blank misrepresentation? If Mark was to be explained as far as might be, irrespectively of the other gospels, still the most scrupulous care should have been taken not to assign to his language (and needlessly and inconsistently, as in this instance, with the very nature of the events narrated) a meaning that represents the Saviour as contradicting himself in other predictions ascribed to him on the same occasion by the other evangelists. An interpretation that directly contradicts Matthew and Luke, and as palpably perverts Mark, bespeaks extraordinary inattention and perplexity.

And finally, to confirm this hypothesis, as he denominates it, that Christ's coming, foretold verse 26, is an invisible and impersonal coming, he alleges that there are no means of determining that the language is not figurative, and does not specifically teach that which he ascribes to it.

"It is in vain to say in opposition to this view, that it converts into figures what may just as well be literally understood; because so long as it remains true that some prophecies are not to be strictly interpreted (for instance that of Malachi respecting Elijah as explained by Christ himself, Mark ix. 12, 13), it will still be possible to put a similar construction on others, and will be still made a question whether this is right or wrong in any given case, until decided by the actual event, like the prophecies respecting our Lord's advent, and the circumstances of his passion."

To justify this construction of the prediction of Christ's visible personal coming, verse 26, as only an invisible impersonal advent, he thus avers that it may be figurative; and on the alleged ground, that there are no means of determining absolutely that any passage is not figurative. But that is in so many words to deny that there are any distinguishable differences between literal and figurative language, or any means of settling with certainty the signification of any passage. The pressure of very formidable difficulties must have been felt surely, to prompt a resort to such an "hypothesis." If there are no means of deciding whether a passage is figurative or not, nor of determining with certainty its true meaning, what reliance is to be placed on interpretation? What is philology, what is language, what is the pretence of a revelation from God, but a

delusion? The assumption is thus not only wholly unwarranted, in this unlimited form, but there is not a passage in the New Testament in respect to which it is more entirely so than the prediction to which he applies it," then shall they see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven with great power and glory." There not only is no figure in this language that gives it the meaning Dr. A. supposes, but there is none in it whatever. There is no metaphor in it, as the act of seeing which it ascribes to men is possible and proper to them, the act of coming which it ascribes to Christ is possible and proper to him, and the mode of his coming, visibly with great power and glory, is also possible and proper to him, and is predicted of him in many other passages. There is no hypocatastasis in it. There is no allegory in it. Yet these are the only figures that could give a dif ferent sense from that which the terms naturally bear. But beyond this, the supposition that a prediction that Christ will be seen by men, coming visibly in the clouds, is a prediction that he will not and cannot be seen, is a palpable contradiction. And the supposition that a prediction of his coming visibly in the clouds, with great power and glory, is a prediction that he is not to come visibly in that manner, nor at all, is nothing else than the supposition that the language is wholly deceptive, and the prophecy a mockery.

His reference to Malachi iii. 5, 6, in confirmation of it, is equally unfortunate. "Behold I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord." For on the supposition that the name Elijah is used by a metaphor, as Dr. A. tacitly assumes, it furnishes no parallel to the construction he places on Christ's prediction of his visible coming. For if instead of Elijah, John the Baptist were the person meant by the prophecy, there was still to be a visible coming of a person and a prophet, who was to fill the office that was foretold of Elijah. But on Dr. A.'s construction of Christ's prophecy of his personal visible coming in the clouds with great power and glory, there was to be no visible personal coming at all, nor any visible power or glory. There was to be nothing but a blank and absolute negation of that which the language predicts. But Dr. A. is mistaken in assuming that the name Elijah

is used in Malachi by a metaphor. This is clear, 1. from the consideration that the time when Elijah is to appear is before (that is immediately before) the great and dreadful day of the Lord comes. But the great and dreadful day of the Lord is to be the time of Christ's second coming, not his first. This is seen from the verses that immediately precede the prediction, and from the parallel passage, Joel ii. 31, where the great and terrible day of the Lord is defined as the day when the sun and moon are to be darkened, as at Christ's second coming, and when Jerusalem's final deliverance shall be accomplished; not when it was to be overthrown by the Romans. 2. It is shown by John the Baptist's express affirmation, in answer to the question of the priests and Levites, that he was not Elijah, John i. 21. 3. This accords with the prediction by the angel who announced his birth, that he should go before the Messiah in the spirit and power of Elijah. Had he been the person predicted by Malachi, he doubtless would have been called Elijah instead of John, and identified by the angel as the prophet who was to appear before the great and dreadful day of Jehovah. And 4. this is confirmed by Christ's intimation when he said he was Elijah, that he used the name in a peculiar sense. "For this is he of whom it is written, Behold I send my messenger before thy face which shall prepare the way before thee;” καὶ εἰ θέλετε δέξασθαι αὐτος ἐστίν Ἡλίας ὁ μέλλων ἔρχεσθαι : “ and if ye are willing to receive (it), he is Elijah who is to come." The expression, if ye are willing to receive (it), i. e. are disposed to receive (it), means, not if ye will believe what I say, but if ye will take it in the sense in which I say it; and implies, therefore, that that sense was not literal but metaphorical. And this is made indubitable by the expression, "he is Elijah who is to come" (not who was); which exhibits the Elijah of Malachi as still future, according to the prediction that he shall appear immediately before the great and dreadful day when Christ shall come-not as at his first advent, to make expiation for the world-but to judge it. It is Christ, therefore, who uses the name Elijah by a metaphor, not Malachi. And the prediction in Malachi accordingly is yet to receive a literal fulfilment. The passage thus yields no ground for Dr. Alexander's representation that it is one of many pas

