"THE author's object in this volume is to show, that the Scriptures exhibit the great events which he enumerates in his title, as having long since taken place, and forbid the expectation of them as still future ; first, on the ground that they were predicted as of the same period, and one of them, Christ's coming, as very near ; and next, on the assumption, that as they have not occurred literally, the language in which they are predicted must be figurative, and has had its verification in events of a wholly different species ; the overthrow, as he supposes, of Jerusalem by the Romans under Vespasian, destruction of the temple, termination of the ritual worship, and slaughter and dispersion of the Israelites. He relies for the establishment of his propositions almost altogether on a mere allegation of passages, without any proof that their meaning is that which he assigns to them, or attempt to reconcile his constructions with the representations of other parts of the Sacred Word. He states his several positions affirmatively, and quotes the Scriptures as indubitably having the meaning which his theory avers ; or contents himself with suggesting the difficulties of a different construction, and expects his readers, by assenting to his first propositions, to acquiesce in his conclusions as demonstrated, respecting the language which he quotes, although he alleges no direct evidences of it.

We notice his work, first, because he claims the sanction of philology for his treatment of the predictions of Christ's second coming, the end of the age, the resurrection of the dead, and the judgment of the race, as figurative. He was educated, he intimates, at Andover ; has cultivated the modern hermeneutics, and been professor of the Greek language and literature in Dartmouth College; and implies that he has been led to the result in which his investigations have terminated, by interpreting the Bible "by the common principles of language," and the application of sound rules " to prophetic exegesis ;" and next, because the assumption on which the validity of his conclusions depends — that language is figurative although it involves no figure whatever — is common to him and all others, who assign to the predictions of Christ's coming, the resurrection and reign of the saints anterior to the millennium, and other associated events, a figurative meaning; and that, therefore, if they can vindicate their theory of interpretation, it is impossible for them to show that Professor Crosby's conclusions are not its legitimate results. This, indeed, is not seen, or not acknowledged by many, who, while they discard his theory, reject the doctrine of Christ's personal reign during the thousand years. We have seen a number of notices in which his views are treated as almost too obviously false to need a formal refutation, without a hint that the assumption on which he proceeds is identically the same as that on which the writers found their theory of a spiritual, instead of a personal reign of Christ, and a figurative instead of a literal resurrection of the saints and reign on earth during the millennium.

They have, however, but candidly to look at the nature of their own system of interpretation, to see that its fundamental principle is the same as his.

The inquiry, then, whether his pretensions are legitimate or not, is of high importance. The question whether the new exegesis is what it professes to be, almost absolutely perfect, and an infallible guide to the truth, or, in respect to figures and symbol sat least, radically defective, and in truth, a system of quackery, not only depends on it, but the question, also, whether any of the great truths commonly supposed to be taught in the Scriptures are verifiable by the legitimate laws of language. If the assumptions on which these parties proceed are just, there is not a fact or doctrine, a prediction or promise of the Sacred Word, that may not as easily and effectually be swept away, as they set aside the great announcements respecting Christ's coming and reign which they assail.

We shall show that none of his premises justify the conclusions which he deduces from them ; that his constructions of many of the passages which he quotes are wholly mistaken ;and that his pretence that philology authorizes his treatment of the great predictions whose meaning he affects to determine by it as figurative, in place of being indictable, indicates that he is unacquainted with the nature of figures, and is not, therefore, a master of his profession.

His first proposition, that " the Scriptures often speak of second, but never of a third coming of Christ," does not require consideration. His next, that " with the second coming of Christ the Scriptures associate the end of the world," or rather of the age, as he admits it should have been translated, " the resurrection of the dead, and the general judgment with its awards," instead of yielding support to his conclusion — that that which they denote has already passed, — disprove it; unless, irrespective of the question whether they have been accomplished or not, he can demonstrate that the language in which they are announced is, by the established usages of speech, metaphorical, and therefore indicates a different class of events from those which it literally denotes. His argument is, — Christ's second advent, the end of the age, the resurrection of the dead, and the last judgment, have not actually taken place; .therefore they cannot be the events that are really predicted in the prophecies, that taken literally foreshow them ; and consequently, the language of those prophecies cannot bilateral, but must be figurative. But that argument is wholly false and absurd. It implies that no prediction can be literal unless it has already been fulfilled ; and thence, that there cannot be a literal prediction of an event that is future ; and sweeps away, therefore, all our certainty of the most important revelations that God has made to us, such as our immortal existence, and happiness or misery according to our life here.

If the fact that Christ has not yet come in person in the clouds of heaven, raised the holy dead, and judged the living, proves that he is never to come in that manner and exert those great acts ; why does not the fact that we have not already entered on a life after death, and been adjudged to eternal happiness or misery, prove equally that we are never to be the subjects of those great events? It implies, also, that the question, whether a prediction is literal or metaphorical, does not depend on its structure, and is not determinable from the mode of which its terms are applied, but on its having been literally accomplished or not. On his theory, the question whether a. bank or promissory note is literal or metaphorical, an engagement to pay the sum which it specifies, or only to exert some wholly different act. turns, not on its language, or the mode in which its terms are used, but on the acts the drawer has exerted towards it ; or on its having or not having been paid. If it has been literally paid, that proves that it is literal ; if it has not been literally paid, that demonstrates that it is metaphorical, and denotes something wholly different from a promise to pay the sum which it specifies. What admirable logic ! What a brilliant result of the new exegesis !

