surely, need be neither ashamed nor afraid to pay a respectful deference to the "interpretations put upon the teachings of Isaiah and St. John concerning the second coming of Christ," by such servants of Christ as the late millenarian Bishop Henshaw, of Rhode Island, and Bishop Meade, of Virginia; nor of such living divines and theologians as Bishop Hopkins, of Vermont, Bishop McIlvaine, of Ohio, and Bishop Southgate, of this city. To these may be added, of the Episcopal Church, the Rev. S. H. Tyng, D. D., rector of St. George's, Rev. Francis Vinton, D. D., assistant minister of Trinity Church, New York city, and Rev. Edward Winthrop, Norwalk, Ohio; also Rev. Richard Newton, D. D., and Rev. William Newton, West Chester, Pennsylvania, of the same Church. Of the Old School Presbyterian Church, Rev. Robert J. Breckinridge, D. D., of Danville, Kentucky, Rev. Robert McCartee, D. D., Yonkers, N. Y., Rev. Charles K. Imbrie, D. D., and Rev. J. Harkness, Jersey City, N. J., Rev. William Lee, Rev. Nathaniel West, and Rev. Hugh S. Carpenter, Brooklyn, L. I., and others. Of the New School Presbyterian Church, Rev. George Duffield, D. D., of Detroit, Michigan, and Rev. Robert Adair, D. D., Philadelphia. Of the Dutch Reformed Church, Rev. John Forsyth, D.D., Rev. William R. Gordon, D. D., and Rev. J. T. Demarest, D. D., New Jersey, and others. Of the Lutheran Church, Rev. Joseph A. Seiss, D. D., Philadelphia. Of the Moravian Church, Rev. Edwin E. Reinke, Philadelphia. Of the Congregational Church, Rev. Thomas Wickes, Marietta, Ohio, Rev. Henry F. Hill, Geneseo, N. Y., Rev. Alfred Bryant, Presbyterian, Niles, Michigan, Rev. J. S. Oswald, York, Pennsylvania. In all these Churches, there may be found among the laity also not a few who are avowedly millenarians. Of the most distinguished of these, may be named Mr. David N. Lord and Eleazar Lord.

Others might be added to this list, but the above are sufficient to commend this subject to the serious consideration of every candid and unbiassed inquirer after truth. Most of them have employed their pens in the form of prophetical expositions and defence of primitive and modern millenarianism, and, for learning, chasteness, and eloquence of style, will compare with those of any other. The only extant journals devoted to the exposition and defence of millenarianism proper in this country-at least the only ones that we could commend as reliable-are," The Israelite

Indeed," edited by G. R. Lederer, New York city, and “The Prophetical Times," under the editorial supervision of the Rev. Drs. Seiss, Newton, Duffield, and others, published in Philadelphia.

We here close our somewhat extended reply to Professor Shedd's article on "Eschatology," or "the second coming of Christ," in connection with his historical exposition of "millenarianism, or chiliasm," ancient, medieval, and modern. We intreat one and all, and especially the clergy, to pause, and "read before they strike." The whole subject is now before them. The points at issue, scriptural and historical, are thoroughly defined. The writer holds that, viewing this matter in connection with and as applicable to these "last perilous times" in which we live, the destiny of each one for weal or woe, for time and for eternity, depends upon a right understanding and acceptance or rejection of THE TRUTH in these premises. And, in whatsoever that truth consists, of this we are assured, that it is only those who rightly "LOOK FOR HIM" (Christ) according to a "Thus saith the Lord," to whom "He will appear the second time without sin unto salvation." (See Heb. ix. verses 27,

28.)

Finally. Seeking to imitate the faith and hope of the New Testament saints, as centred in Christ as "THE COMING ONE," may God, of His infinite mercy, stir up our hearts to "love His appearing" (2 Tim. iv. 8; Titus ii. 13); and to "hasten unto the coming of the day of the Lord" (2 Pet. iii. 12); so that "we may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of Man," (Luke xxi. 36,)“ and not be ashamed before Him at His coming" (1 John ii. 28).

NOTE A.

Observations on the Distinction between the Ecclesia and the Apostasia of the Christian Dispensation.

IN our "APPEAL" to the Clerical Representatives of the leading Evangelical Protestant Denominations on the momentous subject of the Second Personal Coming of Christ, having alluded to the question involving the time of that Event (page xxx.), whether it be pre or post-millennial, we remarked that the difference implied HERESY on the part either of the one or the other. That we are not mistaken on this point, will appear from the fact, that while Prof. Shedd, in his "History of Christian Doctrine," page 394, says that "Irenæus," in speaking of those "opposers of millenarianism" in his day, "who held the Catholic faith, and who agreed with the Gnostics only in being anti-millenarian," is "desirous to make it appear that antimillenarianism is of the nature of heresy;" and Dr. Burton says that "Irenæus, like Justin Martyr, calls those heretics who expected the saints' glorification immediately after death and before the resurrection," etc.; he himself represents the system of the pre-millennialists as "materializing,” gross," "sensual," "fanatical," and "heretical," yea, and that, even though it is found "in union with an intelligent and earnest orthodoxy,” (page 397).

Hence, as we have said (see Reply, etc., p. 44), Eschatologists, millenarian, and anti and post-millenarian, mutually prefer against each other's system the charge of HERESY. And, indeed, from this charge there is no escape. If millenarianism is what its opponents represent it to be-a "materializing," "gross," ," "sensual," and "fanatical" system of interpreting "the Messianic prophecies concerning the Second Coming of Christ "—the professed" orthodoxy" of its advocates in other respects cannot shield it from the charge that it is heretical. So, on the other hand, if millenarianism constitutes the only true system of expounding said Messianic prophecies in reference to that event, it will follow that the professed "orthodoxy" of those who impugn it, cannot save them from a similar charge.