sages that are not to be strictly interpreted according to the established laws of language; but its meaning must remain wholly uncertain till revealed by its fulfilment. The supposition indeed is absurd that it can be known that a prophecy is verified in a certain event, when it is not known that it is a prediction of such an event. How can it be known from the fact that B happens, that B is equal to A, if it is not known what A is?

Our author thus fails in his endeavor to construe this prophecy as possibly and probably relating exclusively to the siege and destruction of Jerusalem, and as foreshowing only an invisible and impersonal coming of Christ; and involves himself, in the effort to sustain that hypothesis, in a mesh of fatal errors and contradictions. What the particular embarrassments were that prompted him to that course, others may judge. Had he felt it to be possible to evade the revelation in the prophecy that Christ is to come in person and in glory at the close of the Jewish tribulation, when the times of the Gentiles are to end, as foreshown to Daniel and John, is it to be believed that he would have resorted to the expedients he has to escape it?—the assertion that the meaning of prophecy universally is indeterminable before its accomplishment; that literal and figurative language cannot be distinguished from each other; that expressions that have no trope in them may after all be tropical; that predictions that Christ is to come in person and visibly to all, may be no predictions that he is, but only that he is not to come, and is not to be visible; and, finally, that in framing his exposition of Mark on this hypothesis, he would have disregarded the proofs furnished by Matthew and Luke that his constructions are wholly wrong? We think not. We regard his ill success as a fresh and impressive exemplification of the impossibility of expunging Christ's personal coming at the close of the times of the Gentiles from the prophecy, except by the sheer disregard and violation of the laws of language. If any grasp or subtlety of genius, any vigor of fancy, any amplitude of learning could accomplish it, and give it a specious air, he could. He was perhaps permitted to make the trial under conditions the most favorable to his success, and thus to fail, that the hopelessness of the attempt might be shown

in an impressive form, and others warned by the example of the fatal errors in which they necessarily entangle themselves, who, under the sway of mistaken theories, prejudice, or unreasonable attachment to early opinions, are betrayed into endeavors to force the word of God into harmony with their erroneous views, instead of interpreting it by the simple laws of language that are their guide in the construction of all other speech. It is both awe and joyinspiring to think of the change that took place in Dr. A.'s apprehensions on this subject as he passed from the shadows. of this world. Disenthralled in an instant from error,raised in the twinkling of an eye to such illumination by the Spirit, that all his thoughts were truthful, all his affections holy, and all the expectations and hopes that kindled his heart were in conformity with the future that was unfolding before him, the great purpose of Christ to come soon and reign on the earth, redeem it from the sway of Satan and sin, convert it to a scene of righteousness and peace, and raising his dead saints in glory, give them to reign with him—was undoubtedly among the first disclosures that were made to him, and met a rapturous and adoring acceptance. For in heaven there are no disbelievers in Christ's personal coming and reign, at the close of the times of the Gentiles. The faith that is held there, and the joy and gratitude it inspires, are proclaimed to us in the song that was chanted by the ransomed at the sound of the seventh angel, during whose period the mystery of God is to be finished, as he has declared the glad tidings to his servants the prophets. "And the seventh angel sounded, and there were great voices in heaven saying, The kingdom of the world is become our Lord's and his Messiah's, and he shall reign for ever and ever. And the twenty-four elders who sat before God on their thrones, fell on their faces and worshipped God, saying, We thank thee, O Lord the Almighty God, who is and who was, that thou hast taken thy great power and reigned. And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead to judge and give the reward to thy servants the prophets, and the holy, and those who fear thy name, small and great, and to destroy those who destroy the earth." This is the faith of the ransomed who have gone to the skies. The voice of the seventh angel who