but at the deliverance of his people. Daniel's people were not delivered at the destruction of Jerusalem. Fourthly, if Daniel's testimony could be set aside (which, however, must not be ;) if it could be conceded (which yet cannot be) that the time of tribulation unequalled by any other before or after it, is what was connected with the destruction of Jerusalem, still it would not establish the sense sought to be put upon v. 30. If the unequalled tribulation was that inflicted on the Jews by Titus, how could it be immediately after the tribulation of those days that Christ's "figurative coming to judge and destroy Jerusalem" took place? According to this, it was this figurative coming of Christ that brought the unequalled tribulation! How, then, could the coming be after the tribulation? Allow that the unequalled tribulation is that of the Jews in days to come, and that they are delivered by Christ's coming, it is then plain enough how the coming is immediately after the tribulation of those days. Such is the meaning of the passage, written upon it throughout as with a sunbeam, and the marvel is, how prejudice itself can understand it otherwise. Fifthly, it is of this same coming, with its connected events that our Lord goes on to speak in the remainder of the discourse. Having given the parable of the fig tree shewing by its leaves that summer is nigh, he says, "So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. Verily, I say unto, this generation shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. But as the days of Noe were so shall also the coming of the Son of man be." Let the reader observe the words "these things," and "that day," and how our Lord identifies thus the coming of the Son of man in v. 30, with the coming of the Son of man in v. 37. So also to the end of the chapter. It is of the same event he speaks throughout, connecting the next ch. with it by the words, "THEN shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins" &c. It is of one event that he speaks throughout. If in v. 30, he speaks of his "figurative coming to judge and destroy Jerusalem," it is of the same figurative coming" that he speaks, when he likens it to the flood in the days of Noe, when he illustrates it by the parables of the evil servant, the ten virgins, the talents, and the sheep and goats. There is not a single intimation of his ceasing to speak of one event, and of his turning to 66 another. Unless our post-millennial brethren are prepared to make all these treat of a figurative coming to destroy Jerusalem, they must give up this as an interpretation of v. 30. The more closely this discourse is examined throughout, the more incontestible is it, that it is a personal coming which our Lord foretells, and that it takes place neither at the destruction of Jerusalem, nor at the end of the millennium, but at the commencement of that period of Israel's restoration and of universal blessing. We are well aware, that the argument by which our brethren seek to neutralize all those now presented to the reader, is, that our Lord says, v. 34, “Verily, I say unto you, this generation shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled." But does it not occur to you at once, dear reader, that "all these things" must include more than this alleged "figurative coming" of Christ to destroy Jerusalem? It must at any rate include the unequalled tribulation, immediately after which, the coming of the Son of man takes place. If then you are determined to take the words "this generation" as denoting the race of men then alive, when our Lord delivered this discourse, see what you do:-you set Daniel and our Lord in hopeless opposition to each other. You make the one say, that this unequalled tribulation is when Jerusalem was destroyed, while the other says that it is to be when his people, the Jews, are delivered. Any interpretation which makes scripture flatly contradict itself, cannot be the true one. Nor is there the slightest pretext of any necessity for such an interpretation here. Here are two statements of our Lord himself. One is couched in language which cannot possibly admit of any sense but one. “For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be." There are not two ways in which you can understand or interpret these words. They defy misconstruction. Daniel's words are equally plain, determining that this unparalleled tribulation is at the deliverance, not at the dispersion of his people, and the destruction of their city. Now here is another statement of our Lord, namely, "This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." This statement is in itself susceptible of being variously understood; it is capable of more than one meaning; we must therefore adopt such a construction of it, as agrees with those other declarations which cannot be understood but one way. Now, if you regard it as meaning what our post-millennial brethren allege it means-namely, that those living when our Lord spake, would see the fulfilment of all these things, you interpret it in opposition both to Daniel and our Lord. "This generation," therefore, does not mean the race of living men then existing on the earth. But, again, among the "all these things" which were to be fulfilled, there is the gathering together of the elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other." See v. 31. Now, interpret this as you may, no one can pretend that this was "fulfilled" within the lifetime of those who heard our Saviour speak. What then is the meaning of "this generation"? Our reply is, consult any good dictionary of your own language, and you will find that the primary meaning of the word "generation" is not that of a single succession of men, but that of a race, or a people; and in this respect our own language corresponds exactly with the Greek, from which the expression is translated. This