silence by the systems of the day. It was by searching the Scriptures, it was purely from the only sure and solid process of comparing spiritual things with spiritual, comparing the Old Testament with the New, and especially the Book of Psalms, with the history of Christ as given by the Evangelists, and that of the Apostles, as recorded in the Acts and in their Epistles,—it was from this source that I derived the views which I am now so diligently and earnestly advocating, because I believe them to be truth. I was, from this comparison of the Old Testament and the New, convinced somewhat of the meaning of that great and comprehensive scripture, "The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy." It was in and through the Psalms that I learned somewhat of the importance of the apostolic ministry. The Psalms appeared to me to be full of prophecy concerning that miraculous dispensation, long before I had anything like a clear comprehension of those prophecies. It was through the same medium that I was led to investigate the meaning of an expression which has changed the Bible, and made it a new book. I allude to the words, "the end of the world." I discovered that the end of the world was the end of the Jewish economy. I found that the passage which is taken as a basis for the pretended apostolic succession of religious systems, was the scripture which of all others most flatly contradicted that pretended succession. The passage to which I allude is Christ's promise to his apostles, when he entrusted to them their commission, "Lo, I am with you alway, even to the consummation of the age; and not, as it is (it may be designedly) rendered, "to the end of the world." The discovery of the true meaning of this phrase was to me a treasure indeed; it was a key wherewith to unlock the glorious Book which priestcraft of every age has exhibited as "confusion worse confounded." I brought the true interpretation of "the end of the world" to bear upon many a verse and many a doctrine; and now it is my firm conviction, that if these words had been literally rendered from the original Greek, in the one single sentence I have quoted, this alone would have sufficed to put an end to the religious establishments of the day.

With this short explanation of matters immediately connected with ourselves, I will leave all that is merely of a personal nature, and address myself to the investigation of the vast subject before us.

I am fully alive to the suspicion, if not more than suspicion, which what I have now stated to you will excite in the minds of many who may read this address when it is published, as I intend it shall be. I am not insensible to the fact, that the grand doctrine of the past second coming of Christ, is a complete revolution in religion-that it scatters to the four winds of heaven, doctrines which have been imbibed from earliest infancy, which have “ grown with our growth, and strengthened with our strength;" that it brings proud man into the depths of humility, unlearning all that he has previously learned, and crying, as it were, "Abba, Father, what I know not, teach thou me.' I am not insensible to all this, because it is the record of my own experience, and I know that you will bear a like testimony.

If there should be one individual present to whom these things, being entirely strange, sound like a most fearful heresy, let me entreat that person, as I would entreat every objector, to hear what I have to say in defence of my opinions, before he condemns them. I will

promise him that my defence shall be drawn from the Bible, and the Bible alone.

While thus deprecating a senseless condemnation of our views of divine truth, I am not, neither I trust are you, unprepared for that which we deprecate. I well know that there are those who seem determined to abide by the opinions which we oppose, independent of all reason, whether those opinions be error or truth; and if we, who have forsaken the religious systems of the day, in seceding from the Establishment, were to expect that these parties should hereafter look favourably and hopefully on our proceedings, we should conclude contrary to the nature of things, and the issue could be nothing but disappointment. It is therefore well to be prepared to hear anything, however false or ridiculous, advanced against us, for I doubt not we shall have frequent opportunities of practically illustrating the Christianity in which we are believers. I do not doubt but we shall be, as we have been already, called upon to prove, that if our interpretation of the Bible be, as asserted, "the vilest of heresies," it is a heresy which is attended with at least one peculiar characteristic -it settles and sobers a mind naturally impetuous; and in proportion as it is seen and embraced, it corrects any tendency to travel out of the way for the mere purpose of self-gratification; and it effects this, because it is accompanied with the possession of perfect scriptural peace, in the face of all opposition, and under every opprobrium leading the mind, as nought beside can, indeed, up to God, crying, "Whom have I in heaven but thee, and there is none upon earth that I desire beside thee." In short, ours is an interpretation of truth, which exhibits a religion of all-glorious love-that "charity" which hopeth all things, and endureth all things, while yet it rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth.

