The fourth volume of Bancroft's History of the United States, has just been sent from the press of Little & Brown, Boston. This volume is more elaborate than its predecessors in its style. It embraces the period from 1748 to 1763. It was published simultaneously in Boston and London.

James Munroe & Co., Boston, have announced their intention to republish "A Selection of English Synonyms, second edition, revised and enlarged. Mr. R. G. Latham's " Elementary English Grammar for the use of schools,” has been published at the Cambridge University Press. It is edited by Prof. F. G. Child of Harvard University.

Crosby & Nichols have published the third and fourth volumes of Dr. Palfrey's" Academical Lectures on the Jewish Scriptures and Antiquities."

It is refreshing to notice the tendency, at the present day, to publish the collected writings of eminent Americans. In addition to the works of the two Adamses, which are still in process of publication, we have the "Life and Letters of Joseph Story, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, and Dane Professor of Law at Harvard University, edited by his son Wm. W. Story," in two volumes. Hon. Edward Everett has been for some time engaged in preparing for the press, the "Speeches, Forensic Arguments and Diplomatic Papers of Daniel Webster," in six volumes. A part of the first volume is devoted to Mr. Everett's "Biographical Memoir of Daniel Webster."

The American Doctrinal Tract and Book Society will publish in the month of April, the collected Works of Samuel Hopkins, D. D., in three 8vo. volumes, comprising more than 2000 pages. Some of Dr. Hopkins's writings, as his four Biographical works, his "Animadversions on Mr. Hart's Late Dialogue," and the larger part of his essays for the Periodicals, are not reprinted in this collection. All his publications deserve a reprint for their historical value. They produced a great effect in their day; and posterity will desire to understand the influences which operated on the mind of their fathers. The writings of Hopkins are characterized by great strength of thought and of feeling. His views of African Slavery are very remarkable, and well worth the study of philanthropists.

Crocker & Brewster, Boston, have recently published, in two volumes, "The Life and Labors of Rev. Samuel Worcester, D. D., former Pastor of the Tabernacle Church, Salem, Mass., by his son, Samuel M. Worcester, D. D., present Pastor of the Tabernacle Church.”

It has been proposed that the Pupils of the late PROFESSOR STUART, of Andover, erect a suitable monument to his memory. The proposal has been received with favor by all who have reflected on it. No teacher has been more beloved than he, by his numerous scholars; and many of those whom he has trained for usefulness in the church, will cheerfully contribute to the rendering of appropriate honors to his name. He lies interred by the side of the venerated Porter, in the cemetery of the Theological Institution at Andover.

THE

BIBLIOTHECA SACRA,

NO. XXXV.

AND

AMERICAN BIBLICAL REPOSITORY,

NO. LXXXVII.

JULY, 1852.

ARTICLE I.

OBSERVATIONS ON MATTHEW 24: 29-31, AND THE PARALLEL PASSAGES IN MARK AND LUKE, WITH REMARKS ON THE DOUBLE SENSE OF SCRIPTURE.

By M. Stuart, lately Professor of Sacred Literature at Andover.
[Concluded from p. 355.]

We have now gone through with the minute examination of the whole passage under consideration. We have seen that, first of all, a literal sense, as insisted on, is impossible; in some cases even palpable absurdities would follow from it. In the second place we have seen, that all the phraseology here employed, is applicable, and is actually applied, to political, civil and natural changes and overturns. Most of it is applied to events even far less consequential and significant, than the destruction of the Jewish capital and commonwealth; and this, not in one or two instances merely, but in many passages of the Old Testament. Of course, the allegation that the destruction of Jerusalem is immeasurably, yea infinitely, below the magnitude of an event to which such language as is now before us must necessarily be applied, has no foundation in the usage of Scripture. The simple answer to the allegation is, that fact shows it to be incorrect; for it is a fact that such language is actually applied by the sacred writers to the describing of events inferior in importance to the final catastrophe of the Jewish nation. The proofs of this, ample ones, have already been laid before the reader. The way is perfectly open, VOL. IX. No. 35.

39

then, for the application of the passage to the destruction of Jerusalem, so far as the diction and style are concerned.

Here comes up, now, the question: What says the context and the course of thought? We have also made inquiry in part, as to what answer is to be given to this question. The discourse was prompted by no inquiries about the general judgment. Jerusalem was the only theme which prompted it. The coming of Christ to punish the Jews and the end of the Jewish air, are questions intimately connected with the main one. The whole course of thought is such as relates only to the generation living at and immediately after the death of Christ. The first part, vs. 4-28, terminates with the invasion of Jerusalem by the army with eagle-ensigns. The destruction itself is yet to come. The eagles are gathered around the corse, but they have not yet devoured it. Then follows the devouring. Emblems of this are drawn from the darkening and fall of the heavenly bodies; from terrific appearances in the air; and from the bitter lamentations and agitating terrors that ensue. The coming of the Son of man, with his mighty host in splendid array, closes the scene. The particulars of what is consequential upon his coming, are not told. Every reader must spontaneously know, what such a threatening array against the enemies of Christ and the church would of course accomplish. A connois here is expressive eloquence.

Finally comes the deliverance of Christians from their danger and terror. The great Shepherd "gathers them in his arms, and carries them in his bosom." Here then is a complete tout ensemble, a beginning, a progress, and an end. What more is needed then to commend the exegesis which I have been defending?