In this view, it is a matter of the highest importance to ascertain on

what principle, if there be one, we are to determine the criterion which is to test the charge of heresy in these promises.

So far as we know, there is none other save that which is to be found in the distinction between the Ecclesia and the Apostasia of the Christian Dispensation.

I. The ECCLESIA. By the Ecclesia, or Church, is to be understood those who were called of God from among men, both Jews and Gentiles, and which, separated from the rest of the world, formed the first Christian Society, and was governed by the Laws of God-the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments.

But this Ecclesia or Church, as a visible society, was of a mixed char acter, that is, it was composed of those who were effectually called or chosen of God, as the wheat; and the nominal professors of Christ's religion, called the tares.

or

II. The APOSTASIA. That portion of the Ecclesia, the effectually called "the Election" of the Church of God, "are kept in the faith by the power of God through faith, UNTO " that "salvation ready to be revealed in the last time" (1 Peter i. 5), that is, at the appearing of Jesus Christ" (verse 7). But St. Paul, speaking of "the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ" (2 Thess. ii. 1), predicted that it should be preceded by "a falling away"—ǹ άTOσraσía, THE APOSTASY— -"first," which, as "the mystery of iniquity," he tells us began to "work" even in his time (verses 3, 7). Now, this apostasy appertains to the mere visible professing part of the Church, which, though having "a name to live," yet are spiritually "dead;" though having "a form of godliness," yet "deny the power thereof" (Rev. iii. 1; 2 Tim. iii. 5). Hence, this portion of the visible Church, with all its zeal and pretensions, cannot but degenerate into the APOSTASIA, or those who "fall away" from "the faith once delivered to the saints," of which St. Paul and St. John so vehemently warn us (2 Thess. iii. 1-4, 6-12; see also verse 5; and Rev. xii.-xvii., and xviii. 1–7.)

But the question is-In what was to consist the retaining or renunciation of "the faith" as originally "delivered to the saints"? The answer is, that it could not respect that "faith" in reference to the "first principles" of doctrinal truth; for to these both classes have professed adherence; but to the great, cardinal, fundamental truth relatively to the period fixed in the Divine purpose for THE SECOND PERSONAL COMING OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST TO JUDGMENT, taught by the Old Testament prophets, by the pre-Christian Jewish writers, by Christ and his apostles, and by the early post-Christian fathers for the first four centuries, as being PRE-MILLENNIAL.

Undeniably, St. Paul connects the Apostasia, which is to result in the revealing of "the man of sin and son of perdition," with the coming of the Lord to consume and destroy him (comp. 2 Thess. ii. 3, 4, with verse 8); while the chief characteristic of this Apostasia will consist of a denial of Christ's coming, agreeably to His own words-" When the Son of Man

cometh, shall he find (this) faith on the earth?" (Luke xviii. 8). Nay, says St. Peter for "there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, and saying, Where is the promise of his coming?" etc. (2 Pet. iii. 3, 4).

At least, we submit, that, until our scriptural arguments and historical facts in defence of this great truth can be shown to be fallacious, it will follow that its opposite, or that theory which alleges that the Second Coming of Christ is POST-MILLENNIAL, constitutes that portion of the visible Ecclesia or Church called the APOSTASIA.

Now, that defection from "the faith at first delivered to the saints" as connected with this cardinal truth, as we have shown, developed itself in the first instance towards the close of the second, and more fully in the early part of the third centuries, upon the establishment of Christianity in the Roman Empire by Constantine the Great. Certain it is, that that portion of the Ecclesia which denied and condemned what we claim to have been the original creed of the whole Christian Church before that time, being greatly in the majority, and clothed with plenitude of power, anathematized all bearing the name of chiliasts or millenarians as heretics.

Nor this only. From the fourth century onward to this day, the same mark of the Apostasia in the visible Ecclesia or Church, though on different grounds, holds true of both the Romish and Protestant branches throughout Christendom. For example: The Romish Ecclesia, affirming that the Christian Church under this dispensation constitutes the very "kingdom of heaven," "of God," "of Christ," etc., spoken of by all the Old Testament prophets, and by Christ and his apostles; and adhering to the literal interpretation and application of the symbolic imagery employed by them to denote it, insist that they refer to the triumphs of the said Ecclesia under Constantine over Paganism, whence commenced her MILLENNIAL STATE, over which Christ personally reigns, by a delegation of all his prophetic, sacerdotal, and kingly powers to an unbroken line of Popes as his vicegerents on earth.

On the other hand, the Protestant Churches throughout Christendom since the Reformation, at least for the most part, affirm, as do the Romanists, that the Ecclesia is, de facto, "the kingdom of heaven," "of God," "of Christ," etc.; but differ with her in this respect, viz.: that Christ as King reigns spiritually in the hearts of his people; while both agree in denying and denouncing what we claim as the original doctrine of His

PRE-MILLENNIAL PERSONAL COMING.

We offer these remarks on the distinction between the import of the Ecclesia and the Apostasia of the Christian dispensation, with no other than the kindest feelings toward all of every name, who are interested in the subject, our only motive being to awaken such inquiry regarding them as will elicit the truth. If founded in error, no one, on evidence, will be more ready to recant than the writer.