Romans, and effecting the destruction and desolation described in verse 27, under the similitude of the darkening and falling of the luminaries of heaven. But whichever way it is modified, they do not understand Christ to have come in any other way than judicially, by the Romans, to inflict these terrible judgments on the Jewish nation.

DR. WHITBY remarks on verse 30, "Our Saviour's coming here, seems to import his coming by the Roman army, to besiege and to destroy Jerusalem and the unbelieving Jews, for so Christ seemeth plainly to interpret this coming of the Son of Man,' verse 27," etc.

DR. CLARKE. "Then shall appear the sign of the Son of Man. The plain meaning of this is, that the destruction of Jerusalem will be such a remarkable instance of divine vengeance, such a signal manifestation of Christ's power and glory, that all the Jewish tribes shall mourn, and many will, in consequence of this manifestation of God, be led to acknowledge the Christian religion."

MR. BURKITT. "Then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn; that is, then shall the Jews be convinced that their destruction was the punishment of their sins, in rejecting and crucifying Christ; and accordingly they that had pierced him shall behold him, and mourn over him," etc.

MR. WATSON, "The sign of the Son of Man is that demonstration of the supernatural character of the judicial visitation of the Jews, that to the Christians it should be as a sure sign that it was Christ who was then inflicting his vengeance upon his enemies, as though there should be a visible personal appearance of him. Even Josephus, a Jew, acknowledged in these events the special displays of the more immediate agency of an angry God; and much more, to Christians, would they be the sign of his majesty to whom 'all power in heaven and earth' had been committed, and thus prove a mighty confirmation of their faith."

MR. BURKITT. "There is a threefold coming of Christ spoken of in the New Testament. 1. His coming in his Spiritual kingdom by the preaching of the gospel among the Gentiles. 2. His coming to destroy Jerusalem forty years after his ascension. 3. His final coming to judgment at the great day. All these comings of the Son of Man, for their suddenness and unexpectedness, are compared unto lightning," etc.

We might easily extend these quotations, in illustration of the figurative expositions of the prophecy under consideration. The above, however, all of which are culled from the writings of those whom the church delights to honor as "Masters in Israel," are deemed sufficient for our present purpose. Our next business is to lay before the reader,

II. The arguments adduced by these writers in their support. 1. Assuming that "the days of tribulation," verse 29, refers to the calamities which befel the Jewish nation during the Roman

war; as the darkening of the sun, moon, and stars was to transpire "immediately after" that time, and as no such event occurred literally, therefore, it is contended, the passage is metaphorical, and must be understood in the sense above given of it. This is also alleged to be sustained by the use of similar prophetic imagery in reference to the destruction of Babylon, Idumea, Sennacherib and his army, Egypt, etc.; but especially of Jerusalem, by the prophet Joel, chap. ii. 30, 31, and iii. 15, and which, it is affirmed, is applied by the apostle Peter (Acts ii. 16-20) to the Jews of that age. Hence the plea both of necessity and of precedent for expounding the passage figuratively. Again,

2. The coming of the Son of Man was to follow the darkening of the celestial luminaries. And yet our Lord, in Matt. xvi. 27, 28, speaking of the "coming of the Son of Man in the glory of his Father," etc., adds, "There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see him coming in his kingdom." And again, Matt. xxiv. 34, he declares that—" ỷ yeveà avrn—this generation shall not pass away till all these things be fulfilled." Therefore, it is argued, as Christ's coming was to follow the above signs in the heavens, and yet was to transpire before all these men died, it is certain that that coming of Christ cannot be future. DR. CLARKE, in his comment on Matt. xvi. 27, says: "This seems to refer to Dan. vii. 13, 14, 'Behold, one like the Son of Man came to the ancient of days, and there was given to him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, and nations, and languages, should serve him.' This was the glorious mediatorial kingdom which Jesus Christ was now about to set up, by the destruction of the Jewish nation and polity, and the diffusion of the gospel through the whole world. . . . . It is very likely that the words do not apply to the final judgment, to which they are gencrally referred, but to the wonderful display of God's grace and power after the day of Pentecost." And on verse 28, he adds: "This seems to confirm the above explanation, as our Lord evidently speaks of the establishment of the Christian Church after the day of Pentecost; as if he had said, 'Some of you, my disciples, shall continue to live until these things take place.' The destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish economy, which our Lord here predicts, took place about forty-three years after this; and some of the persons now with him, doubtless survived that period, and witnessed the extension of the Messiah's kingdom."

....

Another passage, viz., John xxi. 22, is quoted to the same end. By an eminent divine it is thus stated: "And Jesus said, If I will that he [John] tarry till I come, what is that to thee?' John's fellow-disciples spread abroad a report from this, that the Saviour had said to him that he should not die. But John himself remarks, that 'Jesus did not say, he shall not die,' but, if I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?' In other words," continues this writer, "John understood Jesus, not as promising exemption from death, but only that he should live until his coming. And when, now, was that to be? If his coming meant the general judgment, then John would not have to die at all; for saints then alive are not to die, but to be immediately 'caught up to meet the Lord in the air,' doubtless with an appropriate metamorphosis. The coming in question, then, after which John was to die, and not before, must have been some coming during that generation. And what else could it be referred to, except to his coming to punish the unbelieving Jews?"