I have urged a word of entreaty to objectors, and a word of caution to ourselves. I would linger a moment for the sake of proving that neither entreaty nor warning is made for nothing. Suppose to yourselves - no uncommon case one who thinks, and speaks, and acts as though he were so wise in the knowledge of the Scriptures that he can be taught nothing more, and has no more to learnone who condemns you in a moment, and without hesitation, if you venture to believe aught contrary to what he has received- one who imagines himself, to all appearance, to be gifted with the apostolic, miraculous power of "trying the spirits whether they be of God;" such an one objects, it may be, to matters which are advanced; suppose, for instance, the doctrine of the resurrection, in connexion with a past second coming,—and interposes with his "It cannot be; it is impossible; it contradicts the evidence of my senses;" "it is preposterous;" you might as well tell me that black is white, and white is black; or that two and two make five, and not four." Now, on the threshold of our investigation of the objected doctrine, I must be allowed to observe, with all earnestness of conviction, that an objector of this class is almost a hopeless case. I am reminded thereby of the flippant yet confident saying, "Are we blind also?" and also of the solemn but quiet answer, "If ye were blind, ye should have no sin; but ye say ye see, therefore your sin remaineth." On the threshold of our great undertaking, may

66

I not, with all reasonableness, expostulate, and ask, if it would not be well for an objector to reflect awhile before exhibiting an opposition which seems determined to listen neither to reason nor revelation? Would it not be well to ponder over the scripture of the prophet, "My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord"- and would it not startle the same determined opponent to be told, that in the chapter where the prophet is thus beautifully expressing the opposition between God and man, it is in reference to the covenant of grace, to a spiritual and superhuman law? nay, moreover, that we have the testimony of the Apostle James, in Acts xiii., that the truth,—"My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," respects the very doctrine of the resurrection in question; "And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David." (Compare Isaiah lv. 3, with Acts xiii. 34.) "It

And to examine more closely the value of such assertions as cannot be," "it is impossible," let us ask for one moment of any of the contenders for the present authority of the exhortation, "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature;" how do you reconcile your opinion of the non-fulfilment of that scripture, with Paul's express writing to the Colossians, "The gospel which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature under heaven." (Col. i. 23); or again, to the Romans, " But I say, Have they not heard? yea, verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the end of the world." (Rom. x. 18.) And, moreover, how can you deny that in these two passages of the Epistles there was a fulfilment of what Christ said should come to pass in that generation; "The gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world (empire), for a witness to all the nations; and then shall the end come;" (Matt. xxiv. 14.) According to your view, the end is not yet come; according to the apostle's view, it must: according to your view, what the apostle says, cannot be true; it contradicts the evidence of your senses; it is preposterous to affirm that "the gospel was preached to every creature," and so forth; therefore, that you cannot believe so and so, is no evidence that what is objected to is false. You make an assertion, set up yourself as a ruler and judge of God's meaning, and set yourself in array against those to whom it was promised, that "they should see eye to eye, and be led into all truth." This maintenance of your own individual judgment, would, by an apostle, be condemned as the thought of "the natural man," to whom the covenant of grace is "foolishness;" to whom it appears as absurd to declare that in Paul's day the gospel had been fully preached, just as it appears equally absurd for Peter to proclaim as he did, on the day of Pentecost, "This is that which was spoken of by the prophet Joel, And it shall come to pass in the last days (these last days, Heb. i. 2,) saith God, I will pour out my spirit on all flesh." No, this cannot be; Peter is wrong, you say;" all flesh," is contrary to fact, contradicts the evidence of our senses; we say, "Let God be true, though every man be found a liar;" let his Word speak its own language, "My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord."

Again, It may be that an objector brings before you a scripture which you interpret in accordance with a past second coming, but which, through ignorance or prejudice, or perhaps both, he cannot receive, and immediately, because he cannot receive it, he condemns you as being in error, and repeats his objection, as though not a word had ever been offered in answer. Passing by the folly of such a proceeding, suppose there were scriptures (and I am not saying whether there are or not,) but suppose there were scriptures which we could not reconcile with the doctrine of the past second coming, is the doctrine to be denied and condemned for that? No sensible person would say so; no sensible opponent would venture to take such ground, and why? Because he would prove too much; he would damage his own cause, more than he would ours; for where the upholder of any religious system could bring one scriptural objection against our doctrine of the past second coming, I would undertake to bring fifty, or five hundred, against his opinion of a future coming. And then, moreover, with respect to the supposed non-ability of interpreting every scripture in favour, which appears to make against us, may we not be allowed to ask, if it is not quite as possible that the revelation of the infinite God should not yet be exhausted in a way of discovery of its glories; just as it is possible that the same should be the case in natural things; in every department of natural science; especially if, as we believe, priestcraft has so prevailed in the world as to shroud in Egyptian darkness what must be considered to be the commanding truth of the Word of God, I mean, this same second advent of the Lord Jesus Christ, which is the question in debate between us and the various religious establishments of the day.