is admitted by our post-millennial brethren. But they say that it is forced and unnatural to understand the word in this confessedly primary sense here. But where is the proof of this? Here is a prophecy commencing with a prediction of the destruction of the temple; it proceeds to testify of wars, pestilences, famines, earthquakes, and finally, of a time of tribulation unequalled by any before or after it-tribulation so great, that unless its continuance were shortened, no flesh could be saved. What is there unnatural, what is there forced, in understanding our Lord to say, that notwithstanding all these multiplied, complicated, unparalleled distresses, the generation, the race, the nation of the Jews, should not pass, till all these things be fulfilled? Could anything be more natural than for our Lord to say this, in view of all that he had said before? Could there be a more simple, natural construction of his words? We think not. Besides, this interpretation of the words "this generation," makes the whole discourse harmonious with itself, and with all other scripture and if so, it leaves the whole discourse what it undoubtedly is, an unanswerable proof among many, many others, that the actual, personal second coming of Christ is at the commencement, not at the close of the millennial period. : LONDON PARTRIDGE AND OAKEY, PATERNOSTER Row. (Price One Penny.) No. 11.] Plain Papers on Prophetic [Nov., 1853. and other Subjects. FURTHER PRE-MILLENNIAL EVIDENCE. But In nothing perhaps, is the perfection of God's word more remarkably displayed, than in some of those minute coincidences, on the one hand, and points of contrast on the other, which entirely escape the notice of a superficial reader. For instance, the general correspondence between Matt. xxiv, xxv, Mark xiii, and Luke xxi, is obvious to all. Each contains, in substance, the memorable discourse delivered by our Lord to his disciples on the Mount of Olives, when he had left the temple for the last time. Matthew's report of it is much more full and detailed than either of the others; Mark's is the least copious of the three, and so far as it goes, most closely resembles that by Matthew: while Luke's, omitting much that Matthew's contains, furnishes some particulars which it has not pleased the Holy Ghost to record by either of the other evangelists. But there is one difference between Matthew's account and the other two, which suggested the above remark as to the perfection of scripture. The disciple's question in Matt. xxiv, 3, is thus stated, "Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world (age)?" The other evangelists in stating the question omit all reference to Christ's coming or the end of the age. "Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when these things shall be ful-filled?" is as Mark states it. 66 Master, but when shall these things be? and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?" This is the form in which Luke records it. How is this? Why do they not give the reference to Christ's coming and the end of the age? The reason is obvious, if we do but carefully read the entire context of the passage. Matthew gives in ch. xxiii, the denunciation by our Lord of the Scribes and Pharisees and lawyers, and of the entire generation which received its character from these classes of persons; closing, as our M readers will remember, with the solemn words, "Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. For I say unto you, ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord." As he goes out uttering these words, the disciples shew him the buildings of the temple, and he predicts their overthrow. Now nothing can be more evident, than that the disciples had both these subjects in view in their question as stated by Matthew nor could anything be more natural than for Matthew, having narrated what gave rise to both branches of their question, to state that question in full as he does. The other evangelists omit what suggested one half of the question, and they very naturally, in stating it, omit that part of the question itself. Neither in Mark or Luke is there anything as to the Jews seeing our Lord no more until they shall say, Blessed is he that cometh. The only occasion of the disciples' inquiry, which could be gathered from these evangelists, is the prediction that not one stone of the temple, or its buildings, should be left upon another; and accordingly, their inquiry, as stated by Mark and Luke, relates to this prediction alone: "When shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when these things shall come to pass?" But so In Luke xxi, we have our Lord's reply to the question as to the overthrow of Jerusalem and its temple. far from confounding this, as so many commentators do, with his own predicted return, or the signs which precede it, he carefully distinguishes the one part of the subject from the other, confirming thus, in the most powerful manner, the pre-millennial argument drawn in our last from Matt. xxiv. There is no explicit reference in Matthew to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. In the chapter before us, there is; but instead of identifying it, as so many do, with what they designate "the figurative coming of the Son of man in the clouds of heaven," the Lord places it at the beginning, and his own actual coming at the end of those " days of vengeance" which were to fall upon the Jews; but he foretells nothing as to the Jews but vengeance and woe, and nothing as to the nations but evil, between the date of this discourse and his coming in the clouds of heaven. How then can a millennium intervene? And as it is admitted that there is to be a millennium, how incontestible that it is after and not before the second advent of Christ. But let us examine the passage. From v. 8, to v. 20, our Lord predicts in general terms, |