that the signs of the second event, the coming of the Son of man, are expressly declared to be after the other event, the tribulation of the Jews, is terminated. Can it be possible, that events thus differing in the language of their description, and in the signs that precede them, distinct from each other in the order of their arrangement, and severed from each other by the express declaration of Jesus Christ, declaring the signs preceding one, to be after the conclusion of the other, can be believed to be the same event? X. There are some difficulties in the way of this exposition. I will consider them. 1. Mat. xxiv., 29. "Immediately after the tribulation of those days, shall the sun be darkened." The word "Immediately," presents the only difficulty in this passage, and it may be regarded as a singular fact, that the very words fatal to one exposition, should seem also to interpose difficulties in the way of the other. It is "after," consequently cannot be at, or during the tribulation. It is "immediately after," and there would not seem to admit of so long delay as the centuries that have followed the time of the prediction.

We will insert what Luke records, which Matthew omits. "For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be."-" And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations, and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled."-" And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved; but for the elect's sake, those days shall be shortened."-" Immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun shall be darkened." Does the death of those that perished, the captivity of the survivors, the destruction of their city and temple, and its possession by their enemies, all go to make up the tribulation of those days? Or did the tribulation consist of but a part of those particulars named? If we suppose the whole included in the "Tribulation of those days," then the difficulty vanishes; for then the tribulation continues so long as the Jews are without a home and a country, and Zion, the city of their solemnities, is trodden down by the Gentiles. And why should we restrict the tribulation of those days, by the continuance of the days of war and siege? Did the tribulation end with the days? That the tribulation of days of war and siege, continues long after the close of the war, the sighs of the homeless captive, and the groaning of the prisoners abundantly prove. As Jesus himself so describes the tribulation, as to embrace that tribulation which was suffered, and also that occasioned by the war, we are under obligation so to accept it.

Mark says, "In those days, after that tribulation." This has led some to suppose that he means the same days previously named: "For in those days shall be great affliction." But the language of the evangelist makes them necessarily different. Looking forward to the future, speaking of future days: "Those days of great af

fiction," and "Those days, after that tribulation," would be as evidently different days, as language could make them so. When we consider that Jesus had previously described the tribulation as recorded by Luke: "And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations, and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles shall be fulfilled;" and add, " In those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened," it would seem as though the subject was placed beyond doubt.

Luke, and only Luke, records the language, particularly describing the tribulation. Mark assures us the signs of Christ's coming, "Shall be in those days, after that tribulation." Matthew, that it shall be "Immediately after."

Now, whoever would explain this differently, let them remember that they must do it so as to admit Luke, v. 24, before Mat., v. 29. And then they must place the signs of Christ's coming, after that tribulation, not before, nor at: and then, Christ's coming must follow the signs. Then if they can get the coming of Christ before the tribulation of the Jews, with the approach of the Roman army to invest the city, they can make themselves believe that which I cannot.

It may be proper to add to this section, the language of an apostle: "There shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, and saying, where is the promise of his coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation."-" But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is long suffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance;" 2 Pet. iii., 3.

Mat. xxiv., 34. "Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." Several different expositions are given to this passage. 1. That the age then present, the men then living should not die, until all the preceding predictions were fulfilled. 2. That the age who should witness the destruction of the sun, the moon, and the falling of the stars, should not pass away until Christ came. 3. That family, the Jews, the family of Abraham, should be preserved, notwithstanding the persecutions and trials to which they should be subjected, until the accomplishment of all those predictions. 4. The disciples of Christ, who are a chosen generation, should be preserved, and the true religion continued in existence, until all those predictions should meet their accomplishment. The first exposition of this passage only presents objections to the literal exposition of these predictions. That only, therefore, need be particularly considered in this place. The definition given to the Greek word, here used, by Grove, in his Greek Lexicon, is, " descent, succession, birth, parentage, a race, breed, kind, sort, species,

age, the time from the birth of a man till he has a son, about thirty years." There are to this exposition, then, the following objections. 1. There are predictions preceding this declaration that are not yet fulfilled. "Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled," is certainly yet in its course of accomplishment, is yet unfulfilled. One single prediction unaccomplished, is fatal either to the exposition, or the prediction. We would not invalidate the prophecy, but only question the exposition. The prediction of the coming of the Son of man, and every prediction following that, remains unfulfilled. The figurative coming of Christ with the Roman army, at the commencement of, and causing the tribulation of the Jews, could it be made to appear, would not fulfil the prediction of a coming of Christ, after signs that are after that tribulation. Could it be made to appear that Christ left the mediatorial seat, and became the executioner of his father's vengeance by the Roman army, that would still leave the prophecy of his coming, after that tribulation, to be fulfilled. Is there any pretence of an appearance, a coming of Christ, after that tribulation, in any past event? There is not. Then all those predictions remain yet to be fulfilled. But even the destruction of Jerusalem did not take place before that age passed away. None of this age shall pass away. This age shall not pass away; or, all of the men of this age shall not pass away, would each convey a different idea to the mind. By the first, we should understand that it must occur at once, before death had time to make any sensible inroads upon the living. By the second form of expression, we should suppose it must happen while the greater portion or body of them were living; by the other, we might suppose the term protracted, while any of the men were alive. Jerusalem was destroyed from thirty-seven to forty years after this prediction. Was the great body of the men of that age still living to prove those calamities? Or had they, with a few exceptions, left the stage, and the next generation or age succeeded to taste the cup of Jerusalem's calamities? 2. It does not appear to have been the Saviour's design to answer the question as to the time. His answer to the question, "When?" is, "Of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father."-"Take ye heed, watch and pray for ye know not when the time is."-"It is not for you to know the times or the seasons which the Father hath put in his own power." Nor are we taught that it was then nigh: but only that it might be known to be so, when all these things should come to pass. If generation, then, means age, it must mean the age living on the earth at the time these signs shall be accomplished; and to this the language "Ye shall see," is no more objection, than the apostle's language, "We which are alive, and remain unto the coming of the Lord," proves that the dead were raised in his day, and is an objection to the doctrine of the future resurrection of the dead.

