facilitate thy understanding in the entertainment of the truth I am speaking of.

The first is, avoid curiosity, which is good in nothing, but bad in sublime things. Make not curious questions about particulars, concerning what shall be in the time of the thousand years. As now, whether shall saints eat or drink, or do this or that? what speech they shall use? whether Christ shall come and stay or go? what employment shall take up that time? &c. I say, avoid these curiosities, for the proposal of them, and the little satisfaction which can be given in them, may cause thee to stagger as to the main, which yet I wonder at, for what though I be not able nor free to resolve such questions about the glory of heaven as the schoolmen have ventilated, yet I know no Christian but believes the thing. And what though one either will not or cannot speak clearly to all thy curious questions about the future state of things in the time of Christ's kingdom, why shouldest thou stand off from the general truth for want of particular satisfaction in curiosities? The truth is, I account it safest to say rather what shall not be than what shall be in that time.

The second thing is, judge not by conjectures, ie., judge not of the truth of Christ's reign on earth, by the conjectures of men about things that shall accompany it. This is that which makes many stand off from the thing itself, because they cannot embrace those conjectures. If the conjectures of any be more carnal, or less warrantable than they should be, let them lie by as dross, eye thou the pure gold; condemn not Christ's truths, because of men's conceits about it.

If that yet stick with thee, which is urged by many, viz., Christ's kingdom is not of this world; I shall tell thee what cleared that to me, viz., this consideration, that though it be not of this world, yet it is of that to come, as the apostle tells us (Heb. ii. 5–8), "The world to come is the time of this kingdom," by which I understand time, not place; as by the old world, or the world passed, we understand not any place distinct from earth, but time distinguished from this; so by the world to come, I understand not heaven, nor heaven's glory (in the sense many do commonly mistake them) but the age to come, which is nigh to be revealed. Had Christ said He had not a kingdom on earth, I should have hesitated; but when He saith, it was not of this world, I can resolve myself thus, there are worlds more than one, i.e. ages, for so the word properly signifies. As the world past is the age past; so the world to come is the age to come, as this world is the present age.

But I forget myself, this sea is to me so smooth, that I have almost forgot the shore; I shall come back again, having done what I intended, namely, given thee a short and clear account of my thoughts about Christ's kingdom to come in the thousand

years.

In brief, this is my belief, that when Jesus Christ shall appear again the second time, He and the saints shall have a kingdom on earth, even as other monarchs have had. The sceptre of which shall be a righteous sceptre, the glory of which shall be exceeding great, the peace and prosperity of which shall be surpassing. At which time, or in the days of which kingdom, even the very creation itself shall be freed from those burdens under which now it groans; when all spiritual happiness, but no sinful carnalities shall abound. After which cometh the end, when Christ shall have delivered up the kingdom to God the Father, and when He himself shall be subject to Him, that did put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.

This, reader, though I see not yet, I believe it shall be, and because I have believed, therefore have I spoke this, and am ready to speak it yet larger in due time; for I have in readiness prepared by me an answer to gainsayers, which had I not expected (as I still do) the appearances of more able in print (who, as I understand, have opened this truth in pulpit) thou hadst seen at this season: and which in case they appear not, I shall promise, if God permit me life and leisure.

At present I shall tell thee this further (which I am able to make good) that for the substance of this opinion, it hath been still maintained from the purest and most primitive times until now; and whoever decryeth now as a novelty, yet Ribera (a man as little a favourite of novelties as any) doth truly and ingenuously acknowledge it was never condemned by any general council. And although Baronius and Binius suggest such a thing, yet I can make it appear to be rather their conjecture than any allowed or authorised canon. Nay, let me add further, that even Jerome himself, who, with Austine, are all the fathers can be produced against it, did not absolutely condemn it; for albeit by faith he doth not hold it, yet he did not, could not condemn it (they are his very words), and that because many of the ecclesiastical writers, and martyrs affirmed it; so that thou shalt not need fear in embracing it, thou entertainest a novel fancy, but thou shalt assent to an ancient opinion, or rather a Scripture truth.

If (in the close of all this) thou further demand, why I, being

so clear for it, I did not treat it with the rest of the ensuing tract.

My answer to that is this; I did then consider, and still do, that every truth hath its season, and the same truth may hereafter be generally received with love and liking, which peradventure now might beget doubts, and be laid by in prejudice.

Besides, I love to preach rather convincing truths tending to practice, than controversial ones, which mostly end in disputations to the breach of love and a hindrance to truth's holiness.

I have done with thee, reader, when I have requested thee to accept and judge of this my open narrative of myself in this point, both with candour and charity. And in case thou agree not with me herein, let me assure thee, I yet do and can agree within the love and practice of the indubitable truths of the Lord Jesus.

