* *

not turn off the eyes of men from the ministration of the Spirit to any theory more palpable, or visible, or externally impressive. Living as we do in the midst of the Spirit's reign, * what can we wish or wait for more? It is altogether a retrograde movement to be talking now of a revisible throne and an imposing ritual. It is enough for me to have the sceptre of the blessed Jesus swayed over my affections." Such is the frequent strain of sermons on this topic. Verbal objections to the same effect are not unusual.

Now, with all due kindness, we say that this is entirely to misstate the point at issue. The question is not, whether the bodily presence of the "idegroom-even as a glorious King-u His Spirit, is better than His Spirit's inward teachings without His bodily presence. We know of no millenarian who avows that the unbelieving Jew of Christ's day was better off than is the humble believer in our own. But this is the question. Granting that the Spirit is already possessed is not the Bridegroom's presence

better than the Bridegroom's absence? Our brethren seem continually to forget, when talking in this strain, that God proclaims it over and over, as a universal feature on the return of the King and the setting up of the kingdom, that his law shall be written upon every heart. What is this but the vivifying influence of the Holy Ghost on the soul?

Another remark. One would think that the very name applied to the blessed Spirit in this very connexion, would have satisfied these brethren that their undervaluing Christ's personal presence is wrong. The Holy Ghost is there called the Comforter. But who wants comfort but the mourner? And wherefore are we mourners? Christ tells us. Because he hath left us, therefore “sorrow has filled our hearts." We mourn "because the Bridegroom is taken away from us." Surely, then, his return is greatly to be desired.

But turn to the passage itself (John xiv.-xvii.), and read it through, and see if the following truths are not clearly taught. 1st. That on Christ's leaving the world, the

rich gifts of the Spirit were secured and poured forth." If I go not away the Comforter will not come to you, but if I go away I will send him to you." Hence "it was expedient" that he should go to the Father.

2dly. That Christ's return is not to dispense with the Spirit's presence, as our brethren seem to insinuate against us." I will give you another Comforter, even the Spirit of truth, that he may abide with you FOR EVER." Christ's return, then, does not take away the Spirit's presence; it only superadds his own.

3dly. That one of the Spirit's present offices is to sustain the soul of the believer under the privation of Christ's presence.

4thly. That Christ guarantees, in this very connexion, that the Spirit's presence is not all that is to be expected: for he adds in the next verse, "I will not leave you comfortless (orphans), I will come to you." And again, "Do you inquire of that I said, a little while and ye shall not see me, and again, a little while and ye shall see me, and because I go unto the Father. Verily, verily, I say unto you, ye shall weep and lament, but the

world shall rejoice, and ye shall be sorrowful, but your sorrow shall be turned into joy; and ye now therefore have sorrow, but I will see you again, and your heart shall rejoice, and your joy no man taketh from you." Could words say more plainly that the gracious presence of the blessed Spirit detracts nothing from the desirableness of our Lord's return? We cannot cease from wondering, therefore, that our brethren allow themselves to use such language as we have quoted.

NOTE G, p. 77.

When the charge of carnality has been fairly sifted, it is difficult to detect the ground of this frequent reproach cast upon the earnest desire for our Lord's return, and especially upon the doctrine of His continued personal presence with the redeemed on this earth. We really cannot feel the force of the objection. After due deliberation upon the various statements to this effect, the conclusion seems irresistible, that the whole charge is referable to the

mere change of place. For the glorious kingdom to be far off, is spiritual-but to set it up here makes it carnal. But how can mere locality produce such an effect?

There seems to be an impression that any association of Christ and His glorified saints with this earth is degrading to them. The earth has so long been the scene of corruption, and sin, and disorder, that there is an anxiety to get as far as possible away from it. Some seem unable to conceive how it can ever become a fit place for the scenes which are to follow the resurrection of the dead. But these objections leave out of view that it is to be a renovated earth. "There shall be no more curse.". "He that sitteth upon the throne says, Behold I make all things new."Such is to be the glorious condition of the "new heavens and the new earth," that the "former shall not be remembered nor come into mind." As to mere locality then, why may not this earth be rendered by God as suitable a place for the "kingdom of His Son" as any other? What is there in this material earth that is of itself corrupting to