The Doctor insists that if there are two royal comings then this was his second coming, and when he comes in clouds, it will be his third-for his first coming was when he was born. Not so. His whole earthly life up to that time was a preparatory process for this culmination. So he said when Pilate asked him, "Art thou a king then?" He said, "To this end I was born; and for this cause came I into the world." He could never have come to Zion had he not been born, as Isa. 7: 14 foretold; nor unless He had "grown up out of his place." This birth was an an incarnation; his coming to Jerusalem his royal advent.

DR. WARREN'S REPLY ON MATT. 16:27, 28, CONSID

ERED.

Dr. Warren says: "Dr. Litch concedes that " 27 "predicts the coming of Christ in his glory."

verse

Yes, that is so; and moreover I deny that there is any historical fact, or facts on record corresponding with that language, showing its fulfillment. The scene described in chapter 17, as having transpired on "the holy mount," was a vivid illustration of the import of the language, but he did not come at that time to "reward every man according to his works," as he will at the parousia. That it was a sample of the power and glory of the parousia we learn from Peter (2 Pet. 1: 16-18), "For we have not followed cunningly devised fables when we made known unto you the power and parousia of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty... when we were with him in the holy mount." Either Peter and his associates saw the parousia which several days after they were the holy

on 66

mount" the disciples enquired about (Matt. 24: 3), or a sample or illustration, by which they were able to judge what the full and final glory will be. They saw the glorified man-Christ in glory on earth. If it had been that ultimate glory they would not afterward have asked what would be the sign of it; therefore it was a sample. If the final, then Dr. Warren's theory of its transpiring at the destruction of Jerusalem falls to the ground. He will be equally compelled with myself to accept it as only a sample; for it was, as Peter declares, "the power and parousia of our Lord Jesus Christ" of which they "were eyewitnesses." And being a sample, and as the scene has never been repeated, it remains to receive its accomplishment after the foretold signs which are to succeed the close of "the times of the Gentiles" (Luke 21: 24-27).

But says Dr. Warren: "Dr. Litch denies that it is connected with, or limited by, the time specified in the latter," that is in verse 28.

That is so. They are two distinct events. There was promised, as I have shown, by Zech. 6: 9-15, a conditional reign of Christ; and the same prophet foretold how king Messiah would come as king to Jerusalem (chap. 9:9). He did so come; was proclaimed king of Israel; was rejected as such by the rulers who said: "We have no king but Cæsar;" and the kingdom was announced as taken from them to be "given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof." Now I venture to say, that not one of the authorities quoted by Dr. Warren has ever undertaken to harmonize all this array of divine promises, predictions, fulfillments, and procedures, nor until they do are they competent wit

nesses in the case. Forty-two years of the strength of my life, I have given to the study of this subject. During that period I have read and well considered the writings of a vast number of commentators, expositors, exegetists, lexicographers, preachers and lecturers; besides conversing on, and discussing the questions involved with many eminent and learned men; and I here boldly affirm, that the teachings of the Bible on the question of the kingdom of God can never be harmonized and explained, while the promises and predictions of the Scriptures in reference to the first advent of Christ, embracing his royal claims as king of the Jews, are ignored, or lost sight of. It is for this reason that when I am confronted with an array of assertions from great names, men of learning as they are, but who have never noticed in their theory these numerous and important facts they make no impression upon my mind. I have long and well considered what they have said, but while their premises are so defective their conclusions are of no force. I would as soon take Dr. Warren's assertion as I would any of his vouchers; I plant myself on the strength of my argument, not on authorities.

66

Dr. Warren well says:

"Some difference of opinion may be found among commentators as to what verse 28 refers to, some saying the transfiguration, some the destruction of Jerusalem simply, and some as typifying the second coming of Christ in glory."

Very true: "neither so did their witnesses agree together" in another case. Why ask me to accept a list of contradictory witnesses, when I have a theory in perfect harmony with itself and the whole tenor of the word of God? But Dr. Warren continues:

"I have never seen or heard of one till now who denied that the two verses were to be taken together as referring to the same thing."

That is just what I have been saying,-that all his authorities have entirely ignored those conditional promiscs made to the Jews and fulfilled on Christ's part until his people refused him the throne and denied him as being their king. For this very reason I reject their dictum.

is a word which Dr. Warren criticises, and quotes authorities to sustain him. The criticism is: "The Greek phrase translated 'hereafter,' means literally from now." Yes, that is so; therefore, no matter about the authorities as we are agreed. But the Doctor says: "Of course such an expression does not bind us to the exact minute, or day on which it was spoken."

So our translators thought, and therefore called it "hereafter," both in Matt. 26: 64, "Hereafter ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power and coming in the clouds of heaven;" and John 1: 51, "Hereafter ye shall see heaven opened and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man." Clearly the word has the sense of hereafter-unlimited hereafter. The usus loquendi of Christ, then, gives to the word the sense of "hereafter." And when Dr. Warren (as he does in the foregoing quotation) unmoors his bark from the exact literal sense-"from now," he is at sea and cannot define the time of his hereafter. This he is compelled to admit. All the limitation he can give it is: "It must be taken as coming within the range of those momentous series of events then passing,

which began with Christ's arrest and was completed at his ascension."

Not being able to say when "from now," did begin, he affirms "it must be taken," &c. Why "must be taken?" Only to suit Dr. Warren's theory. Why not admit what Christ evidently intended and what the council understood him to mean; that he, the Messiah, being there and then rejected for claiming his kingship of Israel, would attain his kingship over all nations as foretold Dan. 7: 13, 14? The assertion filled the highpriest and all the council with rage, as being a blasphemous claim. And this also corresponds with Rev. 1: 7, "Behold He cometh with clouds and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him." It was at the instigation of the Jews who condemned him to be killed immediately, that the soldier pierced his side. This is simple, literal and obvious, seeing it is hereafter.

This is a sufficient reply to Dr. Warren's remark, that "these two passages [Luke 22: 69 and Matt. 26: 64] explicitly contradict Dr. Litch's assertion that Christ did not say when his coming in the clouds of heaven should take place." He did say it would follow the times of the Gentiles and the signs to follow that ending; and not until Dr. Warren retracts his admission that the word is not to be taken in its "exact literal sense," or fixes the time when the "from now" did begin, can I regard them as contradicting my assertion. JOEL 2:28-31 AND ACTS 2: 17-20 CONSIDERED.

Dr. Warren says:

"Peter expressly declares that the events of the day of Pentecost were what were meant by the prophetic language, 'I will