kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear let him hear." Let him hear and understand, that the children of the devil, the tares, and the children of God, the wheat, are both growing together till the harvest; and at the harvest, the Lord appears with His angels, the reapers; so that there shall be no period previous to His coming in which there shall be an unmixed holy converted world, clear of tares. That is, there shall be no millennium before Christ comes; Christ will usher it in when He comes, but there must be mixture until then, children of the kingdom, and children of the wicked one.

This view is further confirmed by the revealed design of this present dispensation, which is to convert sinners out of the world. Read in the Acts of the Apostles,* how James interpreted Peter's embassy, namely, that the object was not to convert the world, but to take a people out of the world from among the Gentiles. To this agrees the history of the Church, which has not been holding ground in the parts of the world where she has gone. God has taken out a people, and the candlestick has been removed. Where are the seven churches of Asia? Where are the congregations that were in Corinth and Carthage? Christianity took her people out, and then departed. Her course has resembled the emigrations of a pilgrim, rather than the acquisitions of a conqueror; because her object was not universal conversion, but the saving an elect church, the members of Christ's mystical Chap. xv.

*

body, to reign with Him in righteousness over the new earth. This argument I put with all sincerity and fairness: I am not conscious of evading the point in any way: Oh, no, my brethren, my object is not to make out an apparent case, by a wilfully exparte statement, but honestly to declare to you, what in my soul I believe to be the truth of God.

The argument thus put is strong: I have found and felt it so in conversation with persons of different views.

II. Driven to the conviction, that these passages of Scripture, descriptive of the Lord's coming, must find their fulfilment at the commencement of the millennium: the mind prejudiced against the subject, has recourse to another objection, and argues that the event, called in these passages the coming of the Lord, cannot mean His personal coming. It is impossible, continues the objector, to believe that our Lord himself will really stand, literally upon His feet, on the Mount of Olives, or reign over the Jewish nation, literally in person at Jerusalem; and who can believe, that with our Lord Jesus Christ himself personally reigning upon the earth, wickedness in any shape could again break out? Oh, no, it cannot be a personal coming: it must be some important movement of Providence over the nations, in figurative language called His coming.

Consider this objection. Let us for a moment grant the supposition that it is only a providential movement, and then, I ask, where is His personal coming revealed in all the Bible? where is there a passage left that predicts His personal coming?

and surely that cardinal point of Christian truth, the coming of Jesus Christ in glory to judge the world, will not be denied altogether. Where, then, is it revealed? Select your passage; and whatever passage you select, we will show that it must be fulfilled at the commencement of the millennium. If you deny our Lord's personal coming at the commencement of the millennium, we deny it altogether, and require you to prove it. If you advance texts to prove it, we take the context of your proofs, and proceed to show that it must be at the commencement of the millennium. This is of itself sufficient to refute the objection.

But further: with regard to apparent difficulties, there are these in every case; everything connected with the infinite God must, from the nature of the case, have some difficulties to finite minds like ours; and therefore difficulties, if fairly considered, can form no objection to revealed truth. Consider the analogy of God's dealings, for here we shall be materially assisted. Let us consider how difficulties must have presented themselves to inquiring minds amongst the Jews, previous to our Lord's first coming. They were informed by the prophets that the Messiah would be born of a virgin,-that he would be despised and rejected of men, that he would be betrayed by one of His own familiar friends,-that he would be nailed to a tree, -that He would be buried. Let us imagine a conversation to take place previous to His first coming between certain Jews, on the one side, who had fastened their attention upon the promised glory

of their great King; not understanding, or refusing to attend to, what the prophets had written concerning His humiliation; and on the other side, Simeon and Anna, who were waiting for the consolation of Israel, and hailing the infant Jesus as the promised Messiah. You will remember that the Jewish nation generally stumbled at the stumbling-stone, the humiliation of Jesus. The Christian Church has taken the other course; and exhausting her attention on His first coming, has remained heedless of, and is now prejudiced against, what the prophets have written concerning His glory. There are exceptions, as there were amongst the Jews at the first advent; but generally speaking this is the state of the case. Let us, then, for illustration's sake, consider this conversation between Simeon and a company of Jewish Priests. He quotes the 7th chapter of Isaiah: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." Immanuel," says the old man, means "God with us"-that is, the Messiah spoken of by all the prophets. "I believe, therefore, that He shall be born of a virgin." We may easily conceive them saying in reply, "Nay, impossible; the thing is full of difficulties: how can we believe it? The meaning must be spiritual: we do not deny that the passage refers to the Messiah. Immanuel is too plain a word to admit of doubt; but the language can only mean that He shall be holy from His birth. It is wild and extravagant to interpret it literally, and expect such an unnatural impossibility." "Nay," replies Simeon, "I dispute not

66

Messiah's holiness. What you say is quite true as a general statement, but it is not the meaning of this prophecy. The prophet says, ' A virgin shall conceive, and bear a son:' therefore I expect the event accordingly." Then he would quote the 53d chapter, and say, "He shall be despised and rejected, cut off and laid in the grave." We may imagine them saying, "How! the Messiah who is to reign in glory,—to restore the kingdom to Israel, -to sit on the throne of David, and rule for ever and ever,-cut off and laid in the grave? It must be a figurative mode of expressing His condescension." Nay," answers the old man, "whatever figurative meaning we may put upon it, I believe the fact will be as the prophet has spoken."

66

Now, my brethren, we know how the events came to pass, and that Simeon was right: we see also the consequence, that while the advocates for a spiritual interpretation rejected Jesus, the old man, who adhered to the literal interpretation, was ready to acknowledge Him, to take Him up in his arms, and say, "Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, for mine eyes have seen thy salvation." We know that it happened in other respects as he had maintained,-that Messiah was a man of sorrow, that He was despised and rejected of men, cut off, and laid in the grave.

This is full of instruction to us. The events connected with the Lord's second coming are similarly predicted. He shall come in like manner as He went, that was, personally. He shall reign over all the earth, that new earth wherein