into a matter which concerns them so nearly as a revelation of God. As the beautiful harmony and order of the material universe is more and more laid bare before them, they will surely at length arouse themselves (for the matter rests with them, not with their rulers, whether political or religious,) to ask, Are we for ever to be harassed with two exhibitions of the Deity, the one in direct antagonism to the other, and can these discordant and quarrelsome sects be truly derived from the Bible? When this enquiry is really entertained, not one of the existing caricatures of Christianity will escape it. Religious systems of every description may be as the Garden of Eden before it, but behind they will be a desolate wilderness: and here we echo the aspiration of the philosopher-"How enviable will be the position of that man, who shall witness what may with truth be called, the regeneration of a world." The question is, What is truth? There is no fear but the answer is recorded in the Bible to the full, and that it is, like its author, "holy, and just, and good." "Let no man," writes the father of philosophy, "taking the credit of a sobriety and moderation ill applied, think or maintain that men can search too far in the book of God's word; but rather let them excite themselves to the search, and boldly advance in the pursuit of an endless progress in it; only taking heed lest they apply their knowledge to arrogance, and not to charity-to ostentation, and not to use."-BACON.

LIVERPOOL,

June, 1845.

R. T.

THE SECOND ADVENT.

IN submitting to you our reasons for seceding from the Church of England, I will at once introduce these reasons by stating, that they differ entirely from anything which has ever been offered by any secession previous to our own.

I do not intend to offer, in apology for our present position, that such position is in consequence of conscientious objections to certain matters connected with the Church of England.

Such a course of objection may very well suit the purpose, and be adapted to the consciences, of a numerous class of persons (sincere, I do not doubt,) who quit the communion of one religious system for another, or who, finding fault with existing systems, devise one of their own, which contains, in principle, all the evils of the one they may have left.

To object to certain portions of a system-to flagrant outrages on common sense- -to doctrines which would disgrace the Heathenism to reform which such system sends out missions-to object to services, to catechisms, and confirmations, to absolution, baptismal regeneration, burial services, and such like, appears to me to be labour in vain ; inasmuch as such objection might well consist with an application to the objector of the reproach of Christ, "Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel."

I think I may venture to say, for you as well as myself, that we object neither to this nor that particular of this or that party, but to the whole-believing that, in their existing constitution, they are contrary to the Word of God; that even the very name of party, sect, or society is unscriptural.

We object to the entire constitution of the various religious establishments of the day, because we believe that they are nothing more nor other than Judaism, in divers forms and fashions, some, doubtless, more disguised than others, but all maintaining the great foundation principle of Judaism, viz., an outward and visible church; indeed, a church, and, by consequence, a ministry of divine authority, and therefore, by consequence again, maintaining Apostolic succession; or if not, in so many words, maintaining these things, then inconsistent with themselves, and attempting the impossible service of worshipping God and Mammon, pretending to hold out one hand to the truth, and refusing the other.

Having thus briefly stated the nature, I will now proceed to explain the grounds, of our objections; and in so doing, prove that it was no rash declaration with which I opened this address. For this end I would call to your remembrance the closing words of the last discourse which I delivered as a minister of the Church of England.

B

It will be in the recollection of many of my late congregation, that the discourse alluded to was a statement and accompanying refutation of sundry objections which had been urged against our view of divine revelation. The conclusion of that discourse was in the form of a question "Is the second coming of Christ a past or still future event? Until, it was observed—until that question be settled, and unless the second coming is past, all attempt at expounding the Scriptures is, so far as I am concerned, lost labour, and must go for nothing. I search the Scriptures (it was further observed,) exercising the Protestant right of private judgment, upon which principle the Reformation professed to be founded, I search the Scriptures, comparing spiritual things with spiritual,' and not, as is the almost universal fashion of the day, comparing spiritual things with natural. And with what result? it was further asked. Even this. I behold in every part of the book of revealed truth, a testimony to this effect―That which is perfect is come, so then that which was in part is done away.' I behold evidence upon evidence of the fulfilment of the whole of God's mind, as he has revealed it to man, in his dispensations in connexion with a chosen people. I see the religion of Heaven stripped of the unhallowed garments which priestcraft has wrapt around it, and appearing in its own native simplicity, beauty, and majesty. I believe the Bible to be one continuous, harmonious display of love, not contradictory, but one part beautifully agreeing with another, when properly understood, and explained by itself; one star or dispensation (if we may be allowed to apply a Scripture figure,) differing from another in glory, and each moving in its own proper orbit."