But whatever exposition may be given it, such an one as will accord with Luke xxi., 24, will answer all our purposes, on the ground here taken; and he who, to support a favorite view, would array one part of the prophecy against another, does it at his own peril.

Mat. xvi., 28. "Verily I say unto you, there be some standing here which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." The subject of the Jews tribulation, and the destruction of Jerusalem, are not named in this connexion. There is nothing said here that refers to that time of calamity. Hence, there is no reason for applying it to that event, unless, from other scriptures it can be proved that the Son of man did come in his kingdom at that time. The scriptures, and the only scriptures relied upon, in which the two subjects, Christ's coming, and the destruction of Jerusalem are embraced, are those at the head of this article. We have seen, that instead of asserting that Christ came in his kingdom at that time, that the two events are distinct from each other, introduced by different signs. The signs of one event declared to be after the tribulation of the other, and they separated from each other by the undefined term of time, "And Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled." So we have yet to seek the place where they begin to be made the same, or simultaneous events. The only ground on which this can be referred to the destruction of Jerusalem, is, that there were some standing there that should not taste of death till they saw it, and John was alive at the time of Jerusalem's destruction. Hence, it is assumed that it must mean the time of Jerusalem's destruction, and that Christ came at that time.

The three most satisfactory expositions of this passage which I have ever seen, are given by Matthew xvii., 1-8, by Mark ix., 2-8, and by Luke ix., 28-36. The inquirer will learn from them, that one week after this saying, Jesus took three, of his disciples, Peter, James, and John, into a mountain apart, and was transfigured before them. That his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light. That two men, Moses and Elias, appeared in glory, talking with him. That a bright cloud overshadowed them. That the whole was such a display of glory, as to be overwhelming, overpowering to the disciples. That by the voice of God both the law and the prophets, represented by Moses and Elijah, were superseded, and Jesus Christ invested with full, supreme authority in the kingdom of God. "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him." I can find nothing more satisfactory to me than this.

The objection to this is the improbability that Jesus would say they should not taste of death, till they had seen it, and it occur within eight days. But to this it may be answered, it might have been the meaning of the Saviour. Although the kingdom of God is

not of this world, although flesh and blood cannot inherit it, and man must be changed from this dull, mortal, earthly state, to see and enjoy it, yet I will exhibit its glories to some of you, without passing through death; or, in your present mortal state. That this transfiguration was the fulfillment of the promise in the minds of the evangelists, I think is rendered certain from the immediate introduction of the events, with all the minuteness with which they describe them. That Peter, one of the witnesses so understood it, I think is evident from 2 Pet. i., 16-18. "For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eye witnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father, honor and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount." This I believe the fulfilment of this promise. If it were not, it must have been fulfilled on the day of Pentecost. But I have no doubt it was the former. Mat. x., 23. "Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come." There may be some doubt what this may mean. There can be no doubt that it does not mean that they shall not have gone over the cities of Israel till the destruction of Jerusalem: for, before that event, they had preached the gospel of the kingdom throughout the cities of Israel, and had received a commission to "go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature," and had planted churches in most of the heathen cities in the world. Probably, as good an axplanation as can be found, is in Luke x., v. 1. "After these things, the Lord appointed other seventy also; and sent them two and two, before his face, into every city and place whether he himself would come." While Jesus thus sent his disciples before him into the cities of Israel to preach the gospel, he assured them that he would overtake and be with them, before they should have completed their tour on which he sent them.

But it may be replied to every objection of this character, that a thousand circumstances which we can not satisfactorily solve, or which we may imagine have a little bearing towards a given position, weigh not a feather in the balance, against the direct testimony of an unimpeachable witness. Jesus has said, the signs of his coming are after that tribulation. Now, suppose we were without any light upon the texts last named, we might say we did not understand their meaning; but we should have no authority whatever, to apply them to Christ's coming at the time of the Jews tribulation, when no such coming is mentioned, or hinted at, at that time; but the express testimony of Jesus, places his coming after that tribulation. It is certainly surprising what should have led to an exposition of those scriptures, in a manner so to derange the order of the events, and contradict the "True witness."