Mention of the second advent reminds me, that I must leave, at all hazard, this preparatory matter, and come to the consideration of that our fundamental position. The consideration will involve a view of opposition between us and the common Christianity of the day; and this view will, I expect, embrace a short outline of divers important events connected with a past second coming; and this outline will convey much by way of answer to the many objections that are urged against the interpretation of Scripture which we maintain.

I purpose, then, to prove, from the Bible, the second coming of Christ at the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. This must be done in a manner concise enough to be consistent with clearness; and so many are the different methods of proof which the Scriptures allow, that the difficulty is to select that which is best adapted to my present address, and which will at the same time place the subject in the most incontrovertible position. I do not wish, and we have no need that it should be said of us, as we affirm of our opponents, that we deal only in assertions, as might be said, if I were to take it for granted, that because the second coming was proved over and over again, in times past, in another place; there is therefore no occasion to go over the same ground again, though we now stand in a different position, and are bound to give the reason of the faith that is in us. And moreover, as I know well that these views of divine truth are a complete revolution in religious matters; therefore, I do not forget that there is a necessity for line upon line, and precept upon precept, in order that the gene

rality of minds may arrive at anything like an apprehension of what I conceive to be their vast and all-important bearings.

In proving the doctrine of the past second advent, on this occasion, I am disposed to adopt the plan which has been ably followed out by my friend Mr. Stark, of Torquay. The plan to which I allude is, the explanation of the Bible by means of diagrams, shewing the various states, dispensations, or constitutions of God, in which he was pleased to deal with and manifest himself to his people (his church) under each covenant, the law and the gospel. (See Biblical Inquirer, No. 2.) I would observe, in passing, that I might confine myself, for proof of the doctrine, to the testimony of Christ to his disciples, as given in the 24th and 25th chapters of Matthew. I might rest the doctrine of the past second coming on the answer which Christ returned to the disciples' question about the temple. "When shall these things be, and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the consummation of the age?" I might now maintain and prove, as you know I have often proved, that all which is related in answer, down to the end of the 25th chapter, refers to one and the same period of time; and as all commentators will allow that some matters relate to the destruction of Jerusalem, and some to a final judgment yet to come, I might ask a question, which has never yet been answered, "Where does one topic end, and the other begin?" Or if, to extricate themselves from this difficulty, the commentators say that they are interwoven, I ask again for the proof, and that proof not from carnal reason, not from human imagination, but from the word and testimony alone. And if the proof should be attempted, I might ask innumerable questions like the following:-" How do you reconcile your view of this scripture, 'This gospel of the kingdom must first be preached in all the world, for a witness to all the nations, and then shall the end come;' how do you reconcile this with Christ's promise to his apostles, Lo, I am with you always, even to the consummation of the age,' seeing that the promise, in effect, is now no longer visible, let the end have transpired or not -now no longer visible, if (as must be allowed on all hands,) the effect of that promise was, that which is declared in the last verse of Mark's Gospel, They went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following; which signs, the Apostle to the Hebrews declares expressly, 'God also bearing them witness with signs, and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts (distributions) of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will.' (Heb. ii. 4.)"

Or again, in choosing to rest my belief of the past second coming on these two chapters of Matthew, if it were argued that there is a double fulfilment of these chapters and let me here observe, that every popular commentary which I have seen upon them, does not argue the double fulfilment, but takes the same for granted; or if there is a shadow of reason offered for the double interpretation, it is the stale human objection, "because it is impossible that such and such things could be spoken in reference to Jerusalem alone." Well, if it were objected that the circumstances related in Matthew xxiv. and xxv. were fulfilled, in a primary sense, at the fall of the temple worship, and the end of the Jewish economy, but that there is a secondary sense in which