We add one more passage, adduced in support of the above figurative interpretation of Christ's coming. It is our Lord's dec laration to the high priest, Caiaphas, Matt. xxvi. 64, “Hereafter shall ye see the Son of Man, sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." The argument here is, as it is certain that the high priest could not live until the day of judgment, and as the second coming of Christ will be prior to the resurrection of the dead, and as it is not possible that the high priest could have lived to witness that event, therefore, it is concluded that the coming spoken of must be a figurative coming to destroy Jerusalem.

Finally. On this subject it is argued,

3. That there are many passages in the poetical imagery of the Old Testament which justify the figurative interpretation of the one before us. For example, Isa. lxiv. 1: "Oh that thou wouldst rend the heavens, that thou wouldst come down!" Hab. iii. 3: "God came from Teman." Gen. xi. 5: "The Lord came down to see the city and the tower." Exod. iii. 8: "I am come down to deliver thee out of the hand of the Egyptians," etc. The same is true of those passages which speak of God as coming in a cloud, riding on a cloud, etc.

Thus much, then, of this theory, which, by a figurative interpretation of our Lord's prophecy, Matt. xxiv. 27-30, alleges the

fulfilment of all the prophecies which relate to His second coming, and the establishment of His kingdom in the world, by the judgments inflicted upon the Jewish nation and polity, at the destruction of Jerusalem by the hand of the Roman legions, in

A. D. 70.

It is almost superfluous to remark, that the learning, talents, and acknowledged piety and exalted position of those from whose writings we have quoted in illustration of their theory, and in the arguments adduced in its support, have secured to them an unbounded influence in moulding the theology of the modern church. Their theory of interpretation of the subject in hand, has become almost universally and permanently incorporated with the standard biblical literature of the day. Their commentaries and other writings have formed, and still form, the text-books of all our theological schools, and their opinions are endorsed and promulgated by the ministry, and received by the membership of nearly the entire church. And, so deeply rooted is this theory in the minds of nearly all who in this day "profess and call themselves Christians," that an attempt to change the current of thought on this momentous subject, is about as hopeless a task as would be that of altering the deep-worn courses of our rivers.

And yet, it will be admitted by all, that these men, however renowned, were but mortal. Why then, it may be asked, account them infallible? which men do, by yielding implicitly to their dogmas. In regard to all other matters of investigation, men choose to think for themselves. Why not in matters of theology as well?

66

We choose to do so. While we yield to none in paying that deference to the authority of great names which is their due, yet we can, in the matter of the inspired verities, "call no man master;" for one is our Master, even CHRIST.” ' And our conviction is, that it is now too late in the day of our probation to pin our faith either upon the teachings of uninspired men, or of like stereotyped creeds. "To the law and to the testimony: if we speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in us." They have written on this subject. Their ponderous tomes, or octavos, or duodecimos, find a place, in larger or smaller numbers, in almost every Christian hamlet throughout the land. And now, while we would "magnify our office," yet with no pretensions

1 Matt. xxiii. 8.

2 Isa, viii. 16.

3 Rom. xi. 13.

beyond that of being "less than the least of God's servants," " we also come forward with our Reply. In doing this, we propose, without further delay,

I. To examine the theory of figurative interpretation, applied by these writers to the prophecy under review.

II. To reply to the expositions given in support of their interpretations of this prophecy, and

III. Give a direct literal interpretation of this prophecy, taken in connection with its chronological stand-points.

The importance of this subject to the cause of truth, as we view it, is our only apology for the space given to it in these pages.

THE FIGURATIVE THEORY, ETC.

I. First, then. We are to examine the theory of figurative interpretation applied by these writers to the prophecy under review. We remark then,

1. That it is a violation of all the laws of prophetic interpretation, to confound a figure of speech with a symbol. Figures are used for the simple purpose of illustration or ornament. Hence, the agents or objects to which they are applied, relate to the subjects of the acts or qualities which they ascribe to them. On the other hand, symbols are the representatives of the agents, objects, qualities, acts, conditions, or effects of others of a different and resembling class. In the next place, we observe,

2. That the use of metaphorical or figurative language, implies a knowledge or idea of what would be understood, if such language were used literally. In other words, figures are to the literal agents or objects illustrated, what shadows are to the substance. We cannot use a figure without having in view the literal thing from which the figure is derived. For example: If we speak of a man as the pillar of the state, we have in view the nature of a literal column at the same time. If we say Christianity is the sun of the world, it implies that we have a previous understanding of the nature of the sun as the source of light, etc. Thus the one illustrates the other.

The use of symbolical language, on the other hand, is employed as prophetical representatives of the objects, acts, etc., of men bearing a resemblance to them. Thus, in Daniel's vision (chap.

11 Cor. xv. 9; Eph. iii. 8.

1