainty of an appearance of the Christ in person, also, afterwards. For these things are connected as antecedent and consequent, or as cause and effect: Elijah is not to go before, unless some one else is to follow after; and Elijah must go before, because that other person is to follow after. It was so, in the case of the precession of Elijah in spirit; and it will be so, in the case of the precession of Elijah in person: the Lord God, in the person of our Saviour, Christ, followed actually after the spiritual Elijah; and the same Lord God, in the person of the same Saviour, Jesus Christ, must follow actually after the real Elijah.

It may appear, indeed, superfluous to prove the doctrine of a second advent of Jesus Christ, some time or other for what Christian is there, who does not believe in it, and is not as firmly persuaded that his Lord and Master will in due time return to judge the world, as that he once came into it to save it, and having accomplished that object, departed again to

m Rev. xi. 3, 4. 7, &c.

heaven by his ascension? A return of Jesus Christ in person, however, to the general judgment, and one, preparatory to any other œconomy, not to be transacted without his presence again on earth, are very different things. The expectation of the former is common to all Christians, the opponents as well as the advocates of the millennium; but the belief in the latter is peculiar to its advocates.

Now, that we may admit for a moment the equal truth of each of these expectations-as they are both alike still future, and both alike matter of implicit faith, and always must have been; we might naturally look to find repeated allusions to each of them in scripture, yet not always so determinate as to shew which of them in particular was meant. Such allusions do, indeed, occur; but frequently in the most general terms, so as to leave it doubtful of what coming of Christ they are to be understood. But even under such circumstances, if there are to be both a first and a second event of the same kind in general, reason is that indefinite allusions to the fact of such an event, not otherwise explained or specified, should be referred to the first instance of the kind to which they will apply; and in some cases this reference is not only a priori just and reasonable, but even necessary, and such as the nature of the case seems peremptorily to require.

For example; in St. John's account of what passed at the sea of Galilee, upon the last appearance of Jesus to the disciples, after his resurrection, which he mentions", when we read that Peter put this question, concerning (as it is commonly supposed)

St. John himself, "Lord, and what of this man?" and that Jesus answered, "If I will that he tarry, "until I come, what is it to thee?" we see that there is a distinct allusion to some coming or advent of Jesus himself in person, (which must therefore be a return,) as hereafter to take place; but what return, and when, is left indefinite.

When we read, however, in the next place, St. John's account of an expectation concerning himself, which became current among the brethren in consequence of the words of Jesus, that he was not to die, but to be kept alive until the time of the coming of Christ in question; then, if there be cause to expect a double advent of Christ, at different times and for different purposes respectively; surely the coming referred to in this expectation concerning St. John, ought in all reason to be understood of the first, and not of the last. If a coming of Christ again before the end or consummation of all things, was upon other grounds, to be expected, we can conceive it possible that a notion, founded upon the prima facie construction of the words of Jesus to Peter, might get abroad in the church, that St. John should survive to witness this coming; but not, if no coming was known or expected, except what should immediately be followed by the end of the world. The end of the world, for aught that the church knew to the contrary, might still be indefinitely remote: but some return of Christ in person, we learn from a variety of intimations both in scripture, and out of scripture, at a very early period of the Gospel history was currently believed to be close at hand; and that too, after the destruction of Jerusalem, as well as before it.