But if Professor Crosby cannot prove that the language in which the affirmations of these predictions are expressed, is metaphorical from the mode in which it is used, by showing that it is transferred from objects to which it is properly applicable, to others of which it is not literally true, he cannot demonstrate from any other consideration that it is figurative. He might as well attempt to change the nature of mathematical figures, or the ratios of numbers to each other. He might as well undertake, by mere syllogism, to reduce men from intelligences to brutes, or raise brutes to intelligences. Language that is metaphorical is such, because of the modern which it is used ; and being metaphorical, cannot he made literal by logic, any more than anything else can be by such a process invested with a new nature.

His third proposition, that "our Saviour both variously intimated, and even expressly declared, that his second coming, with its associate events, would take place before the death of some who were then living," is not only wholly unproved by him* and mistaken ; but, on his theory of figurative language, cannot by any possibility be shown to be true ; nor could it had the intimations and declarations to which he refers been expressed in any other language. For he assumes in his argument that the word " death " in Christ's expression, is used literally to denote a corporeal decease, or the separation of the soul from the body. But, on his view of the nature of the metaphor, he cannot have any evidence that it is employed in that manner:. as, according to him, the fact that a term is not transfer from a subject to which it is properly applicable, to one of which that which it literally denotes, is not really true nor possible, is no proof that  it is not used metaphorically.

It may, he assumes, be metaphorical, though there is no metaphor in the mode in which it is used ! He builds his argument thus on an assumption that contradicts the position on which the system he endeavors to maintain by it rests ! How is it that this fact escaped his perspicacity ? On his principles then, Christ's declaration that there were some standing in his presence who should not taste of death till they saw the Son of Man coming in his kingdom. no more proves that his second advent has already taken place, than it proves the occurrence of any other event ; inasmuch as there is no evidence that any of those who were then standing in his presence have undergone a metaphorical death. Mr. Crosby must show what a metaphorical death is, and demonstrate that some one who was then standing "in the Saviour's presence has suffered that death, before he can verify his argument. He, however, will not find that an easy task, we apprehend. Can he designate any one of the persons who then stood before Christ, and prove that he has been the subject of a metaphorical death ? Who is the individual ?

What is the nature of that death ? What are the proofs that that individual has undergone it ? How is it that Professor. has omitted to explore this field of inquiry so suited to gratify his love of novelty ; and unfolding so fine a theatre for the display of his genius and learning ? Is he apprehensive that something more than the grammar and dictionary, those grand instruments of the fashionable philology, are requisite to its successful investigation ?

But apart from this consideration, which demolishes his whole system, his representation that Christ expressly declared that his second coming, with its associate events, would take place before the death of some who were then living, is wholly mistaken. He has fallen into that error by confounding Christ's presence on earth, and institution of his kingdom in its first form, soon after his resurrection, with his second coming, and institution of it in its second form, at the commencement of his millennial reign. There are two institutions and two forms of his kingdom. It received its first institution at the commission probably of the disciples before his ascension, and during his presence, therefore, at his first coming. Thus it was proclaimed, as at hand, by his forerunner, and during his ministry by himself also and his apostles.

John came preaching and saying, " Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand," Matt. iii. 4. Jesus came preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, saying, " the time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand," Mark i. 14, 15 ;and he commanded his disciples to preach, " The kingdom of heaven is at hand," Matt. x. 7. It is the prediction of the coming of THIS KINGDOM, accordingly, and Christ's presence at its institution, that Professor C. has mistaken for a prediction of his second coming, before the death of some who then stood before him should take place. This is manifest from the language of Mark. " And he said unto. them, verily, I say unto you, that there be some of them that stand here which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power," ix. 1. The parallel passage in Luke relates also exclusively to the kingdom. " But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here which shall not taste of death till they see the kingdom of God," ix. 27. In Matthew the Saviour is exhibited as present at the institution of his kingdom. " Verily I say unto you, there be some standing here which shall not taste of death till they see the Son of Man, come in his kingdom," xvi. 28. The event foreshown in these passages is undoubtedly the same, and is the institution of the kingdom of heaven, which was proclaimed by him and the apostles during his ministry as at hand. In other passages he represents his casting out demons by the Spirit of Jehovah, as a signal to them, before its visible institution, that it had already come. " If, by the Spirit of God, I expel demons, certainly the kingdom of God has come to you." That miracle indicates that he who is to institute that kingdom is already in your presence, and exerting his almighty power, Matt. xii. 28 ; Luke xi. 20.

It is of the kingdom in this first form, that he taught the Pharisees and his disciples that it was not to come with observation. Luke xvii. 20-32. " And being questioned by the Pharisees, when cometh the kingdom of God ? he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation ;"is not to commence in a form that is obvious to the senses, by the personal presence and manifestation of the Messiah in his glory. " They shall not say, look here, or look there," as though Christ had revealed himself at the temple, in some city, or in the desert ; " For, behold the kingdom of God is within you." In its first dispensation, it is a kingdom over individuals only who profess to believe in the Messiah ;not over the nations and world universally. That this is his meaning is shown by his pointing out to his disciples the false expectations they entertained that he was publicly to manifest himself at the establishment of his kingdom ; and forewarning them that the revelation of himself, when it took place, instead of being confined to some narrow scene, would be visible in all places, and conspicuous to all eyes. "

And he said unto the disciples, days will come when ye will desire to see one of the days of the Son of Man, and will not see it." He then indicates that there would be a general expectation that he would visibly reveal himself. " And they will say to you, See here, or see there," as though he had appeared in some local scene. But he commands them not to be misled by such representations. •' Go not forth, nor follow." He then shows, first, that when he comes visibly it will be in a wholly different form ; and next, that at the time of his advent, instead of a general expectation of his coming, the world will be taken by surprise, as it was at the flood, and as the inhabitants of Sodom were at its overthrow. " For as the lightning that lighteneth out of the one part under heaven, shineth unto the other part under heaven, so shall also the Son of Man be in his day. . . And as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of Man. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. Likewise as it was in the days of Lot ; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builder ; but the same day that Lot went out of Sodom, it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all. Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of Man is revealed," v. 24-30. While he thus apprises them that the expectation of his visible presence in his kingdom, units first form, was to be disappointed, he shows that a time was at length to come when he would reveal himself in his glory to all eyes, and gather to himself all his true disciples, v. 31-37.

