and sigaveía,* by the different contexts? What did the Holy Ghost mean by them? It certainly would be wiser for us to modify our theory by the mind of the Spirit, than to modify the mind of the Spirit by our theory.

3. We would ask then in the third place-Do the Scriptures plainly use that very frequent phrase," the coming of Christ," as meaning either death or the outpouring of his Spirit? The question is not whether the outpouring of the Spirit may accompany Christ's personal coming-but is that the meaning of the coming itself? Christ's ascension into heaven was followed by the gift of the Spirit. But what would be thought of us if we should use the terms-Christ's ascension" and the "outpouring of the Holy Spirit"--as equivalent? Why then should "His coming again in like manner as he was seen to go into heaven," be confounded with the gifts of the Holy Ghost?

*For the English reader we translate-" presence" and " appearing."

NOTE D, p. 48.

It is quite usual to consider this whole subject triumphantly settled by the announcement of some text in which the kingdom of heaven signifies the rule of Christ in the heart." Does not Christ expressly say The kingdom of heaven is within you?' Does not Paul declare positively that the kingdom of God is not meat and drink, bnt righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost?" "We reply, assuredly they do; but who denies this? Does anybody doubt, that among the various collateral meanings of the phrase in the Scriptures, this is one meaning? But what has this to do with the point in hand? We are not speaking of the inward, but of the outward kingdom of God;— of which, however, the universal prevalence of the inward is to be one feature. God everywhere declares, indeed, that one characteristic of that coming kingdom will be— his having "written his laws upon men's hearts." All its citizens are "made meet for the inheritance of the saints in light." This

is insisted on throughout the Scriptures. But still we ask, what has this to do with the question in hand? We are speaking of the visible manifestation of the kingdom. Is there no question as to the time and circumstances of this, because we admit the inward reign of grace? Take our brethren's own

view.
heaven after the judgment.

Look forward to

dom will be in every heart.

their expected

There the king

But certainly there will be also an outward manifestation of the reign of Christ, visible to all.

There is one main idea which the Scriptures assign to the phrase" the kingdom of God," -"the kingdom to come," &c. Take some examples: Lord, remember me when thou comest in thy kingdom."-Christ "shall judge the quick and dead at his appearing and kingdom."-"The angels shall come forth and gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them that do iniquity."

"When ye see all these things come to pass, know that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand;" &c., &c. Certainly the meaning

here is not grace in the heart. Take also the multitude of texts, in the prophets and elsewhere, which describe the kingdom without specifying its name.

Now the plain question is-Will the kingdom in this sense arrive before the coming of Christ or after it?—and if after it, what will be the characteristics of that kingdom, not only in one particular, but in all its main particulars? What does it avail, then, to the settlement of these questions, to tell us that the kingdom of God sometimes means the reign of grace in the heart. True; but this is not the meaning of the phrase here; nor is it the prominent meaning of the phrase as used throughout the Scriptures. And yet there seems to be no end to this manner of reply. Just reverse the case. Suppose we should argue that there could be no reign of God's Spirit in the heart, because it is promised that "the kingdom and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High?" In other

words, there can be no inward reign because there is to be an outward one. But wherein is the opposite deduction the wiser?

NOTE E, p. 67.

It would not be difficult to refer to whole discourses which seem to be alarmed into a suppression of part of the truth by the abuses of errorists. Now, so far as these discourses protest against fixing the time of our Lord's advent, we concur with them. Just there has been the usual error of fanaticism. When they proceed to warn the church that she can be prepared for the coming of her Lord, only by preparation of the heart and the daily fulfilment of her duties, we still rejoice in the declaration of such sound views. But when these discourses go on to supplant the duty of watching by the duty of "working while the day lasts," and to insinuate that thus our entire obligation will be fulfilled, we must object. Why should these duties be thought to clash? The same apostle who reminds the Thessalonians no less than five