come, what is that to thee?" And according to ecclesiastical history, John, (and no doubt many others) who heard our Saviour's solemn and repeated declarations respecting his coming, did not taste death till after the destruction of Jerusa lem he lived to see the end of the world, (the Jewish age or dispensation,) and the coming of the Son of man in his kingdom, or gospel dispensation-and was a living witness of the everlasting, aionion, punishment of the Jewish church, which at that time was separated from the kingdom of God, and "cast into outer darkness;" the wrath of God came upon them to the utmost, and they have ever since been, and still continue to be, an example of divine vengeance. Their punishment has been, strictly and literally, aionios, i. e. for ages, or many generations. And when we advert to the history of that generation, as given by Josephus and others, we see nothing in the expressions of our Saviour, but what can have ample scope in the literal history of the times. Setting aside the many long and bloody wars that raged throughout all Judea, there perished, by sword and famine, at the siege of Jerusalem, by Titus, 1,100,000 Jews. In the course of the war, 97,000 were made captives. Some of these were reserved for the emperor's triumph, and for the purpose of being exposed to wild beasts in the amphitheatres; the rest, with their children, were sold as slaves into Egypt, and other countries. There were no less than 600,000 dead bodies carried out of the city, and suffered to lie unburied, and become meat for the fowls of heaven. And tender females were reduced to the necessity of sodding and eating their own offspring! Surely "these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled."

Thus we have seen, by incontestible evidence, that the coming of the Son of man in his kingdom, was an event that was to take place in that generation, and in the lifetime of some of his disciples. It is admitted by Mr. Wesley, that the primitive Christians expected the coming of the Son of man in their day, and that the disciples understood him in that sense. And indeed we are at a loss to see how they could understand him in any other sense. We find it on record, in three of the evangelists, that "all these things" were to be fulfilled in that generation; and we are told by the same evangelists, that our Saviour did declare, in the most solemn manner, that there were some who heard him make the declaration, that should not taste death till he did come in his king

dom; and even after his resurrection, intimated in plain terms, that John, for one, should not taste death till he had come. And when he did come this punishment was to be inflicted! How it is possible for enlightened divines, in the face of this evidence, to carry this punishment into a world of “damned spirits," is, to us, unaccountable. And it is still more astonishing, that a man of Dr. Adam Clark's information, should never have seen any thing on this side of the question, “but what sound learning and criticism should be ashamed to acknowledge." But once more: the doctor tells us that "the same word is used to express the duration of the punishment, as is used to express the duration of the state of glory;" and from this fact, he infers, that it is just as likely that one should come to an end as the other. That this argument should be resorted to, by the ignorant and vulgar, is nothing strange; but that a man of doctor Clark's abilities, who admits, as the reader has already seen, that the word is equally applicable to things of a limited and infinite existence, is passing strange. But we deny both the doctor's premises and his conclusions. By a state of glory, it appears, the doctor means a state of future bliss. He ought to have known that neither the kingdom spoken of in the parable of the sheep and goats, nor the life eternal, means the kingdom of glory, or future bliss; but that it is simply the kingdom of heaven that had come nigh unto the Jews, in our Saviour's day; that is, the gospel kingdom, or dispensation. Admitting the doctor's premises to be true, his conclusions do not follow, himself being the judge; for he has already decided, that the word is often applied to things of a limited existence. But as we hold ourselves in readiness to turn every stone the doctor's friends will point out, that lays in our way; we will admit his premises, and try the application of his argument, merely to accommodate his friends, and show that we do not mean to shrink from investigation. For instance, the same word is applied to God and his throne, to the covenant of circumcision, the Levitical priesthood, and the land of Canaan, as an everlasting possession to the Jews. "Some were of opinion, in the apostolic age of the church, that this everlasting priesthood, and everlasting covenant of circumcision, would have an end," St. Paul for one. Suppose some eminent Judaising teacher had risen up against St. Paul's opinion, and observed, with as much gravity as Dr. Clark has done in a similar case, that it was as likely that God and his throne should come to an end,

as that the covenant of circumcision and the Levitical priesthood would, as the same word is made use of to express the duration of both. "I have seen the best things that have been written in favor of the final" abolishment of the covenant of circumcision, and the Levitical priesthood, (Paul's epistle to the Hebrews not excepted,) " but I have never seen an argument against that doctrine, drawn from these verses, but what sound learning and criticism should be ashamed to acknowledge. The original word is certainly to be taken here in its proper, grammatical sense, continued being, NEVER ENDING." Thus the reader may plainly see, that an enlightened Jew, by this simple and very reasonable argument, with the assistance of Dr. Clark's logic, could have put to silence Paul the babbler, and all his coadjutors; and even carry into the world of spirits their everlasting priesthood, their beloved circumcision, their celebrated land of Palestine, for an everlasting possession; their bond men and bond women, servants forever. QUERY: would the "damned spirits," of the rebellious Israelites have any right of possession among their brethren? Could they not plead the proper, grammatical sense" of the original word by which the duration of the possession was established in the everlasting covenant? What a valuable argument this would have been to the descendants of Abraham, if true! And why not be as true in the mouth of a Jew, as an Englishman? The only difference is, one is the celebrated Dr. Adam Clark, of the city of London, and the other a Jewish Rabbi, of the land of Palestine. The doctor's boasted argument appears now in its proper character; and the reader may see that it is the mere skeleton of learned sophistry, and when seen in its proper light, it is such an argument as every man of “sound learning and criticism should be ashamed to acknowledge."

We cannot dismiss the subject without expressing our high opinion of the doctor's literary talents; and the only apology we have to offer in his behalf, is, he had hold of the wrong end of the argument; and, under similar circumstances, the best could have done no better.

AN

ORIGINAL ESSAY

ON THE

COMING OF THE SON OF MAN,

IN WHICH IT IS SHOWN THAT THE PHRASE

“COMING OF THE SON OF MAN,”

AS USED IN THE SCRIPTURES,

Alludes exclusively to an Event that took place in the Apostolic Age of the Church;

AND WAS INTENDED TO EXPRESS

THE COMING OF THE MESSIAH,

IN "THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN,”

OR, THE

GOSPEL DISPENSATION.

In this Essay, all the Passages where the phrase "COMING OF THE SON OF MAN" are used, are considered and compared, and their special and intended application, as understood by the disciples, illustrated and pointed out.

BY J. KIDWELL:

CINCINNATI;

1830.