His disciples, during this form of his kingdom, were not tube freed from all evil, as they seemed to expect, and raised toad complete redemption, but were to be subjected to severe trials. Instead of princes triumphing over their enemies, they were to be as lambs among wolves. Instead of a scene of peace and bliss, the world was to be a vale to them of sorrow and tears. " They shall lay their hands on you and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues, and into prisons, being brought before kings and rulers for my name's sake. And ye shall be betrayed both by parents, and brethren, and kinsfolk's, and friends, and some of you shall they cause to be put to death. And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake," Matt. xxiv. 12-17. Sorrow, calamities, and sufferings, were to be the characteristics of their life, and were to be expected and welcomed. " In the world ye shall have tribulation." "The servant is not greater than his Lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you." " Count it all joy, when ye fall into diverse trials ; knowing that the trying of your faith worked patience."' "We glory in tribulations, knowing that tribulation worked patience, and patience experience, and experience hope." Into the kingdom, in this form, the devil introduces his own children, and intermixes them with the children of the kingdom, like tares with wheat, and they are to continue together till Christ's second coming, at the end of the age, when his angels are to gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them that do iniquity, and cast them into a furnace office. Then the righteous are to shine forth like the Son in the kingdom of their Father. The kingdom in which they're to shine is the same as that out of which they who do iniquity are to be gathered ; it is only then to receive a new form, and be placed under a different dispensation, Matt. xiii. 24-43. During this dispensation some of the evil who enter the kingdom, and are spared by God's forbearance, are to show that they are wholly thankless and malignant, by tyrannizing over their fellow servants, Matt. xviii. 23-35. Multitudes of those who are invited to partake of the blessings of salvation, from worldly occupations, and a love of pleasure and wealth, reject them, Matt. xxii. 1-10.

While Christ is absent preparing for the introduction of a new dispensation, some of his subjects revolt and refuse submission to him, and are to be judged and punished at his return, and institution of his kingdom in its second form, Luke xix. 12-27.

And the period during which the kingdom was thus to subsist without Christ's visible presence, did not terminate at the overthrow of Jerusalem, and dissolution of the Jewish polity.

It is expressly foreshown that Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles shall be fulfilled ;and that it is not till after that long tribulation that the Son of Man is to come in the clouds, with power and glory, and give his people redemption, Luke xxi. 24, Matt. xxiv. 29-31.

What then is the period denoted by the times of the Gentiles ?The meaning of the prediction is not that Jerusalem should be trodden by the Gentiles till the Romans, having completed its desolation, withdrew their armies. That would be a mere prediction that it should be trodden by them as long as they occupied it, which would give no information of the length of the time during which it was to continue in desolation. Instead of such an indeterminate prediction, the times of the Gentiles are a definite period that was understood, undoubtedly, by the disciples. and are the times during which it was foreshown to Daniel the daily sacrifice was to be taken away and the place of the sanctuary cast down by the Romans, represented by the fourth wild beast. This is manifest from Christ's express representation that the destruction of Jerusalem, and slaughter and dispersion of the nation he was predicting, was that which was foretold by Daniel, Matt. xxiv.15.. The whole length of the period embraced in that vision, was twenty-three hundred evenings — mornings, a symbol of twenty-three hundred years ; at the end of which the sanctuary's to be cleansed, Danl. viii. 9-14. That period has not yet terminated ; and as Christ is not to come, we are explicitly shown, till after the tribulation of that long season has passed, his second advent has not yet taken place.

This prophecy thus, instead of yielding any countenance to Professor Crosby's construction, presents the most resistless demonstration of its total error. What admirable indications of critical research and philological skill he and the writers whom he quotes and follows, present, in overlooking these proofs, stamped in the plainest characters on the face of the prediction, that the coming of Christ, foreshown in it, cannot have taken place at the destruction of Jerusalem ?

The reference of the prediction of Christ's coming to the subversion of the Jewish polity is refuted also by every other consideration that affects the question. That catastrophe wasn't attended by any of the extraordinary events that are to distinguish Christ's advent. There were no portents in the sun, moon, and stars, or the seas ; his sign was not seen in heaven. There was no mourning because of it of all the tribes of the earth. Most of the nations had no knowledge of the capture, or even existence of the city ; and to the population of the Roman empire generally, its fall was undoubtedly source of exultation, instead of alarm. The Son of Manias not seen coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. His angels were not sent with the sound of great trumpet to gather together his elect from the four winds from one end of heaven to the other. There is no more ground for the reference of any of these events to that epoch, than to any other in the history of the world at which there's the most absolute evidence that they did not occur. Prof. Crosby might with as much propriety assume that they took place at the fall of Rome or Constantinople.

Mr. Miller might, with as much reason, have claimed that they occurred at the period which he assigned for Christ's advent. The pretence that these predictions are figurative does not, even if admitted, furnish any ground for the assumption that they had their accomplishment at the overthrow of Jerusalem ;for, on Prof. Co's theory of figures, he has no more evidence that the prediction of the overthrow of Jerusalem is not also altogether metaphorical and significant of some wholly different event. Any argument by which it can be proved that that part of the prophecy is literal, will prove with equal certainty that this is also. How happened it that this consideration escaped his notice ?

Prof. Crosby regards the declaration, v. 32, this generation shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled, as decisive that they must have been verified at the fall of Jerusalem. The passage, however, in which it occurs, refutes instead of supporting his construction. After foreshowing that there should be signs in heaven, and upon the earth, distress of nations with perplexity, men's hearts failing them for fear, Christ adds, "And then shall they see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory ; and when these things begin to come to pass, look up and lift up your heads, for your redemption draweth nigh ; and he spake to them a parable. Behold the fig tree, and all the trees ; when they now shoot forth, ye see and know of your own selves that summer is now nigh at hand. So likewise ye, when ye see you  see -- these occurrences, know ye that the kingdom of God is night hand. Verily, I say unto you, this generation shall not pass, till Taut — all this — that is, the train of events announced in the prophecy — " begins" or appears. Here that to which the signs in the sun, moon, and stars, and the distress of nations, bear the same relation as the spring bears to summer, is the coming of the Son of Man in the clouds, the redemption of his people, and the establishment of his kingdom. But there were neither any such signs in those heavenly bodies, nor any such distress and terror of the nations at the fall of Jerusalem ;nor was there any visible advent of Christ at that epoch, redemption of his disciples, or new institution of his kingdom.

It had been instituted in its first form nearly forty years before, and has not received any other institution since. The occurrences, the commencement of which is to be a sign of their redemption, are to follow the long tribulation during the times of the Gentiles, not to precede it.

But on the other hand, the Mark, which were to commence before that generation passed, were the train of events foreshown in the prophecy, the signs of which had just been mentioned ; viz. the persecution of the disciples, the slaughter and capture of the Jews, and the treading of Jerusalem, — .that were to extend down to the time of the signs of Christ's coming. The verb yew>jar, improperly rendered in the common version fulfilled, often has the sense here ascribed to it — of commencing, appearing, or being present.

In this prediction he indicates the period when the tribulation, that is to last through the times of the Gentiles, was to begin ; in the other, he gives the signs of his coming that are to follow the close of those times.

The whole of the grounds on which Prof. C. places his construction of the passage, is thus mistaken. Christ's kingdom is to continue in its first form till his second coming. It is then to be instituted anew and placed under different dispensation. That he is then to receive the dominion of the earth and reign over it, as its king, in a new manner, is abundantly taught in the sacred oracles.

Thus, in Daniel's vision, it was after the destruction of the fourth wild beast that the Son of Man came in the clouds of heaven tithe Ancient of Days, and there was given him dominion and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages should serve him, — a dominion that shall not pass away, and kingdom that shall not be destroyed : and it is at that epoch that the kingdom and the dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, are to be given to the people of the saints of the Most High, who are at his coming to be raised from the grave and reign with him, Dan. vii.13-28. In like manner, at the sound of the seventh trumpet, it is announced that the sovereignty of the world has become our Lord's, and he shall reign for ever, Rev. xi. 15. The peculiarity that is then to distinguish his dominion of the world is, that he is to reign in it ; that all people, nations, and languages are to serve him ; and that his risen saints arκte reign with him. It is indicated also in Christ's prediction of the signs of his coming ; — When ye see these things that are to precede his advent in a cloud, as spring precedes summer, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand, Luke xxi. 31, which implies that it is then to receive a new institution. Christ teaches, also, that it is then to assume anew form in the prediction in the parable of the wheat and tares; that after the removal from it, at his coming, of all that do iniquity, the righteous are to shine in it as the sun. It is implied, likewise, by Paul, that his kingdom is to be established at his coming. " I charge thee before the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and kingdom," 2 Tim. iv. 1. The great changes that are then to take place in its administration will constitute it in an emphatic sense a new kingdom ; and the events that are to signalize its introduction will distinguish it in the utmost degree from that which precedes it. 1. He is to come in the clouds of heaven, and be visible to every eye at its institution. 2. He is to reign in it as its king. 3. His saints are to be raised from the dead and reign with him. 4. Satanist then to be banished from it, and imprisoned in the abyss.5. The wild beast and false prophet who now usurp his throne and persecute his witnesses, will then be destroyed. 6. Althea wicked will then be gathered out of his kingdom. 7.His dominion will extend over the nations universally, not over individuals merely. 8. The curse is then to be repealed, and instead of sorrow, the world be made a scene of bliss. 9. Christ is then to manifest himself to men visibly.10. That kingdom is to endure for ever. It is thus, at that epoch, to present a total contrast to its present form.

This twofold institution and form of the kingdom, reconciles all the passages respecting it which Professor C. perplexes and confounds, by referring to the subversion of the Jewish capital and polity. It explains, and is corroborated by the parable of the nobleman who went into a distant country to receive a kingdom and return ; some of whose subjects revolted during his absence, and were, on his receiving the kingdom and returning, judged and punished by him, Luke xix. 12-27. But that is wholly inexplicable, if Christ isn't to receive the dominion of the earth in a new form during his absence, and exert his kingly power in a wholly different manner on his return. It shows how, though the kingdom of God was at hand at the commencement of Christ's ministry, it is also to be at hand when the signs appear of his second coming. It explains the consistency of his representation, that some who stood in his presence should not taste of death till they saw his kingdom come with power; with the revelation to Daniel and John, that he should not receive the dominion of the earth, to exercise a personal reign in it, and bring all nations to obedience, till his second coming.

Professor C's fourth proposition that "the apostles evidently expected that the second coming of Christ, with its associate events, would take place before the death of some who were then living," is equally unauthorized. Their teachings on the subject are in entire harmony with Christ's.

As he showed in the prophecy we have been considering, that the space that then remained of the times of the Gentiles waste intervene between the dissolution of the Jewish capital and sanctuary, and his second coming ; so they taught that a long period of trials, apostasies, and judgments, was to pass before his advent was to take place. John expressly represents that the epoch of his coming was to be after the period of the wild beast had closed, and the time of its judgment had arrived.

Paul explicitly taught the Thessalonians that the day of his coming was not then immediately at hand, but that a train of apostates was first to arise in the church and make themselves objects of worship in the place of God, and reminded them that he had apprised them of it before, 2 Thess. ii.

Peter also foretold that in the last days scoffers would arise who would deride the promise of his coming, because of the long space that had passed since it was predicted ; and reminded those whom he addressed, that as one day is with the Lords a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day, the delay of his advent is no proof that it is not to take place.

While Christ and the apostles thus foretold that a vast series of events, that must necessarily occupy a considerable period, was to precede his advent, they also taught that the exact time of his coming was unrevealed, and that its arrival would take the world by surprise. " But of that day and hour knoweth no one ; no, not the angels of heaven ; but the Father only." And that uncertainty was the ground of command to watch and be ready for its approach. " Watch, therefore, for ye know not what hour your "lord doth come." "

Of the times and the seasons " — that are to precede Christ's coming — " brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you. For you yourselves know perfectly, that the day of the Lord cometh as a thief in the night. For when they shall say, peace and safety, then sudden destruction cometh upon them, and they shall not escape. But ye brethren are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief," 1 Thess. v. 1-4.

These commands and exhortations, however, and the fact that believers were led by the teaching of the apostles to look with earnest expectation and desire to Christ's coming, as the great crisis of their being, Prof. Crosby regards as evidence that his advent was contemplated by them as almost immediately at hand, and must, therefore, long since have taken place. But that inference is wholly unauthorized. In the first place, it is confuted by the fact that Christ and his apostles, on the one hand, taught that it was not vitas, immediately to take place ; and on the other, predicted a great succession of events that was to precede it, that must naturally occupy a long period. In the next place, it proceeds on the mistaken assumption, that those commands and exhortations were designed only for the generation to which they were originally addressed. But that can no more be presumed in respect to them, than any other commands that are appropriate to the generations of subsequent periods, and are enforced by a reference to Christ's coming and the judgment that is to follow, as that of 1 Thess. iv. 3-6. " Fortis is the will of God. . . . that no one go beyond and circumvent his brother in the matter; because the Lord is the avenger of all such, as we have forewarned you and testified."

Watchfulness and a readiness for the event were rendered appropriate and obligatory, by the fact of the uncertainty of the time of its occurrence ; and the command to live in preparation for it was proper — not only as an expression of duty which was incumbent on those to whom it was originally addressed ; but also because, like the other directions and' exhortations of the New Testament, it was designed for all others who were to precede Christ's coming; and, especially, because an actual expectation of his advent, and readiness for it, are to be the characteristic of his .true people, and witnesses at the time of his arrival. To have omitted those directions, would have been to omit to command a most palpable and important duty ; and to leave his most faithful disciples without the aids that are requisite to a preparation for his coming, and the discharge of the peculiar duties to which they are to be called in reference to it. And, in thither place, it overlooks the fact that Christ's advent is to bead great epoch to the saints, when the event that is for ever to distinguish them from the lost, and render their redemption and blessedness complete, is to take place ; and an epoch therefore, to which, if they understand it, they naturally —whatever space may intervene before its arrival, — look forward with the utmost fervor of desire.

The great gift that is for ever to mark them as God's children, and separate them from the unrighteous, is then to be conferred on them, viz. their resurrection from the dead in glory and immortality, and elevation to the offices of kings and priests in Christ's kingdom. It is that that is to contradistinguish their destiny from that of the unsanctified, and consummate their redemption. It is in that form that they were taught by the apostles to contemplate their salvation. Though they were distinguished in this life from the unholy by a partial sanctification ; and are in the intermediate state, by a perfect freedom from sin, and a lofty blessedness ; yet the lot of each is in both, unimportant respects, essentially the same. In this life they area like subjected to trials, sorrows, and a sentence to death.; and in the intermediate state, to death's actual

But at Christ's coming, this last, which is the great public penalty of sin, will also be withdrawn from the holy, and they will be discriminated in every respect from the lost, by perfect exemption from the penalty, as well as the dominion of sin. With this view of the high place which their resurrection or change to immortality at Christ's coming holds in their redemption, it was perfectly rational that the believers even of the apostolic age looked forward to it with earnest desire, and fixed their thoughts and hopes on it, rather than on any intermediate event ; and the fact, accordingly, that that great epoch, which held such a place in the thoughts and expectations of the primitive disciples, is no longer the objector special desire or consideration to believers, is a portentous proof that their notions of redemption have greatly changed from those of the first age, and become deeply mixed with error.

These views which were entertained by the apostles and their disciples of the place which their resurrection holds in their salvation, thus furnish an explanation of their waiting and looking for the coming of Christ, as the great epoch of their hopes and expectations ; while, on the other hand, on Professor Crosby's theory, it is wholly inexplicable. There was nothing in the fall of Jerusalem, and slaughter, dispersion, and captivity of the Jews, to excite so profound an interest in the believers of Thessalonica, Galatia, or the seven churches of Asia, and prompt them to watchfulness and desire. The supposition of their watching for it is indeed preposterous, asset was an event that did not in any respect affect their personal safety and well-being. Men watch for events that directly concern them, not that simply respect others who reside in remote countries, and whose misfortunes are confined to themselves. It would be absurd to exhort the people of the United States to watch and be ready for an earthquake in Chili, or the eruption of a volcano in Italy. The passages which Prof. C. alleges on this subject, thus confute his theory instead of supporting it. To this series of propositions which form the basis of Proofs' system, he adds two others, which embody the conclusions which he regards as their necessary result.

PROPOSITION V
The second coming of Christ, with its associate events, the end of the world, the resurrection of the dead, and the general judgment, must have already taken place, and all expectation of these events as still future is forbidden by the Scriptures. "

The question of time determined, that of mode succeeds, How have these events taken place ? In what consisted the fulfillment of the predictions relating to them ? These are questions alike interesting and important; but they open a new and broad field of inquiry, into which we cannot now enter. Let it here suffice to ascertain ten what direction this field lies. It is needless to say, we shall search in vain all the volumes of history, to find anything like a literal and outward fulfillment these predictions. Even the predictions of the end of the world, orange, which, in its proper sense, has literally come to pass, are too muck involved in imagery to be made an exception.

It requires no argument, therefore, to establish the following proposition. as an UNAVOIDABLE CONCLUSION FROM THOSE WHICH HAVE PRECEDED:

PROPOSITION VI
The predictions in the Scriptures of the second coming of Christ, the end of the age, the resurrection of the dead, and the general judgment with its awards, MUST BE EXPLAINED IN A FIGURATIVE OR SPIRITUAL RATHER THAN A LITERAL SENSE, and in such a sense as admits an application to what has already taken place. "

Any attempt to determine the precise nature and character of this sense, which I should myself term a spiritual rather than a merely figurative sense, must involve a careful study of the teaching of the Scriptures, in respect to the nature and characteristics of the Messianic dispensation — that new and glorious kingdom, which forms the great subject of the New Testament, and to which the events above named were to constitute an introduction. Let me commend this investigation to the studious, the thinking, and the devout, as presenting most distinctly the great peculiar problems of Christianity, those which are alike grandest in theory, and most practical in application. Among the most important subsidiary inquiries are such as relate to the nature and significance of oriental, and especially of Hebrew and prophetic IMAGERY ;to the design and character of our Saviour's teaching ; to the nature and objects of the apostolic office, and of apostolic Christianity ; and to the distinctive characteristics of the several great dispensations or economies under which the world has been placed. I conclude by expressing my fullest conviction, my most assured belief, that the predictions of our Saviour respecting the great events which we have now considered, have been all fulfilled in the precise sense which he himself contemplated, when he uttered the sublime attestation, ' heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away ;' and that this is no lower or more earthly sense, but thievery highest, noblest, heavenliest, of which the words are susceptible." —Pp. 98-100

That is, he expresses " the most assured belief,'' that those predictions have no literal meaning whatever, but only a "figurative" one, " the precise nature and character" of which he does not pretend to determine, but holds that it is to be deduced chiefly from the nature of oriental and Hebrew prophetic imagery, and partly from what is taught respecting the divine government in other parts of the Sacred Volume.

He thus founds and attempts to justify his exhibition of the second coming of Christ, the end of the age, the resurrection of the dead, and the last judgment, as having already taken place, on the assumption that the passages in which they are predicted are altogether figurative ; asserts that that conclusion is unavoidable ; and represents that it is the result of the laws of philology. But if such be the fact, why did he not demonstrate it ? If he is sure that that conclusion is unavoidable, he must be aware of the media by which it is connected with its premise. If he is really certain that these predictions are figurative, he must be, in an equal degree, aware of the nature of the figures which they involve, and the process by which they obtain the sense which he ascribes to them. Why, then, did he not point them out ? It was precisely the work which he professedly undertook, the very task that was requisite to the attainment of his object, and to which all his other labor should have been merely introductory and subsidiary.

He could no more neglect it with credit to  himself, than a mathematician could neglect to define  and verify a principle by which he attempted to explain the phenomena of the universe. If his assumption respecting figures is just, and his declining to explain and establish it arises from a consciousness that it is not in his power, it demonstrates that he is not a master of the question he has undertaken to debate, and not competent, therefore, to assert, that by the laws of philology those predictions are  metaphorical. If that assumption is not just, but mistaken, then that demonstrates also, that he is no master of the subject, and has no qualification for the office he has assumed. What can be more unprofessional and unscholarly than thus to found the interpretation of a large part of the sacred volume on a principle or law, of which he can neither demonstrate the reality nor explain the nature ? Is it any better than the sheerest quackery ? an attempt to disguise ignorance under the pretence of accurate knowledge? The term figurative manifestly stands in his vocabulary, for something that is altogether unknown both in kind and quantity; and his protestation of his assured belief in the result in which his speculations have terminated, is, accordingly, nothing else than an acknowledgment that he is incapable of stating a principle by which his conclusion can be substantiated ; and a confession that his belief is without any intelligible reason ! The import of his sixth proposition, therefore, expressed without disguise, is, that " the predictions in the Scriptures of the second coming of Christ, the end of the age, the resurrection of the dead, and the general judgment with its awards, must be explained on some principle, the nature of which is wholly unknown, in order to assign to them a sense that admits of the supposition that they have already been accomplished ! " And this acknowledgment and profession that ignorance is the medium of his construction of these predictions, is undoubtedly in accordance with truth.

