the word eutheos be thus disposed of, so long as the subsequent limitation to 'this generation' remained. And in this, again, others have tried to refer genea to the race of the Jews or to the disciples of Christ; not only without the slightest ground, but contrary to all usage and all analogy. All these attempts to apply force to the meaning of the language, are in vain; and are now abandoned by most commentators of note. Two or three general views, however, are current on the subject, which demand some further remark.

One is that of De Wette and others, who do not hesitate to regard our Lord as here announcing, that the coming of the Messiah to the judgment of the last day would take place immediately after the fall of Jerusalem. This idea, according to De Wette, is clearly expressed by our Lord, both here and elsewhere; and was likewise held by Paul. But as the day of judgment has not yet come, it fol. lows, either that our Lord, if correctly reported, was himself mistaken, and spoke here of things which he knew not; or else, that the sacred writers have not truly related his discourse. The latter horn of this dilemma is preferred by De Wette. According to him the disciples entertained the idea of their Lord's return with such vividness of faith and hope, that they overlooked the relations of time, which Jesus himself had left indefinite; and they thus connected his final coming im mediately with his coming to destroy Jerusalem. They give here, therefore, their own conception of our Lord's language, rather than the language itself as it fell from his lips. They mistook his meaning; they acted upon this mistake in their own belief and preaching; and in their writings have perpetuated it to the world throughout all time.

This view is, of course, incompatible with any and every idea of inspiration on the part of the sacred writers; the very essence of which is, that they were commissioned and aided by the Spirit to impart truth to the world, and not error. To a believer in this fundamental doctrine, no argument can here be necessary, nor in place, to counteract the view above presented. To state it in its naked contrast with the divine authority of God's word, is enough." p. 541.

In his next paragraph, Dr. Robinson criticises the preceding views of the German commentators, very much in the way Prof. Stuart criticises Tholuck and others in his commentary on Rom. 13: 11. (See p. 301.) The Doctor proceeds:

"Another form of the same general view is that presented by Olshausen. He too refers the verses of Matthew under consideration directly to the final coming of Christ; but seeks to avoid the difficulty above stated, by an explanation derived from the alleged nature of prophecy. He adopts the theory broached by Hengstenberg, that inasmuch as the vision of future things was presented solely to the mental or spiritual eye of the prophet, he thus saw them all at one glance as present realities, with equal vividness and without any distinction of order or time,-like the figures of a great painting without perspective or other marks of distance or relative position. The facts and realities are distinctly perceived; but not their distance from the period, nor the intervals by which they are sepa rated from each other.' Hence our Lord, in submitting himself to the laws of prophetic vision, was led to speak of his last coming in immediate connexion with his coming for the destruction of Jerusalem: because in vision the two were presented together to his spiritual eye, without note of any interval of time.Not to dwell here upon the fact, that this whole theory of prophecy is fanciful hypothesis, and appears to have been since abandoned by its author; it is enough to remark, that this explanation admits, after all, the same fundamental error, viz. that our Lord did mistakenly announce his final coming as immediately to

follow the overthrow of the Holy City. Indeed, the difficulty is even greater here, if possible, than before; because, according to the former view, the error may be charged upon the report of the evangelists; while here it can only be referred to our Lord himself." p. 544.

The writer next proceeds to show by examples from the Old Testament, (such as Isa. 13: 9, 34: 4, &c.,) that the language of Matt. 24: 29-31, may be only a figurative description of civil and political commotions and revolutions. His conclusion from these examples is thus stated:

6

"We come then to the general result, that the language of the three verses under consideration does not necessarily in itself apply to the general judgment; while the nature of the context shows that such an application is inadmissible. On the other hand, there is nothing in the language itself to hinder our referring it to the downfall of Judaism and the Jewish people; but rather both the context and the attendant circumstances require it to be understood of these events."p. 549.

