it is argued, that this passage proves clearly, that all the predictions of Christ's coming again, "as the lightning"—" in the clouds of heaven,” &c., were fulfilled forty years after given, in Christ's coming to destroy Jerusalem, by the Roman army, before the passing away of that" generation," as profane history is said to prove, so that now we are not to look for any proof of Christ and his kingdom" at hand,” from his own foretelling his coming, as recorded in Mat. 24th, Mark 13th, Luke 17th and 21st.

In answer to this, it may be said, that profane history does not prove that Christ has ever yet come like “ lightning," and "with the clouds of heaven." Though profane history is not admitted at all as a rule of interpreting the spirit of the word in this discussion; if it were, it surely would fail of proving that Christ so came at that siege of mere flesh and blood, or human carnage, except as he was present at the place, continually before and after, ever since. No profane writer, it is believed, has ever stated the fact of Christ's "appearing" from heaven, to order, to witness, or to approve of the human butchery of such a scene. The histories we have of the scene, simply state the facts of the carnage, and there leave it, without a syllable of Christ's being there to order the battle. Then, to affirm that this human siege was the fulfilling of the great things foretold of Christ's wonderful coming from heaven, would spiritualize those spiritual things into mere carnal things. It would also adopt as a precedent, or rule of interpretation, that Christ set us the example of borrowing spiritual things, or the judgment scenes, as mere types of things not spiritual, as if, in his view, the latter were so much more important than the former, for waking us all up to prepare to meet the judgment. Indeed, such a precedent violates, at once, all the rules of interpretation which could be mentioned, except

such as would reject the things of the Spirit altogether, which belong to the word.

But, in further reply to the argument, that those prophecies of Christ's coming were fulfilled 1800 years ago, because to come to pass before the passing away of the "generation" there mentioned, it may be said that this argument is predicated on a mere human "tradition," or interpretation of the word "generation," in the passage, the correctness of which tradition we do not admit, viz. that the word means an "age," as if Christ had said, that "age" should not pass away till all those, his solemn prophecies, should be fulfilled. In modern days, such arguing is called begging the question, rather than come on to premises admitted by the opponent. If the word “ generation" there, does not mean an age, then the argument drawn from the opinion that it does, proves nothing of the fulfilling of the prophecy in that age, or 1800 years ago.

In showing that the word "generation" there, did not mean that age, it may be said that the events did not take place in that age, have never yet taken place, and are such events as never can take place, till "The Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God;" and further, there is another meaning to the word "generation," allowed by all, in our language, which, if given to it here, makes it perfectly consistent with the solemn prophecy where it stands, leaving no contradiction nor obscurity on the connexion, and does not destroy its awakening power, as in case of calling it that particular age of the world. This other definition of the word is, that it means a genealogy, lineage, or race; and if this were what Christ meant by the word "generation," in this passage, and if he were speaking of the genealogy of either the righteous or the

wicked, that "generation" is not yet passed away, nor will it be, till indeed, Christ shall himself come, as he said," in the clouds of heaven," with " power and great glory." While there is much other plain proof that our Saviour meant a genealogy, not an age, by the word generation," it more naturally comes into another discourse, where the whole connexion is to be examined.

OBJECTION 5. "There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." (Mat. 16: 28.)

66

This passage concerning Christ's coming in his kingdom, is supposed by many to be satisfactory proof, that all he meant by such expressions, and by his "kingdom—at hand,” was simply the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, within forty years; and before the actual death of some of his then living hearers. In answer to which it may be said, that according to the next four verses of the connexion, this prophecy of Christ, was actually fulfilled within " six days after," instead of being delayed forty years to the reputed overthrow of a literal city. Of course its fulfillment, was not the passing away of the Jewish dispensation, being all done, immediately, and while it continued. The next verse explains the subject by saying--" And six days after, Jesus taketh Peter, James and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain." (Mat. 17: 1.) Here Christ was transfigured" and made to appear unto them gloriously, as his final coming is figuratively represented, or in vision, (Rev. 1 : 13—16. 19: 11—16,) when there appeared unto them also, "Moses and Elias," already then glorified subjects of his spiritual kingdom, or "kingdom of heaven-at hand." These subjects of the kingdom, it is aaid, "appeared in glory." (Luke 9: 31.) Peter himself so understood this vision. Thus he after

66

wards spoke of it, in one of his epistles, saying—" 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," &c. (2 Pet. 1: 16.) Accordingly Peter and the other two had seen so much of the real glorious spiritual kingdom of Christ, and him in his glory for a mere moment, while they were in the flesh; and before tasting death. But no such glories were seen by any one at Jerusalem's overthrow, so far as appears by any thing written on the subject; while the signs just before the siege, according to Josephus, are not at all the same as foretold by Christ, to precede his final coming. More than this, John, one of the three, who saw Christ's transfiguration, it is said, lived sixty years longer, and saw, as recorded in the Revelation, all the various things of Christ's coming and kingdom, with all its glory, having nothing to do with the change of mere earthly dispensations. All this, it may seem, increases the proof, that the great burden of Christ's prophecies of his coming with all his kingdom has never yet been fulfilled, and will only be fulfilled in the end of all things now 66 at hand."

OBJECTION 6. "The kingdom of God is come unto you." (Mat. 12: 28.)

This expression from our Saviour's own lips, it is supposed by some, sets the question beyond all doubt, that even then, his kingdom or the gospel dispensation had already come, and that no words could more expressly declare it. But in seeing that Christ did not mean by this expression, that the gospel dispensation had then come, we need only recollect that this dispensation had not then come; neither had the Jewish dispensation passed away to make room for it; neither had Christ then suffered, and could not, of course, have declared a dispensation come, which had not

come, without denying the fact of its being "impossible for God to lie."

Yet to understand clearly what Christ did mean by the expression of "the kingdom-COME," it will be necessary to understand the design and bearing of the argument, from which this short passage is detached. He was refuting the wicked and foolish sophistry of the Pharisees, to whom he was then speaking. They, like other Jews and infidels, denied his divinity as the Messiah foretold by the prophets; and to sustain their unbelief against his mighty miracles before their eyes, even his casting out devils; when they could think of nothing else to say, in the form of argument, they entangled themselves by saying—" This fellow doth not cast out devils but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils." (24 verse.) Thus, in their dilemma, they admitted more than they were aware, even that Christ had actually cast out devils, still in denying his almighty power by which he had done it, they madly affirmed that he had done it by the power of Satan. This extorted admission from them that Christ had cast out devils, gave him an opportunity to confute and confound them on their own ground, as his manner usually was, on such occasions. He then first shows them the falsehood and absurdity of their own argument against his power; by its contradicting itself; as though they thought that Satan would naturally cast out Satan; or attempt to destroy his own kingdom, like the falling of a house by its dividing against itself.

Then having clearly convicted them of the falsehood of their charge of his having only Satanic power to cast out Satan, while still they had virtually admitted that he had done such a work-it followed, of course, that in denying his own power to do it, they must, in order to be consistent