OUR VISIT TO BRITAIN.

INVITED TO EDINBURGH—RETURN FROM ISLAY TO PAISLEY—VISIT KERR’S SHAWL-FACTORY—ARRIVE IN EDINBURGH—TWO PARTIES OF “REFORMERS” THERE—INVITED TO VISIT BOTH—ATTEND A SOIREE—INTRODUCED TO THE COMPANY—MADE A ROCK OF OFFENCE TO BIGOTRY—SATAN FLOORED—“MODERN ATHENS AND ITS “SOCIETY”—A QUIET TEA PARTY SUDDENLY TRANSFORMED INTO A SEMI-PUBLIC CONVERSAZIONI—INVITED TO PRESENT AN OUTLINE OF VIEWS—PROPHECY PRONOUNCED UNINTELLIGIBLE BY A DIVINE—PROPHECY DEFENDED—ABSQUATULATION OF THE DIVINE INTO OUTER DARKNESS—STULTIFICATION—CROSS-FIRING—FORLORN-HOPE.

            The Glasgow Convocation brought together delegates from various parts of Scotland as well as from England. Among these were friends from Edinburgh, now settled in Wisconsin. They witnessed the violent and unprincipled proceedings of the Wallis faction in the scene of confusion with disapprobation and disgust. These delegates were not sympathisers with us. They had heard of us, indeed, through the British and American Millennial Harbingers; but to hear of us in these periodicals was to hear of us only that which was evil. The “infidel” “factious,” and “wicked madman,” they saw for the first time defending the Lincoln church from expulsion and excommunication, because it had requested him to represent it in a convention assembled to consider how the gospel might be best disseminated throughout Britain. Their faith was Campbellistic; his was altogether the reverse. It cannot be said, therefore, that there was any factious sympathy between us. They came to the Convention on the side of the enemy, but departed from it, if not as friends, at least more favourably disposed than before.

            When they arrived in Edinburgh, they reported to their brethren what they had seen and heard. The rumours which had reached them concerning us had made an unfavourable impression; still they felt a curiosity to hear what we had to say, for they had heard that great interest had been created in Glasgow in our discourses there. It was determined, therefore, to invite us to visit Edinburgh at our earliest convenience. We received the invitation before we left Glasgow for Islay, and were assured of a respectful, if not a cordial, reception in Auld Reekie. We accepted, of course, being thankful under any circumstances that a door of utterance to speak the gospel of the kingdom was opened in so important a city as the Athens of Caledonia.

            In returning from the Hebrides, then, to London, our tour was to take in the city of Edinburgh. We had intended, when we arrived at East Tarbert, to proceed to Glasgow by way of Inverary and Loch Goilhead; but the delay occasioned in getting the cattle on board at Port Askaig, made us too late for the steamer, which had passed on to Inverary before we arrived. This was disagreeable, as it detained us in Tarbert till next morning, and compelled us to return the way we came. But there was no help for it; so it became us, as we endeavour to do in all cases of disappointment, to mingle contentment with a patient waiting for deliverance. Morning came, and with it the steamer, which, having taken in a cargo of Highland cattle, pigs, fish, &c., left the pier at 10 A.M., for Glasgow. Our destination was Paisley where we were to speak the next day; and as we wished to vary the route, we concluded to leave the steamer at Greenock, and take the rail thence to Paisley, where we arrived at 4. 30 P.M. we spoke twice at this place the next day, which was Lord’s day, October 23, 1848. About this time twelve persons were immersed by authority into the church; but upon what premises in each case we are not prepared to say.

            Before leaving this town we visited a shawl factory, said to be the largest in Europe, owned by Mr. Robert Kerr. The dying, weaving, shearing, washing, drying, and mangling of shawls and vest patterns, were all processes carried on in the establishment by hand and machinery on a large scale. The dying department, in which a hundred men can work, had only one man and two boys employed, so dull was trade at the time. The highest price (wholesale of course) for shawls fabricated at those works, was ten guineas. —They were very handsome looking goods, and a considerable stock of them appeared to be on hand in the warehouse, which was, fortunately, not attached to the factory, which, in about ten days after our visit, was totally consumed by fire. It was considered quite a privilege to view the place which was not accessible to all; for some Russians, not long before, had been refused admittance by the proprietor.