Finally, the writer actually applies the tremendous announcement of the coming of the Son of man in Matt. 24: 29-31, to a second Jewish war-the final catastrophe of the nation, which took place some time after the destruction of Jerusalem in A. D. 70. The following paragraph presents the concluding epitome of his theory:

6

"After these illustrations, I may sum up here in a few words the views sugges ted to my own mind in respect to the discourse of our Lord under consideration. In reply to the question of the four disciples: When shall these things be?' Jesus first points out what was to happen after his departure--the trials and dangers to which his followers would be exposed. Then comes the abomination of desolation:' Jerusalem is 'compassed by armies,' and is 'trodden down by the Gentiles-all this referring to its desolation by Titus in A. D. 70. Immediately afterward the Lord would come and establish more fully his spiritual kingdom, by crushing in terrible destruction the last remnants of the power and name of Judaism; and this within the general limit of a generation of a hundred years from the time when he was speaking. There might, therefore, literally have been some then standing there, who did not taste of death till they saw the Son of man [thus] coming in his kingdom.' Then it was, when this first great foe of the gospel dispensation should have been thus trampled down, that Christians were to look up. Then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh!' The chains of religious despotism and the terrors of Jewish persecution would then be at an end forever; and the disciples of Christ, thus far disenthralled and triumphant, might rejoice in the prevalence of the gospel of peace and love,--the coming of Christ's spiritual kingdom upon earth!"-

p. 552.

One of the laws of interpretation which Prof. Stuart and the Germans most earnestly insist upon, is, that a frigid and inept meaning can be no true meaning.' It seems to us that this law alone decisively condemns Dr. Robinson's interpretation. What can be more frigid and inept' than to refer a description of the coming of Christ to blast his enemies and gather his elect, to an obscure Jewish war, and the consequent prevalence of the gospel! This is the old theory of the Universalists, in a new form. They refer the whole of Matt. 24: 15-31 to the well known destruction of Jerusalem, and the resulting enlargement of Christianity; while Dr. Robinson refers the first →

part of the passage (as far as verse 28) to that catastrophe, and the remainer to a subsequent and certainly less distinguished series of transactions. He has the advantage of them in that he gives a plausible meaning to the words immediately after.' But we think they have the advantage of him, in that they apply the most sublime part of the passage to the most sublime transaction, which he does not. Both parties rob the passage of all reference to the invisible world and eternal judgment.

But waiving this general objection, we would ask Dr. Robinson, how according to his theory are we to understand verse 27-'As the lightning cometh out of the east and shineth even unto the west, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be'? Does not this describe an instantaneous and omnipresent manifestation of Christ? What plausible fulfilment of these words can be found in the history of the second Jewish war, or of the first, or in the history of the external world? The Doctor says nothing about this passage.

Again, how will he dispose of Rev. 6: 12-17, and the chapter that follows? This is a repetition, almost verbatim, of Matt. 24: 29-31. No candid man can doubt that the two refer to the same coming of Christ. But in Rev. 6: 15-17, we have as strong a description of the judgment—the great day of the wrath of the Lamb'-as can be found in the Bible. If no eternal judgment, but only civil commotions and temporal disasters are to be recog nized here, we might safely engage to expurgate, by plausible exegesis, the whole Bible of all allusions to a day of judgment, or even to an invisible world. In the 7th chapter, immediately following this description of Christ's coming, we have an extended account of the sealing and gathering of the hosts of the redeemed. This obviously corresponds to Matt. 24: 31,- He shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, (see Rev. 7: 1,) from one end of heaven to the other.' Now of these elect' thus gathered, it is said (verse 14-17)— "These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them. They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more; neither shall the sun light on them, nor any heat. For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne, shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes.' Can this be conjured into a description of any deliverances of the saints that have ever taken place in this world? Nay, verily; here is language that 'entereth into that within the veil ;' and as surely as it does, so surely it demonstrates that the coming of Christ des cribed in Matt. 24: 30, came to pass within the veil, and was to many' the harbinger of eternal judgment.

Our author concludes his article with some remarks on the remainder of Christ's discourse in the 24th and 25th of Matthew. He thinks the latter part of the 25th chapter certainly refers to the final judgment; and finds the point of transition from that part of the discourse which relates to the catas trophe of Judaism, to that which relates to the judgment, at the 43d verse