Now, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus build up all that profess the name of Christ in the pure, and peaceable, yea, and practical knowledge of all truth. And the same God grant, that La truths whereunto we have attained, and of which we are jointly persuaded alike, that in these we may hold together, and that in such things, as in which we differ, we may bear each with other, that in the day of Christ we may be found blameless. At which day, I doubt not, but we shall know and believe alike in all things; and particularly I persuade myself, many shall see that concerning this truth (of the thousand years), which they will not believe, nor cannot imagine now.

In the meantime, reader, know, that be thou of what sort thou wilt of Protestants, either Prelatical, or Presbyterian, or Independent, or Anabaptist (as now men distinguish), I could tell thee of some of all those of thine own way, who believe and hold as much as I do in this particular, of the thousand years; so that thou canst not more condemn me than thine own companion in this case; yet whether thou acquit or condemn me, I resolve to remain, reader, thine in the love and labour of truth and peace, JOHN DURANT.

ART. II. THE PROPHECY OF THE LORD JESUS.

THIRD ARTICLE.

THE inquiry has been prosecuted in previous articles, whether, in the writings of the four evangelists, or anywhere else in God's Word, the sublime expression of the "Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory," is once used as a figure of speech to describe the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus. This is maintained by post-millennialists as regards Matt. xxiv. 30, 31; but as no parallel passages sanction such an interpretation, we conclude it to be without foundation; and propose now, secondly, to prove from various parts of our Lord's prophecy, that He did not come in the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory at the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus; but that the coming of which He spake is personal, future, and pre-millennial. The first words which our Lord uttered, after the disciples had put the questions, in Matt. xxiv. 3., were, "Take heed that no man deceive you ;" and there is much need of attending to this caution, not only with reference to the " false Christs," concerning whom our Lord immediately spake, but as regards the nature of His advent, and the time when his prophecies should receive their fulfilment. Let no one take any man's word on these important points, but diligently search the Scriptures, and compare one portion with another, evermore bearing in mind, that Christianity itself rests on facts which facts are Old Testament prophecies most literally fulfilled. The figurative system will not do for the past, why then should we apply it to the future?

The Saviour's words in Matt. xxiv. 6, are remarkable, "The end is not yet." Here, I think, "the end" is distinguished from the destruction of Jerusalem; and all the other events which follow throughout the times of the Gentiles. A much longer period seems evidently required for the fulfilment of the 6th, 7th, and 8th verses than occurred between the years 34-70. The Lord tells his disciples, that false Christs, wars, the rising of nation against nation, famines, earthquakes, and pestilences, were not signs of " the end," but merely" the beginning of sorrows. Now, in this "beginning of sorrows," I think the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus is included, and, most probably, many other events relating to various nations. The 9th verse describes the persecutions to which Christians would be exposed. To be "hated of all nations," seems to point to the pagan persecutions of the early ages. After this

comes apostasy, internal dissensions, mutual hatred, delusion by false prophets, and a general decay of Christian love. I do not think that verses 9-13, in which these predictions of general persecutions, failure of love, apostasy, and other evils are foretold, can be considered as descriptive of the state of Christianity at any period before the destruction of Jerusalem; the words must apply to a later and darker era. Nor was it the case that before A.D. 70, the disciples were hated “of all nations," and persecuted to the same degree as they were afterwards. I think, then, that the Lord, first, in verses 5-14, gives a general sketch of the state of things down to "the end of the age," and then, in the second division of the chapter, describes more fully the events of "THE TIME OF THE END," of which time, we have so many details in Daniel and in the Revelation. In the Lord's description of "the end of the age" (ver. 15-31), we have an account of the signs of His coming, of His actual personal advent, and of the events connected with His glorious appearing.

In the 14th verse we read, "This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world, for a witness unto all nations, and then shall the end come." In the 6th verse the Lord had said, "The end is not yet," not "by and by," or immediate. A period char cterised by bloody wars, divine judgments, persecutions, apostasy, abounding iniquity in the professing Church, would, as the preceding verses shew, run its weary course, and be closed by one very remarkable sign, viz., a universal publication of the gospel, "And then shall the end

come."

Mr Lyons says, with much confidence," The end" of verses 6 and 14 has no more reference to the end of the world, than it has to the overthrow of ancient Babylon. If he means by" the end of the world," "the end of the age," concerning which the disciples inquired, I think that he is directly at issue on this point with the teachings of the Saviour. They asked Him about the "end of the age," and desired a sign when that end should be; the Lord first tells them what would not be a sign (ver. 6), and then he tells them what would be (ver. 14) a sign. Why should we turn away from such a direct answer as this? Is it wise to contradict it?

This "end," mentioned in the 14th verse, cannot mean the destruction of Jerusalem, for this would be to confuse the two distinct questions of the disciples together. Mr Lyons allows they are distinct, and asserts that our Lord answers the last in Matt. xxv., and not in xxiv. Besides, when in Matt. xxii. 7 the Saviour had described so plainly the destruction of Jeru