On the other hand; if the general judgment be the only theme, then how imperfect, how incomplete is the representation! Not a word of the wicked being summoned to the judgment; nothing indicating that all nations are to appear before the Son of man, or even that he ascends the judgment-seat. Only the righteous are gathered. But it is not even said for what purpose, provided we interpret in this fashion. In the other method of interpreting, all is easy. But, on other ground, there is a sudden defection of the half finished transaction. Three parables foreign to the immediate subject then supervene; and after these, there commences an account of the judgmentprocess. Here moreover (Matt. 25: 31 seq.), the righteous are again congregated along with the wicked (návra rà ïðm), and then separated from them, and so each party are respectively adjudged. For what purpose, then, we may well ask, on this ground of interpretation,

was the previous "gathering of the elect" in 24: 31? It is a question which its advocates are bound to answer; but one which De Wette blinks out of sight. He says merely, that believers, according to 1 Thess. 4: 17. 2 Thess. 2: 1, are first to be assembled around Christ. Be it so then; but we ask again in this case (and this question he has not considered), why is there a reassembling described in 25: 31? The righteous had already been assembled; how came they to be scattered again among the wicked?

This whole scheme, then, is full of crudities and incongruities. It maintains impossibilities. It insists on leaving pictures half made, or an abrupt desertion of them in this state. It introduces matter, which the subjects urged on the attention of our Lord, by the questions of his disciples, did not comprise. And if there were no other reasons, these are enough of themselves to justify the abandonment of such a scheme of exegesis.

But there are other reasons, and if possible weightier ones still, for abandoning it. These are comprised in the limitations of time which precede and follow vs. 29-31. We come now, last of all, to the examination of these limitations.

66

The first limitation is made by ɛvéws, at the beginning of v. 29. It is conceded that the transition to the judgment-scene is made here, and that all which precedes, pertains to the destruction of Jerusalem. What says the next (29th) verse? "Evoέws, immediately after the affliction of those days, the sun shall be darkened," etc. That is (if the alleged views of the application of what follows are correct), immediately after the destruction of Jerusalem comes on the general judgment. But they labor strenuously to show, that evέws does not here import immediate sequency in time, but is equivalent to suddenly, or rather to the Latin inopinato, unexpectedly. It is then, as is supposed, the unexpected nature of the event, which is marked by εὐθέως. But what says Mark? Ἐν ἐκείναις ταῖς ἡμέραις μετὰ τὴν Ohíyı èxsívqv, in those days after that affliction, viz. of Jerusalem. But this, it is said, "is wholly indefinite as to time, indicating only the latter days [viz. those] of the Messiah." But if it be ever used with such a latitude of meaning (which is doubtful), it surely is not so here. To the words those days is added the limiting or defining clause, after that affliction, showing that a generic sense of those days is out of question. The days that follow the affliction, are of course the days in question, and no others; for then there would be no specification of time at all. Who was there that would not know, that events in general which were to come after the destruction of

Jerusalem, must come of course in the Messianic period or latter days? What other period was there than this? On the contrary, the events of vs. 29-31 were to come in immediate sequency after those before described. In this connection it should be observed, that Luke (21: 25) has omitted all distinction or any notation of time, and relates the whole as one continuous matter. By so doing, he does not disagree with the other evangelists. They have merely taken pains expressly to say, that the things predicted in Matt. 24: 29-31 will follow the others in rapid succession. But Luke takes this for granted, and makes therefore no break in his narration.

As to all attempts to show that evdéos means inopinato, they are altogether in vain. An appeal is made. to the Heb. Din, rendered voos by the Septuagint. Well, so rendered, I should say; for DN is the adverbial form of yn, which means in the twinkling of an eye, subito. And so evos is well chosen. Schleusner, Passow, Rost and Schmidt are also appealed to, to show that the Greek word is equivalent to plötzlich, speedily or suddenly. Full truly in respect to time it is so; but svéws, be it remembered, never dismisses the signification of suddenness as to time. The word unexpectedly has nothing to do with the sense of straightway, immediately or suddenly in respect to time. Kuinoel's Comm. on Mark 9: 15, is a poor specimen of grammatical interpretation. Evέoos there does not, as Schleusner supposes, qualify idor; if it did, it would immediately precede or follow it. It looks back to Christ's coming to his disciples, as mentioned in the preceding verse (so our English translation), and it expresses the idea, that "forthwith [upon that coming], the multitude, when they saw Jesus, were astonished;" Mark does not say why, but probably it was because they knew that he had been absent from his disciples (as the preceding chapter shows), and his appearance, therefore, filled them with amazement. In fact, it is in vain to seek for authorities. I have looked through the whole of the eighty cases, in which avows is employed in the New Testament, and examined their connection. I cannot hesitate now to say, that not one of them justifies the version by inapinato. In some few cases, this sense would give a meaning not bad in itself; but even these cases are those where the suddenness of the event is the ground why it is unexpected. But this alters not the word svog itself. Its very derivation indeed shows, that it has nothing to do with the meaning of inopinato. Evous (the root) means straight, straightforward, direct, and the like. So ɛvvέws means straightforward in point of time, and corresponds very exactly to our word straightway