and 20th chapters, that sublime as was the description God gave beforehand of his coming down on mount Sinai, it was fulfilled to the letter; and to those passages I refer the reader. I showed from Jer. 51: 59–64, that the final doom of Babylon has never been executed, that it is to sink, as Jeremiah's book with a stone tied to it, sank in Euphrates. And that that final ruin is (as Isaiah, chap. 13, puts it) in "the day of the Lord." But as to Christ's description I showed that it was a didactic answer to a didactic question. Perhaps it would be better to say, a categorical answer to a categorical question. “What shall be the sign of thy Parousia?" So asked the disciples. Christ after describing a great variety of events to precede it—among them the "great tribulation "-then said: "Immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun shall be darkened, the moon shall not give her light, the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: and then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven; and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory." But this is not all. "And he shall send his angels

with a great sound of a trumpet and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other."-Matt. 24: 29–31.

see simply

In all this Dr. Warren would have us 66 the destruction of Jerusalem and the Mosaic dispensation." Did not Christ in addition to these signs of his coming give explicit and literal descriptions of Jerusa lem's destruction and the signs to precede it? And did he not continue afterward to speak of the signs to

precede his "coming in a cloud with power and great glory?"-Luke 21: 20-27. Everything must be literal and exact in the fulfillment except the answer to a plain question! "What shall be the sign of thy Parousia?"—the answer to that must only mean the destruction of Jerusalem!

If Dr. Warren could find the least ground in the passage itself on which to found his argument that we are simply to see it in the destruction of Jerusalem, we may be sure he would never have resorted to the expedient of ransacking the Old Testament to find what he regards as precedents for such a construction. Why did he not deduce his argument from the passage itself, showing that the subject, the question, and entire context, not only warranted but demanded such a construction? Because it cannot be done.

Every passage of Scripture is to be explained in the light of its own subject, concomitants and contexts, not by something entirely foreign to it. Every prediction relating to Christ's incarnation, course of life, anointing, reception, royal manifestation, indignities of his trial and death, burial, resurrection, ascension, &c., had an exact and literal accomplishment. When therefore he says, "If I go away, I will come again and receive you to myself," and his disciples ask him for the sign of his coming, and he answers them in the most simple manner, why are we to "see in it simply the destruction of Jerusalem"? And when he says: "He shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet and they shall gather together his elect," why "see in it simply the " flight of the Christians to the mountains? Is there no reliability to Christ's words?

THE MAN OF SIN, NERO.

In the Herald of March 31, Dr. Warren says: "It is the opinion of the apostolic churches, then, that are valuable as evidence on questions before us, and of these we have ample historical testimony." This I have admitted and have showed that three years after the death of Nero, and one year after the destruction of Jerusalem, Barnabas, "an apostolic man," who must have known Paul's views, still looked for Christ's coming and the destruction of that wicked one. And so did all the early Christians. But in this letter, without reference to the view of the apostolic churches on the subject, Dr. Warren leaps over to St. Augustine, A.D. 390, Chrysostom, A.D. 400, Cyril, A.D. 350, and Tertullian, A.D. 200, as the witnesses to be placed on the stand. How is this? But let me cross question them a little.

AUGUSTINE.

Who do you say were represented by Daniel's four kingdoms? Answer. "Babylon, Chaldea, Macedon, and Rome."

Who is the little horn of his fourth beast, and what his character? Ans. "The little horn is Paul's man of sin." (How this agrees with the allegation that Nero was the man of sin the reader may judge).

What are your views of the coming of Christ? Ans. "His kingdom will come when the resurrection of the dead shall have taken place; for then he will come himself."-Voice of the Church, pp. 98, 99. Good evangelical Adventism.

CYRIL.

Who do you say were symbolized by Daniel's four

beasts? Ans. "The Babylonian, Persian, Macedodonian and Roman empires."

Who is anti-Christ? Ans. "Some great man, raised up by the devil" after the Roman empire is divided into ten kingdoms.

Ans. "Do

What do you think of Christ's coming? thou look for the true Christ, the Son of God, the only begotten, who is henceforth to come, not from earth, but from heaven, appearing to all more bright than any lightning, or other brilliance, with angels for his guards, that he may judge the quick and the dead, and reign with a kingdom heavenly, eternal, and without end."Voice of the Church, p. 90, quoted from Elliott's Hora Apoc., Vol. 4. He could not believe Nero the man of sin and yet look for Christ in the future. Nor could he look for "the man of sin" to follow the division of Rome into ten kingdoms and hold Nero the man of sin. Could he, Dr. Warren?

CHRYSOSTOM.

Please tell us what your view is concerning Antichrist. Ans. "As Rome succeeded Greece, so Antichrist is to succeed Rome, and Christ our Saviour, Antichrist."

What have you to say of Nero? Ans. "Nero was the 'mystery of iniquity' already working in Paul's time in the form of Nero's persecuting spirit."-Voice of the Church, p. 93.

TERTULLIAN.

Please state how you regard the destruction of Antichrist? Ans. "We confess that a kingdom is promised us on earth, before that in heaven, but in another

state, namely, after the resurrection. For it will be in a city of divine workmanship, viz., Jerusalem brought down from heaven." Dr. Elliott says he held that this city "would come from heaven on the destruction of Antichrist."-Voice of the Church, p. 67.

So much for Dr. Warren's four witnesses, every one of whom testifies to faith in the future revelation of Christ for the destruction of Antichrist, and none of them could hold Nero to be him. With these quotations I will dismiss poor Nero unless Dr. Warren brings him again on the stage.

Dr. Warren asks in reference to the binding of Satan by Constantine:

"Why did not Dr. Litch at least allude to the very interesting fact that Constantine himself so regarded it, and erected in memory of the event a monument before his palace door, bearing the image of the serpent cast out and falling into the abyss ?"

I answer, because I did not regard it as of any manner of importance as bearing on the subject in hand. It is no uncommon thing for kings and emperors in the vanity of their mind to attach more importance to their actions than facts warrant.

DR. WARREN'S RE-STATEMENT OF HIS VIEWS.

There is but a small portion of the article on this point to which I wish to make any reply. I notice first his agreement with me, that the Mosaic dispensation did properly end at the death of Christ, as I showed from various Scriptures. Hence as he suggests, whenever Christ, or the apostles afterward referred to the end of the age it must be taken as the Christian age. If so, from the time of Christ's promise, "Lo, I am with