their last meeting. On hearing it read he replied, "he could recollect but one paper of the sort in all his life that was not distasteful to him," adding, "this paper was so evidently sincere, and was expressed in such terms, that he received it with gladness, and would cherish it among his pleasant memories." He alluded to his Christian experience. At first, he said, "the fact that he had not the joys which other Christians had gave rise to questioning doubts. But he afterward had learned better, and, though he had never been demonstrative, his experience as a Christian had been and still was satisfactory to his heart."

More than thirty years ago Dr. Abel Stevens, the historian of Methodism, pronounced Dr. Durbin "the most interesting preacher in the Methodist pulpit." Learned men we may have had of a more accurate if not a broader scholarship, writers of more fruitful, if not more facile, pens; but scarcely one whose mind was better disciplined, whose faculties were better directed, whose resources were more fully at the Church's command, or by whom more was accomplished in the diverse and responsible positions that he filled. When was learning, genius, culture, devotion to duty, turned to better account, or when did good common sense, his richest inheritance, show itself to greater advantage?

American Methodism has always had its men adapted to her stations; but who, from her origin, has filled so many distintinguished charges and for so long a time? Is there one of all those various positions that he did not exalt by his talents and his skill and his moral worth? If as a Church we can boast a greater name than John Price Durbin, then indeed we are honored. In the senate, cabinet, diplomatic corps, judiciary, or chair of the executive he might have worthily filled the first place in the nation.

To the glory of Christ's kingdom he laid his talents at the foot of the cross and gave his life to the duties of the ministry of reconciliation. To the young Methodist preacher the life of J. P. Durbin is a vast folio for study, but on its title-page is the motto that formed the theme of one of his first baccalaureate discourses at Dickinson College: "The High Purpose and Firm Resolve." This is the key to his greatness, and grace furnishes that key.

ART. II. THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT OF OLIVES. OUR Lord's eschatological discourse to a few disciples "as he sat on the Mount of Olives, over against the temple" (Mark xiii, 3), is professedly a prophecy of things that were about to be accomplished. It has been understood and explained in most opposite ways, and yet there is, perhaps, no other sermon of Jesus on record the occasion and scope of which are so clearly exhibited in the immediate context. Perhaps, also, there is no other Scripture in the exposition of which dogmatic assumptions have exerted greater influence.

It will facilitate our study of this prophecy to present in tabular form all the statements of our Lord, in substance, as they appear in the three synoptic gospels. On comparing these three records we observe that Matthew gives the discourse in fullest form, and in a style conspicuously Hebraic. Our Lord probably uttered this sermon in the Aramaic language, and therefore no one of these evangelists has preserved the very words (ipsissima verba) he employed. Each one gives his own independent version, and they all agree in substance.

OCCASION AND SCOPE OF THE SERMON.

On what particular occasion and for what purpose did our Lord utter this discourse? According to Matthew, it was spoken in connection with his terrible denunciation of Jerusalem. (Matt. xxiii, 34-39.) The disciples, awe-struck by the Master's words, called his attention to the magnificent buildings and great stones; but this act of theirs only drew from him additional words of fearful import: "Verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down." (Matt. xxiv, 2.) Mark has no record of the words of denunciation, and Luke places them in another connection (Luke xi, 49-51; xiii, 34, 35), but all three synoptists

agree in declaring that this great prophecy was called forth at the request of the disciples as a fuller explanation of his words. touching the overthrow of the temple. (Luke xxi, 6; Matt. xxiv, 2; Mark xiii, 2.) He went forth and seated himself on a part of the Mount of Olives directly opposite the temple, when, according to Mark (xiii, 3, 4), four disciples, Peter, James, John, and Andrew, asked him, privately (kar idiav): "Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when these things are all about to be accomplished?" Luke records this inquiry in nearly the same words, but in Matthew we find the question stated in the following form: "Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy presence (Ts oñç τaрovoías) and of the consummation of the age" [dispensation] (ovvTεheías Tov alwvos)? The whole prophecy purports to be an answer to that question. He mentions a number of things which must first take place, and also some things by which they may know when the end [catastrophe] is close upon them, but the day and hour of its consummation, he assures them, are known only to the Father. Nevertheless, he affirms, that day and hour will fall within the period of a [the then living] generation. No assertion throughout the entire discourse is more positive and emphatic than this: "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all these things be accomplished." (Matt. xxiv, 34; Mark xiii, 30; Luke xxi, 32.) The scope of the prophecy would seem, therefore, to be clear beyond controversy. It had explicit reference to the overthrow of the temple and the fall of Jerusalem, and was designed to answer the disciples' question, and inform them of the certainty and the nearness of that great catastrophe.

Many interpreters, however, have maintained that our Lord here prophesies of two different events, widely apart from each other in time. All admit that a great part of what he said had primary, if not sole, reference to the fall of Jerusalem; but there are a number of passages which are believed by some to refer to another and yet future consummation. A basis for this double import of the prophecy is supposed to be found in the form of the question which the disciples asked. As recorded by Mark and Luke, the question is twofold, touching, first, the time (TÓTE, when), and secondly, the sign (rò oqueiov) of accomplishment or consummation. As we have observed above, the

form of the question as given by Matthew differs somewhat, and has been thought to contain a threefold implication, touching respectively the time of these things, the sign of the parousia, and the end of the age. But Matthew's language really involves only two points of inquiry, for "the sign of the parousia" is also the sign "of the consummation of the age."

How far may this double form of the question indicate or determine the scope of our Lord's answer? Did he regard the question as involving two distinct subjects, and in his answer distinguish between them so as to teach those disciples, and us who read these records, that the consummation of the age was to be something entirely different and far distant from the time of Jerusalem's overthrow? Is there any thing in this prophetic sermon, whether as recorded by Matthew, Mark, or Luke, which warrants the opinion that Jesus spoke of two distinct events, separated from each other by untold ages?

We must make our appeal to the records. In the tabular outline given above we have aimed to incorporate every impor tant statement. The admonitions of Matt. xxv stand by themselves, but the rest of the discourse has in each of the gospels four parts: 1. Events to come before the end. 2. Signs of the nearness of the end. 3. The coming of the Son of man. 4. Admonitions for the disciples. All that is stated under these several heads has pertinency and force when understood as referring to a great event to come within the life-time of that generation; but we look in vain for any word or statement which appears designed to convey the idea that the parousia and the ruin of the temple would be events widely separated in time. It is most positively affirmed that the desolation of Jerusalem would be accompanied by unparalleled tribulations, that the sign of the parousia of the Son of man would appear immediately afterward, and that all these things would be accomplished before that generation passed away. If Jesus intended to distinguish and contrast two events, he was singularly unfortunate in his use of language. Can the faithful exegete allow that in answering his awe-stricken disciples he paltered with them in a double sense?"

66

As illustrating how some able expositors find distinctions and contrasts where others can see none, we adduce the follow