            We arrived in Edinburgh on the 27^th October. We were met at the station by two friends, who conducted us to a Mrs. Petries, 21 Lothian Street, near the University. As nobody in Edinburgh had any confidence in us, we were kept at such a distance as was compatible with civility. This was the reason of our being taken to private lodgings, and not permitted to share in the hospitality of the domestic hearth. We did not know that this was the feeling towards us at the time. But we had no reason to expect otherwise —All strangers together, and our proscribed self in bad odour; certainly not in the “odour of sanctity” with our dear friend Campbell’s coreligionists. Of these, there were two parties, which had formerly been one church, of which one was much more Campbellistic than the other. The Oak Hall, and the South Bridge Hall, are the styles by which their churches are known. The former was said to be of the real covenant spirit, which did not partake much of the “milk of human kindness.” Law and authority unencumbered with the bowels of mercy and compassion, were supposed to hold their own in the Hall of Oak. The demerits of the case between the two halls we are unable to give. It is no affair of ours. All we knew was, that there was no union or communion between them; and that we were in questionable relationship to them both. Our invitation to Edinburgh came from the South Bridge friends, whom we found, with three or four exceptions, to be kind, just, and liberal. Their religious theory was Campbellistic; but their disposition was in advance of their theory. They were willing to hear, and to prove “all things;” and did not endorse the notion that all wisdom and knowledge was comprehended in the Bethanian theory of baptism for the remission of sins. There were three or four among them disposed to kick against the goads. They found, however, at length, that in kicking they hurt no one but themselves. They therefore wisely concluded to kick no more; but though they ceased to kick, the disposition to lift up their heels against us continued hardly latent to the end.

            Our quarters were very comfortable. It is true, we were alone; but then we are “never less alone than when alone, nor less idle than when idle.” With the Bible and materials for writing, we can neither be idle nor alone. Studying this great book, and writing upon its contents, have become a habit which rather impatiently endures interruption. The luxury of silence and solitude, after much speaking and conversing, none can duly appreciate who have not enjoyed it. But in our three tours we tasted not much of this enjoyment. We were, so to speak, not our own. We were a bearer of “strange things” to the people’s ears, and were, therefore, expected to be at the service of every one; and which we endeavoured to be with as much affability as we could command.

            We were waited on at separate times by individuals from both the Halls. The Oaks wished us to be at their meetings on the following Lord’s day, but we declined; intending to be at neither their’s, nor at the South Bridge, but to attend our own appointments elsewhere in the afternoon and evening. Certain of the South Bridgians having heard our version of American troubles, in which a more remarkable effort has been made than history furnishes for many a year, to extinguish a humble individual for daring to think and speak his convictions independently of religious factions and their self important inflations, —they insisted on our attending their meeting, and worshipping with them. We demurred to this for several reasons. We had not come to Britain to put individuals or churches to the test of fellowship. We came to announce to them the gospel of the kingdom, and to call their attention to the signs of the times as indicative of the Lord’s approach. We asked fellowship of none, but a patient hearing from all. They insisted. We objected; especially as we understood that the Campbellite spirit was rampant in a few of them. We had so often been tilted at by drones of no personal weight or consideration, just to lift themselves into notice by an affected zeal against heresy in us, who are regarded as fair game for any unprincipled fowler, that we declined being made an occasion of unprofitable controversy in the church. They urged that they wished to test the question, whether one or two were to dictate to all, what they should hear and whom. We declined being made the test, but agreed to attend their meeting as an observer of their doings, when in church assembled.

            On the evening of our arrival in the city, we attended, by invitation, a soiree given by the friends at South Bridge Hall. We found a very respectable company assembled to partake of the good things provided for the inner and outer man. It was here we became acquainted with some whom we hope to call our friends “till the Lord comes;” when, we trust, as the result of their obedience to the faith originally delivered to the saints by the Spirit of God, and of a patient continuance in well-doing, we shall rejoice in his presence. The evening, or soiree, was harmonious and interesting. Pieces, called “sacred,” were well sung; and speeches, humorous and instructive, delivered with agreeable effect upon the hearers. Mr. Alexander Melville Bell, Professor of Elocution, and a very successful practitioner in the art of teaching the tongue of the stammerer to speak with ease, convulsed us all with mirth, by his imitative illustration of the pseudo-sublime and real-ridiculous exhibited by speakers, who, fuller of themselves than their subject, repeat the speeches they have conned by rote. From this, it will be seen, that the evening was not devoted to the subject of religion exclusively. The topics were various, and the company, likewise, persons of other sects, and of no sect partaking in the proceedings as well as those of the South Bridge congregation, who got up the meeting. —Mr. Bell, whom we have the pleasure of calling our friend, (for he proved himself such both in word and deed,) belongs to the Baptist church in Edinburgh, presided over by the Rev. Mr. Watson; and our humble self, to no human ecclesiastical organization whatever. We were unexpectedly invited to address the audience, which we could not very well avoid to do. What we said, or what was our text even, we do not now remember. Suffice it to say, it was our opening speech in Edinburgh, and advanced us a “wie bit” in the good graces of them that heard us.

            The Lord’s day following was October 30^th. We were guided to the place of meeting by the friend who insisted upon our going thither. Very reluctantly we consented to accompany him, with the assurance that no difficulty would be provoked. But it availed not. When the congregation was gathered, he arose and observed that he understood that there would be opposition, by some, to Dr. