tions, and parted my land." And again, the Lord threa tens the utter destruction of "all nations," when, it will be admitted, it cannot be absolutely understood of the whole human family. "Come near, ye nations, to hear; anp hearken, ye people; let the earth hear, and all that is therein; the world, and all things that come forth of it. For the indignation of the Lord is upon all nations, and his fury upon all their armies; he hath utterly destroyed them, he hath delivered them to the slaughter." Is. xxxiv. 1, 2. To this dreadful event, it is probable, our Lord, in the parable, refers, when he shall destroy the nations which have so long been favoured with the blessings of his gospel without availing themselves of its privileges; and when his own people shall be made participants of the joy and honour of his millennial kingdom. That the description is not that of the general final judgment is evident from the circumstance that all the "nations," here spoken of, must have been favoured with the gospel among them. The ground of acquittal, or condemnation, respects only the love which has been displayed towards the saints. This rule of judgment is therefore inapplicable to those of heathen nations who have gone down to the dust, without having ever heard the Saviour's name, or known one poor disciple. Farther, this representation cannot be literally understood as applicable to all individuals, even in the nations called Christian, without setting the parable in direct opposition to the plain statements of Scripture. These nations are represented as divided into only two classes. All, therefore, who are not found on the right hand must be included among those on the left. But none are received to the right except such as have testified their love to Christ by deeds of benevolence to his saints, in circumstances of distress; although we have full assurance that all who rely by faith on the merits of the Redeemer's blood shall be saved, even if grace has been bestowed when under such circumstances as may deprive them of all opportunity of displaying their love by the deeds to which it prompts, as in the case of the penitent thief on the cross. To escape the dilemma in which they are thus placed, our opponents may say

the will is, in such cases, taken for the deed. But this is to depart from that literal explanation of the parable on which the argument is made to rest-the very point for which we plead. It is, therefore, obvious, that this cannot be understood as an exact representation of the final judgment.*

But it is to be remarked as not a little surprising, that while the direct statements of the period of our Lord's return are so easily set aside, no hesitation should be evinced in founding an important doctrine on the literal interpretation of the language of a parable-a kind of proof which, in no other case, would be received as equivalent to a plain declaration. The unsuitableness of parables spoken with a general design, for establishing a particular and disputed doctrine, is well known and generally acknowledged. Indeed, by interpreting literally the language of parables, the most opposite doctrines may be established as sanctioned by the word of God. Thus, in the parable before us, all nations are represented as being gathered together-then separated into two great companies, and as having judgment pronounced upon the whole of each division simultaneously. But, by interpreting literally another parable in the same chapter, (verse 14-30,) we have a very different view of the procedure of judgment. In it, each individual is called forward, singly and successively, to give account of the improvement he has made of the talents intrusted to him; and, individually, they receive rewards proportioned to the zeal they have severally displayed in the occupation of the talents committed to them. Thus, the consequence of interpreting literally the language of these parables, is to set Scripture against itself, by applying it to purposes it was never designed to serve.

*Mr. Mason, the Examinator in the Instructor, Dr. Hamilton, and a writer in the Edinburgh Theological Magazine, all cling to this parable with a tenacity which betrays the consciousness of their being destitute of better support. It is not, however, necessary that we should now review their remarks individually, as they all proceed upon the assumption of its being a detailed account of the final judgment, without the least attempt at proof,

There is another and most important circumstance overlooked when this parable is adduced in confutation of the doctrine of Christ's return before the Millennium. The two already referred to, and that which precedes them of the ten virgins who had fallen asleep while the Bridegroom tarried, and who continued in that state until aroused by the announcement of his near arrival -form part of a series* which our Lord spake in illustration of that declaration of his coming "immediately after the tribulation" upon both Jews and Gentiles at the fulfilment of the times of the Gentiles. "THEN," or at that time, says the Saviour, "shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins," &c. They can therefore only be referred to the period of his Millennial reign. And accordingly it deserves to be noticed. that, in the parable on which the objection is founded. the Redeemer uniformly speaks of himself as "the Son of Man" at his coming; but after having sate down "upon the throne of his glory," He always designates himself" The King." If, then, an argument could with

The nature and limits of the present publication do not admit of our entering upon the consideration of these parables in their connection with the prediction for the illustration of which they are delivered; nor of a more enlarged examination of the prediction itself. In treating on so many points, embracing in a connected form such a multitude of prophecies, for the purpose of presenting in one view their combined evidence, brevity of illustration was absolutely requisite. But as no view of the Saviour's Return can be considered as correct which is at variance with His own direct statements on the subject, the full elucidation of these chapters is of the highest importance in the discussion of the doctrine of His Millennial Reign. Much additional evidence may yet be derived from them in support of the views now maintained, which, if properly exhibited, will add greatly to the strength of the Millenarian argument. This the author reserves as the subject for a separate publication, in which it is intended minutely to examine various theories of interpretation, and to adduce arguments in favour of the view given above, from the occasion on which these predictions were delivered-from the circumstances in which they were spoken-the time at which they were uttered the persons to whom they were addressed-the language in which they are conveyed-an enlarged consideration of the various parabolic illustrations in their proper application to the time of Christ's coming-a full comparison of Matthew's narrative with those of the other evangelists-from the past and present fulfilment of the preceding signs in the history of the church and of the worldand other points of evidence.

propriety be constructed upon its language, the objector might find this parable bearing forcibly against his own opinion; and this it really and most unquestionably does when viewed as having been delivered in illustration of Christ's plain declaration of his coming, described in the preceding chapter. Nor is the formality of judgment, here represented, inconsistent with the view thus given, when compared with other Scriptures. Thus, for example, we have in Dan. vii. 9, 10, (a passage perfectly parallel,) the destruction of Antichrist before the Millennium, part of which has been already executed, set forth under the representation of a judgment-the thrones being placed, the books opened, &c. "I beheld," says the prophet, "till the thrones were cast down, [set or placed,] and the Ancient of Days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool; his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire. A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him; thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him; the judgment was set and the books were opened." Living, as we now are, in the scene referred to, without witnessing the solemnities here described, the language of the prophecy may serve to illustrate that of the parable.*

Shortly after the ascension of Christ, the apostle Peter held out to the Jewish nation the assurance of His return at the period of their conversion. Addressing them in Solomon's porch, after the miraculous cure of the

* An objection is sometimes founded on another declaration of our Lord, "Verily I say unto you, there be some standing here who shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of Man coming in his Kingdom." Matt. xvi. 28. This is often applied to the destruction of Jerusalem, and it is thence inferred, that he will not come in any other manner, till the consummation of all things. Although Christ had here referred to that event, this could no more have been in opposition to the evidence of his personal return at the commencement of the Millennium, than it would have subverted the theory of his coming at any subsequent period. But not only is the assumption of His coming at the destruction of Jerusalem altogether gratuitous, and opposed as we shall soon see to Peter's assurance, almost so soon as Christ had left the earth, that the heavens must receive him till the Restitution of all things, but such an application of the passage before us is also at variance with another reference to it by the same apostle,

lame man, he declared that they had killed the Prince of Life, and exhorted them to repentance: "Repent, ye, therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the Times of Refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord, and HE SHALL SEND JESUS CHRIST which before was preached unto you; whom the heavens must receive UNTIL the times of Restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets, since the world began." Acts iii. 19— 21. Here, then, we may observe, is a complete confutation of the idea of Christ's return at the destruction of Jerusalem. He had left the earth very shortly before the apostle thus declared that the heavens must receive him until the times of Restitution. We are assured, however, that when these times of Refreshing shall come to Israel, He shall again be sent unto them, the heavens receiving him only until the times of Restitution of all things predicted by the prophets. This is

which proves that it was to an event of a very different character the Saviour alluded. In the preceding verse he had spoken of his return "in the glory of his Father with the holy angels." This glory his disciples had expected he would then assume, and for the confirmation of their faith that at his return he would appear very differently from what he had done in his humility, he condescended to appear to three of them as he will be seen by all at his future coming, in glorified humanity, attended by two of his saints, as recorded in the succeeding context: "And after six days, Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain, apart, and was transfigured before them; and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light. And behold there appeared unto him Moses and Elias talking with Him.” Matt. xvii. 13. So, it may be remarked, all the three evangelists who record the Saviour's promise, follow it immediately with the account of the transfiguration, without interposing the notice of any other circumstance between their record of the promise and the statement of that celestial appearance, which seemingly they regard as its early fulfilment. (Matt. xvi. 28. xvii. 1. Mark ix. 1, 2. Luke ix. 27, 28.) And the apostle Peter, one of the honoured three who witnessed this transfiguration, elsewhere alluding to this appearance in celestial glory, expressly calls it "the power and coming" of Christ: "For we have not," says he, "followed cunningly-devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eye-witnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father, honour and glory, when there came such a voice to Him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice, which came from heaven, we heard when we were with him in the holy mount." 2 Pet. i. 16-18,