It is indicated by his whole method of procedure. It is because of a total in acquaintance with the peculiarity of figures, that he supposes language may be proved to be metaphorical by the fact, that that which it expresses has not been literally accomplished, or other considerations that are independent of its nature. It implies that there is nothing peculiar in the metaphorical use of terms that distinguishes it absolutely from their literal use, which is as mistaken and absurd as it were to suppose that there is nothing in the mode in which verbs are used that distinguishes them from nouns and adjectives, but that their office depends on grounds that lie wholly out of the relations in which they are employed. It is because of an in acquaintance with the nature of figures, that he assumes that language may be figurative, although it involves no figure whatever; for it is on that supposition that he founds his attempt to prove, that the predictions he undertakes to explain are figurative.

But that is as false and absurd as it were to assume, that vocal sounds have a certain specified sense without having any sense whatever, or mathematical figures certain qualities without having any qualities whatever. A passage is metaphorical because of the mode in which the term or phrase expressing the affirmation which it embodies is used; and passages in which terms are used in that mode, are, in virtue of that fact, metaphorical, and cannot be made literal by any process of logic. Their literal meaning must be changed and become identical with what was at first a metaphorical meaning, in order that they may become literal. Thus, the expressions the sky frowns, the thunder growls, the rain-drops dance, are metaphorical, because they ascribe acts to those several objects that are not proper to them, nor compatible with their nature, but are transferred to them from other agents to which they are appropriate, in order to indicate that there is a strong resemblance of the one to the other ; and being metaphorical they cannot by any possibility be literal. The qualities of the two are as incompatible and as unpredictable of the same expression, as the properties of the circle and the square are of the same figure. And finally, it is because of his want of acquaintance with his own principles, as well as with the nature of the metaphor, that after assuming that the passages which he treats as figurative are such, notwithstanding there is no figure in them, he yet supposes, that those which he treats as without a figure, such as the prediction of the overthrow of Jerusalem, and the fulfillment of the prophecy before the death of some of those who were present when it was uttered, must of necessity be regarded as literal. If the prediction of Christ's coming in the clouds with power and glory may be metaphorical, notwithstanding the terms in which the affirmation is expressed are not used by a metaphor, then clearly, for aught Prof. C. can prove or render probable, the prediction that the temple should be demolished, the Jews carried into captivity, and Jerusalem trodden of the Gentiles, may be metaphorical also, and denote wholly different events, although there is no metaphor in them. His assumption thus confutes his own construction of the prophecy as completely as, were his premise and conclusion admitted, it would those whom he assails. Is it credible that he would have written a volume that thus carries with it its own refutation, had he understood the import of the principle on which he proceeds ? The whole process, indeed; by which he attempts to reach his result is as ill-reasoned as it is amphibological. If, as he avers, the considerations which he adduces demonstrate, that the predictions of Christ's second coming, the end of the age, the resurrection of the dead, and the last judgment with its awards, cannot hereafter take place, and are forbidden by the Scriptures to be regarded as future ; then they demonstrate that those predictions are false ; not, what is wholly irrelevant, that they are figurative. That conclusion against their truth, is the conclusion that results logically from his premise. It is no more demonstrated by it that they are figurative, than it is that they are written in Chinese, the hieroglyphics of the Egyptians, or Sanskrit.

