[between the idea of the presence and the coming] and its great importance. There are many different things which the Scriptures expressly say should take place in, or during the parousia. Such were the end of the aion (the Mosaic age), the establishment of the new kingdom of heaven, the destruction of the man of sin, the resurrection of the dead and day of judgment."

Indeed! The reader will have the kindness to turn to the fourth chapter of my review, and he will find that the whole chapter is devoted to this very subject. This is all I have to say to this charge.

Believing, as myself and all Adventists do, in the eternal presence of Christ with his saints on earth, we certainly have as long and wide "a blanket" for our bed as the Doctor can have: for he can have no more than eternity for the accomplishment of all God's purposes. But we do deny most emphatically, that the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans was one of the events to transpire in the parousia. Let this point be tested by a grammatical analysis of Matt. 24; Mark 13 and Luke 21.

When a writer quotes approvingly Vitringa, Stuart, &c., he makes their words his own, and is responsible for them. To rid himself of the charge of denying that Christ is said to come and go, he says:

"I admitted as fully as Dr. Litch does, that the Scriptures very frequently attribute that act to Christ, but I remarked that when spoken of a divine being it could only have the sense of manifestation."

That is, that Christ, being a divine being, did never really go or come anywhere. "He was manifested"now here, now there, without coming or going! What does the reader say to that? Christ was the God-man when here, and is in heaven, and comes and goes as other men; and is as God omnipresent.

In chapter II. of my review Dr. Warren finds this passage: "Was there an interval of some forty years after Christ left his disciples on the mountain in Galilee, saying, 'Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world,' to the time of Jerusalem's overthrow, when Christ's presence was not with them? I press this point and urge an answer." Dr. Warren says:

"Well, the answer is at hand, in the very paragraph preceding the last one quoted: "It is the presence of Christ in the exercise of his mediatorial offices,' viz., King, Life-giver and Judge. I did not say it was his omnipresence."

Indeed! Let us see (Parousia, p. 22): "That Omnipresence, as a personal attribute, belongs to Christ will not be questioned by any who believe in his deity. Even when dwelling among men in his flesh he could say, 'Where two or three are gathered together in my name there am I in the midst of them,' &c. See also John 3:13. Much more, then, may it be affirmed that in his glorified state he possesses the prerogative of deity, and can no more come, in the sense of literal approach, than he can depart, leaving some portion of the universe empty of his divine essence. The only conceivable sense, then, in which Christ in his divine offices of King, Life-giver and Judge, can come to men, is that of manifestation."

If this does not teach that it is in Christ's omnipresent character that he is present with men 66 'as King," etc., what does it mean?

Dr. Warren's objections to my construction of Luke 21: 32, "This generation shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled," now claim attention. I argued that

the phrase, "all these things," embraced, in addition to the events which should precede Jerusalem's overthrow, that overthrow itself; the times of the Gentiles which should follow it; the signs which shall follow those times; to culminate in their seeing "the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory." And hence, that as the Gentiles still hold and tread down Jerusalem, their times are not out; nor has anybody ever seen the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven. Therefore, "this generation" did not mean the generation to whom Christ spoke, but the one of whom he spoke, which should see these signs,—a generation either now living, or else yet to come; for certainly it is not in the past. This view Dr. Warren calls 66 an original theory." But I assure him that it is very far from that. I claim no originality in the matter; it has long been public property, and the marvel is that he never met with it. Several objections he makes to it— some of which I will notice. He says:

"1. It is not the natural interpretation of the words."

To be a little dogmatical like my friend, I may say, that taking the whole scope of the discourse, with all the associated facts, it is the only natural interpretation.

"2. It is contrary to the grammatical structure of the words. Every schoolboy knows that this must refer to something near. [Let the reader mark this admission]. "If any generation or time had just been mentioned, such generation or time, as supposed to be at the moment fresh in mind, might be referred to as this generation," &c. 'But none such had been mentioned."

66

Now he cannot deny that Christ according "to the grammatical construction of the words " predicted the

وو

that Christ and to con

destruction of Jerusalem as an event to precede his coming; that "the times of the Gentiles were to run their course after the desolation of the city; gave a series of signs to follow those times clude by men seeing Him "coming in the clouds of heaven;" and that after relating the signs he said, "When these things begin to come to pass, THEN look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draweth nigh;" again, "So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled." Here we have the exact conditions which Dr. Warren says justify the use of "this," and yet in the face of it all he asserts that no such generation or time had been mentioned! I will leave our readers to judge of the facts in the case.

But what does he mean when he says:

"3. The construction claimed is contrary to what we know was their understanding of it"?

I know of no way by which to determine what their understanding was but by their words. "We know" that this was Luke's understanding of it, for he wrote it. "We know" that the church had the same understanding of it, for Luke records the fact. "Those things which are most surely believed among us, even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word " (Luke 1: 1, 2). We cannot well have better testimony as to "their understanding of it."

"4. Such construction is contrary to all exegetical author. ity."

If no commentator has hitherto given that construction, it is time some one did. And I invite an analysis of the chapter by some unbiased and competent grammarian, taking in the whole scope of the chapter, and have no fears of the result. Dr. Warren may appear before such an umpire either personally, or by writing, and I will do the same.

"5. Let it be conceded that Luke 21 belongs here. [With Matt. 24, I suppose he means.] But what was that treading down of Jerusalem by the Gentiles, but the fearful destruction by fire and sword inflicted by the Roman armies ?"

I reply, it was not the destruction of the people, or city, (that is specifically foretold and had its literal accomplishment), but what should the condition of the city after that desolation, during "the times of the Gentiles." Is not that "the grammatical construction?" But Dr. Warren asks: "What earthly reason is there for affirming that it continued after that catastrophe except merely that the Jews no longer held possession of the city, and that it was under the government of the Gentiles?"

Well, besides "merely" these two good and substantial "earthly reasons," there is this, that Christ placed that treading down after not before that catastrophe. Thus we have three unanswerable reasons for " affirming" it.

"6. The theory of this long duration of the treading down of Jerusalem is contrary to Rev. 11: 2, where its period is expressly declared to be forty-two months. . . . Forty-two months are three and a half years, and correspond very closely to the time occupied by the Roman invasion under Titus before the capture of the city."

For a man who is a great stickler for the grammati cal construction of words, this is amazing: (1) "Very