Such was the conclusion of my last discourse, and here we find the sum and substance of our objections to the Church of England; here we find the circumstance of our present position explained. It is the firm, well-grounded, scriptural belief of the past second coming of Christ, which has placed us in our present situation; not, be it observed, the belief of this as an isolated event, but one which comprehended the fulfilment of all prophecy, the unsealing of every mystery, and the revelation of all knowledge, according to the scripture testimony, "These be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled;" or again, “Verily I say unto you, there be some standing here which shall not taste of death till they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom;" and coming, as the verse immediately preceding declares, "to reward every man according to his works;" and therefore, we conceive, coming at "the end of the world," to "the judgment of the great day," and "the resurrection of the dead; " or, to take another view, coming "to the revelation of the perfect state," and the "establishment of the eternal kingdom;" in short, and in full, to the fulness of the blessing of all the counsels of God, which he purposed in Christ Jesus before the foundation of the ages.

We were persuaded that the New Testament teaches the above as past events, and being so persuaded, there was no alternative but that of acting as we have acted, in seceding from the Establishment, or laying ourselves open to the charge of "dishonesty and duplicity."

The second coming of Christ being satisfactorily proved to be past, we were aware of the consequence long before that consequence was

developed, as we witness this day. This doctrine was powerful to effect what none other was able; and if it be asked why we continued so long within the Establishment, contradicting in the pulpit, what we affirmed in the desk, I might, if the question needed an answer, reply, that we have an excuse for such a course of conduct in that when I was ordained, I solemnly promised that I would be "ready to banish and drive away all erroneous and strange doctrine contrary to God's Word." If I thought that this was laid upon me in the discharge of my office, I must then, as an honest man, begin at home; and, as a minister of the Church of England, I must banish and drive away the erroneous and strange doctrine which I had formerly preached. That doctrine is commonly known by the name of Calvinism. You and I have tried Calvinism, and believe that it is no better than any other "ism" now in fashion; we know that it clashes with every chapter of the Bible; we know that it reduces the Bible to a very small revelation, to be at all consistent; "the bed is shorter than a man can stretch himself on it, and the covering narrower than a man may wrap himself in it;" moreover, we are persuaded that as Calvinism is opposed to Arminianism, there are two Bibles, and therefore no Bible. When I entered upon the discharge of my office in Liverpool, I would have been called a Calvinist; and now it is my firm conviction, however humiliating, however self-renouncing the confession may be, that at that time, and for months after, I was not able to give one scriptural view of any one scripture doctrine; that I was totally unable for such a work, until I could read the Bible as a new book, in the light of the past second coming of Christ. The interpretation of scripture which we now hold being correct, such preaching as mine, when I entered on the charge of St. Matthew's, and till within the last few months, would leave, and did leave, you and me as ignorant of the Scriptures as the Arminian Methodist, from whom we professed so much to differ, and whose ignorance we professed so much to pity. As to any opening up of the Word of God, that which goes under the name of Calvinism is now, to you and me, no better than the " old wives' fables" which our view of divine revelation is charged to be. We know that Calvinism talks about a finished salvation, and the unconditionality of eternal life; and we know also, that a finished salvation is a mighty expression, to which Calvinism can attach no meaning; and “ unconditionality" is a glorious something, which none who are ignorant of a past second coming can in any measure comprehend.

But it is not my purpose to speak of ourselves. This is irksome, to one who has such glorious things to unfold, as we are persuaded the Bible contains. To the short explanation of the nature and ground of our objections, which I have just offered, I may be allowed perhaps to add a few words upon the origin of these objections. If it be any advantage, either to myself or to our objectors, I beg to say, that I did not arrive on the threshold of the views of scripture which I now entertain, from reading any author holding similar sentiments. No publication advocating the second coming of Christ fell into my hands until some time after I had seen, and preached upon, the important position which the destruction of Jerusalem occupied in the Scriptures. Neither, I beg to say, was it from conversation with others that I was led into a glimmering of that grand event, which is passed by in total