The false assumption on which Professor Crosby thus proceeds, that language may be figurative without a figure, and consequently that the principle by which it is figurative is wholly unknown, is unhappily not peculiar to him, but common to the whole, body of interpreters, whether orthodox in other respects or not, who reject Christ's premillennial advent, the resurrection of the holy dead anterior to the thousand years, the restoration of the Israelites, and other teachings of the prophetic Scriptures; and is especially characteristic of the philologists who profess to be the disciples of the new German exegesis, and are tinctured with neology ; and it is the instrument by which they attempt to set aside the great doctrines of redemption, and both they and the orthodox endeavor to erase from the sacred page, the revelations God has made of the future. The writers and teachers particularly, who have acquired a degree of reputation as biblical scholars, and profess to adhere rigidly in their interpretations to the laws of philology, adopt that preposterous notion of figures. Any one may see from their treatises or expositions, that however carefully they follow the laws of philology in the treatment of simple historical and didactic passages, the moment they attempt to interpret a prophecy, they discard their established laws and usages of speech, and proceed on a theory which they can neither verify nor explain. Their knowledge is  almost literally confined to the mere grammar of the sacred languages. With its higher elements, the nature and laws of figures and the principles of symbolization, they are not only unacquainted, but they proceed on assumptions so erroneous, as necessarily to misrepresent every passage to which they are applied, and to overturn, if carried to their legitimate results, every truth that is taught in the Scriptures. If this is not the fact, let it be proved. If it can be shown that their rejection of Christ's personal advent, the resurrection of the holy dead anterior to the thousand years, and his reign with the glorified saints on earth during that period, are not founded on an assumption that language is figurative without a figure, let it be demonstrated. When that experiment is made, let it be shown by what process, on the theory that language may be figurative without a figure, it can be proved that any of the passages are literal that teach Christ's deity, expiation, and resurrection ; the renovation of the mind by the Spirit ; justification by faith ; the existence of the soul after death ; the resurrection of the dead ; the immortality and blessedness of the redeemed ; the punishment of the lost ; or any other fact or doctrine that is taught in the Inspired Volume. Nothing, we apprehend, but the grossest delusion can prevent its being seen to be wholly impracticable. The false principles on which they thus proceed, prove that the science of interpretation, in place of having reached the high perfection which is ostentatiously assigned to it by some of its professors, is extremely defective, and the instrument of misrepresenting the Scriptures on a far greater scale, than of unfolding and vindicating their true teachings. We do not state this for the purpose of detracting from the just merits of those who are engaged in the exposition of the sacred languages, but to show the necessity, in order to their credit as scholars, as well as to the discharge of their official duty, that they should relinquish their unscientific and absurd hypotheses, and investigate this subject with the care which, they bestow on others, and adjust their interpretations throughout to the indisputable laws of philology. There was never a more urgent necessity, either to the reputation of the profession or the maintenance of the truth ; and such, with whatever dislike it may be received by the narrow-minded, prejudiced, will be the judgment of all who are animated by the genuine spirit of learning. Who that is candid and liberal will hesitate to admit, that it is unworthy of scholars to construe a large portion of the Scriptures on an assumption which they can neither verify nor explain ? Yet such is the theory, that language may be figurative without a figure, on which expositors proceed in a large proportion of their interpretations, and by which they set aside, without hesitation, what they are aware is indisputably the true meaning, if the passages are interpreted by the usual laws of language ; and they employ their theory for the very purpose of escaping that meaning, and substituting constructions that harmonize with the views they have formed on other grounds, of the aims of the divine administration, or the nature of the salvation that is bestowed on the redeemed. Was the word of God ever subjected to a violation more gross, and unworthy of those who profess to be masters of language, and governed in its explication by its ascertained and indisputable laws?

Was there ever a more open admission than their theory involves, that the principle on which they profess to found their constructions is wholly unknown and inexplicable ?

As there is nothing which distinguishes figurative language from that which is literal, except that it involves a figure, the assumption that language may be figurative without a figure, is an assumption that that which is figurative has no peculiarity by which it can be distinguished from that which is not ; and, therefore, that that which constitutes it figurative is wholly undefinable and unknown. Is it the part of learning, of fidelity to God, of integrity to the church, to build vast systems of explication on a theory which thus bears on its face a confession, that its results are but the offspring of ignorance and presumption !

It is equally unscholarly also, it will be admitted, to found their interpretations of one part of the Scriptures on assumptions that are the converse of those on which they proceed in the construction of others of the same nature ; — yet this is characteristic of the interpreters generally now most in repute. While they treat a large part of the historical and a portion of the didactic Scriptures as literal, because they involve no figures, they construe other portions as figurative, though without a figure, simply because of the topics of which they treat, or the truths which they reveal. But that is obviously as just a reason for treating all the other passages as figurative. What can be more unbecoming a scholar than thus to build his interpretations on arbitrary theories, and make the import of the sacred oracles depend on his whim and caprice ?

It is unprofessional also, and unscholarly, it will be acknowledged, to interpret the prophetic Scriptures on principles, that if applied to the other parts of the sacred volume, subvert the facts and doctrines which they teach. Yet such is their method. If the ground on which they treat the great predictions of the future as figurative be legitimate, there is not a proposition in the whole compass of revelation that can be proved to be literal, and express the meaning that is assigned to it by the usual laws of language. It can no more be shown on the ground of that theory, that the narrative of Christ's crucifixion is not metaphorical, than it can that the prediction, Matt. xxiv. 30, of his coming in the clouds of heaven is not. It can no more be demonstrated that he rose from the grave, than it can that the saints are to be literally raised anterior to the thousand years.

It is inconsistent with a thorough knowledge of the art of interpretation — it will likewise be conceded — to proceed in the exposition of the Scriptures on principles that are inadmissible in the construction of other writings. Yet, such is the theory by which they construe the prophecies. A lawyer or judge who should attempt to exculpate a criminal arraigned for a misdemeanor, on the pretence that the language of the indictment was metaphorical, although there was no metaphor in it, would be universally regarded as having lost his senses, or become regardless of truth. Yet, that is the pretence on which the genuine meaning of a large part of the prophetic word is set aside, and a false import thrust in its place. If it were applied to the affairs of common life, there is not a commercial obligation, there is not a title to property, there is not a legal instrument of any description, that would not be emptied by it of its legitimate meaning, and become charged with a sense altogether unnatural and false. Can the friends of truth and learning need any more effective consideration to induce them to discontinue such a method of interpretation ? Can the keen sighted, who observe the spirit of improvement which animates every department of society, avoid the conviction, that, however the sluggish, the prejudiced, or the reckless may desire to perpetuate the reign of ignorance, there are crowds who will discern and prefer the truth, and devote themselves to its culture. In the arts and sciences the detection of a mischievous error, or discovery of an important principle, is immediately proclaimed, and attracts the scrutiny of innumerable eyes. He who should choose to remain ignorant of it, or disregard it, and go on in the repetition of false views, from pride, obstinacy, or selfishness, would instantly divest himself of authority, and sink into neglect and contempt. It surely is not too much to expect that the friends of biblical learning will exhibit an equal alacrity in embracing the aids of which they are apprised, to the just interpretation of the Scriptures. "