of the 24th chapter. Now let the reader take his Testament and examine this transition point. The 42d verse, which the Doctor admits belongs to the former division of the discourse, enjoins upon the disciples to watch, because they knew not what hour their Lord would come. The 43d verse illustrates the necessity of watching, by the example of the good man of the house and the thief. Here certainly is no change of discourse. Watching is the key note still. The 44th verse is almost a literal repetition of the 42d. 'Be ye also ready, for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.' What conceivable reason is there for supposing that the coming of the Son of man here alluded to, is not the same as that mentioned in the 42d verse -as also in the 39th, 37th, 30th, and 27th verses? If there is a change of meaning here, the discourse is an egregious imposition; for there is no change of language, and no hint of any change of meaning. From the 45th verse the remainder of the chapter stands in undeniable connection with what goes before, i. e., as we have seen, with the coming of Christ at the destruction of Jerusalem. The 25th chapter commences with-THEN shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins.' This points directly back to the great event of the preceding chapter. The whole parable of the ten virgins therefore belongs to the discourse on the advent connected with the destruction of Jerusalem. This brings us to the 12th verse. The 13th verse is another repetition, almost word for word, of the 44th and 42d verses of the preceding chapter. There is not a shadow of authority for referring it to any event but that announced in Matt. 24: 27, 30, &c. The parable of the talents that follows, from the 14th to the 30th verses, is confessedly a sequel to the parable of the ten virgins, and belongs to the same train of thought. We are sure, then, that all that goes before the 31st verse of the 25th chapter, is part of the discourse relating to the coming of Christ at the destruction of Jerusalem. But it is manifest that the 31st verse introduces a new train of thought. When the Son of man shall come in his glory, &c., [this is the same coming as that which is the subject of the whole preceding dis course,] then shall he SIT upon the throne of his glory.' Here is a new action. COMING was the previous theme. Now SITTING on the throne-a continuous administration of government, is the subject of discourse. And before him shall be gathered all nations.' It is not stated how long a period this gathering will occupy. It may, for aught that appears in the text, have been the work of the past eighteen hundred years. In order that he may thus gather all nations, he must first put down all rule and all authority and power;' and this is represented by Paul as the business of his whole media torial reign. (See 1 Cor. 15: 24.) The separation and the award of des tinies described in the remainder of the 25th chapter, is the proper judgment; and this, in our view, is yet future. We recognize in the predictions of the 24th and 25th of Matthew, two judgments-one at the beginning, and the other at the end of Christ's mediatorial reign. With this theory, we find plain sailing through those chapters, as well as through many other regions of scripture which have long been famous for perils and shipwrecks.

6

We confess we cannot but be astonished at the pertinacity with which the churches and their great men keep themselves away from the marrow of the

truth in relation to the second coming of Christ. The simple idea that he actually came according to his promise, and commenced the judgment in the world of souls, immediately after the destruction of Jerusalem, seems to be avoided, as though it were forbidden fruit. The commentators of Germany and this country go around and around it, and seem to be ever drawing nearer to it. How they keep from hitting it, we cannot tell. But somehow they never touch it. The old ways of managing the 24th of Matthew are all abandoned. The double-sense scheme is scouted at Andover. Twisting the word generation is given up. Still the learned come to no conclusion that is satisfactory to themselves or to one another. In Germany, where skepticism is licensed, one wise man thinks the evangelists misreported Christ. Another thinks Christ mistook the purport of his own visions, and misreported the Holy Ghost. In this country, Robinson finds a dubious history of Jewish wars subsequent to the destruction of Jerusalem, and forthwith applies to them the splendid prophecy of the second coming. And Bush thinks that 'the grand nodus of this remarkable prophecy remains yet unsolved.' When will all this end? Is not the long delusion of Christendom on this subject, 'a veil on the heart,' which mere learning and critical sagacity cannot rend?

$44. THE MISTAKE' OF THE APOSTLES.

It is becoming generally known and conceded, that the apostles expected and taught that Christ would come the second time and judge the quick and dead within their own lifetime. If he did not come, as the popular theolo gians teach, it is manifest that the apostles entertained and promulgated a monstrous error, and are to be classed with the Millerites as the dupes and disseminators of a false prophecy. The inevitable alternative before the religious world is this: either it must be admitted that the second advent did take place at the close of the Jewish dispensation, or the credit of the apostles for inspiration, and even common discretion and honesty, must be given to the winds. An attempt will doubtless be made to evade this alternative by softening and apologizing for the alleged mistake of the first followers of Christ. But no apology can possibly be framed for them, which would not be equally good for such false prophets as Miller; and no thinking person could trust any part of their testimony as inspired, after finding them guilty of false witness in relation to a matter so important as the second advent.Their testimony on this subject is inextricably interwoven with the whole web of the New Testament; and if they spoke at random here, nobody can tell where they spoke by inspiration.

That our readers may see the best and the worst of the case which is made for the apostles by those who are beginning to teach that they were in a mistake about the second advent, we will present an extract from Mr. Bush's