"Was there then to be in addition to this high symbolic signification, a fulfillment of this language in a literal sense? I think not. For first, there is no evidence that at THIS PERIOD such was its recognized meaning. We have no reason to suppose that the four disciples who heard our Lord's words on Olivet so understand him."-Parousia, p. 86.

This statement is astounding. "No evidence that at this period"-the period of Dr. W's writing the paragraph-"such was its recognized meaning." Surely the Doctor cannot have read the essays delivered at the New York Prophetic Conference!

66 THIS PERIOD."

"This period," if Dr. Warren's reasoning on "this generation" is correct-that it must mean the genera tion existing at the time of Christ's speaking, and not the generation of whom he was speaking-must by the same rule mean the period of the Doctor's writing; but if by "this period," he means the "period" of Christ's utterance, he fully concedes my claim in reference to "this generation," and he cannot deny it.

Again, he says: "I think not," in answer to the question, "Was there to be a fulfillment of this [Christ's] language in a literal sense?" Why not? He gives two reasons: (1) "There is no evidence that at this period such was its recognized meaning." No evidence? How would he determine this? What was Christ's language? "And they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds," etc.

How did Paul understand this language? He thus states his understanding of it: "For the Lord himself

shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trump of God, and the dead in Christ [his elect] shall rise first; then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air."1 Thess. 4: 16, 17. But, Paul, why do you make such a statement, and on whose authority? Paul answers: By authority of the "word of the Lord" (1 Thess. 4: 15). This is positive evidence that in Paul's day the language was so understood. Dr. W., then, is wrong. But the Doctor further "We have no reason to suppose that the four disciples who heard our Lord's words so understood him."

says:

Did not John more than so intimate when he wrote: "Behold, he cometh with clouds and every eye shall see him"?-Rev. 1:7. Did not Peter, when he wrote: "We have not followed cunningly devised fables when we made known unto you the power and Parousia of our Lord Jesus Christ," for "we were eyewitnesses of of his majesty;" and "we have also a more sure word of prophecy whereunto ye do well that ye take heed"? -2 Pet. 1: 16-19.

Thus Peter has left his testimony in full view of his anticipated death, concerning the power and glory of the Parousia, a glory of the Father and Son, when a bright cloud from heaven came and enshrouded them, into which "they entered; and Christ was clothed with a brightness like the sun; therefore we know his power and Parousia to be the simple truth, and no fable. But this was not his understanding of the matter alone it was that also of his associates-" We heard when we were with him in the holy mount;

"We made known to you the power and Parousia." What stronger proof would Dr. Warren have? If any, Peter will supply it; for he says: "Besides all" we saw and heard, "we have a more sure word of prophecy," -more sure than seeing and hearing, (then they understood the language of prophecy as requiring a literal fulfillment in such form as they "saw on the holy mount" of transfiguration)-"whereunto you do well that take heed as to a light shining in a dark place."

you

But if the language has no reliable meaning, if it is as loose and indefinite as Dr. Warren would have us believe, it is but an ignis fatuus-only designed if followed, to lead astray, instead of "a sure word," "a light shining in a dark place," "unto which we do well to take heed."

How does Dr. Warren know that the sublime language of Isa. 13:10, 11, was only uttered in reference to the fall of Babylon by the Medes? Does he answer that the context shows it? Then he determines the meaning of the passage on its own merits: as he does also the glowing description of Isa. 34, in reference to the overthrow of Idumea. Then why not follow the same rule in the interpretation of Christ's language in reference to his Parousia? Christ's statements were plain and "didactic," in answer to a plain question, with no intimation whatever that his language was to be interpreted any otherwise than literally.

Dr. Warren asks:

"If [Paul] had understood that the day of the Lord was to be introduced by a visible appearance of Christ in the clouds, why did he not remind the Thessalonians, who thought the day had already come, that such an appearance had not taken place ?-Parousia, p. 87.

Answer. Because he had already reiterated to them in his former letter what the Lord said about his coming, that all the saints whether dead or living were together to be "caught up to meet the Lord in the clouds." And in the second epistle he referred them to what he had taught them "whether by word," when present," or our epistle." And so there was no need of repeating it. Another reason was, he chose to give them a statement that "the apostasy" and "man of sin" stood in the way. And that was a sufficient reason.

Dr. Warren says:

"We have something on this point even more definite than this. Christ was once 'demanded of the Pharisees when the kingdom of God should come ?' He answered them, 'The kingdom of God cometh not with observation,' or, as it is in the margin, 'with outward show.' 'Neither shall they say,

Lo here, or, Lo there ;'-you are not to expect it in one locality or another-'for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.' It is in the hearts of men you are to look for its coming. It is a spiritual, not sensuous kingdom, such as you anticipate."-Parousia, p. 89.

This is a confession that they expected it literally. The Pharisees asked the question, and he "answered them." He did not say "in the hearts of men," but "within you," who ask the question. If in anybody's heart it was their heart: a class whom he characterized as hypocrites; and of whom he said, "Except your righteousness exceed theirs, ye shall in no case enter the kingdom of heaven." Then it is to be entered into, not be in. Did these persons have the kingdom in them? Dr. Warren will scarcely say they did. But in a note he says, "There is a difference of opinion among commentators whether the words entos humon mean within, or among you. The sense is substantially the same either way."

I think not; within means inside; among means in the midst of the people. The Doctor elsewhere says the phrase "kingdom of heaven is used for the king." This is true, and is the sense in which the word is used in the passage under consideration. "The king is among, or in the midst of you." In this light all is plain. But render the word within, and it is absurd and contradictory. John Baptist, Christ, and the twelve, had long been preaching: "The kingdom of heaven is at hand." Now the Pharisees demand, when is this kingdom, so long proclaimed "at hand," to come? By the coming of the kingdom, those preachers meant the Messiah, our king, is at hand. Christ now tells them, It is among you; I am the monarch of that kingdom. And this is still more evident when we consider that he at once proceeded to say to his disciples: "The days will come when ye shall desire to see one of the days of the Son of man and ye shall not see it. And they shall say unto you, See here, or, See there: go not after them, nor follow them. For as the lightning that lighteneth out of one part under heaven, shineth unto the other part under heaven; so shall also the Son of man be in his day. But first he must suffer many things and be rejected of this generation." There will be no need when the Son of man is revealed, to say to any one, "Lo here," or "Lo there," "See here, or there:" for in his day he will be as universally visi ble as the lightning, to everybody. And that universal visibility is, Christ states (Matt. 24: 27), to be at (or, if Dr. Warren prefers,) in his parousia. No matter which, the Parousia is to be as visible as the lightning.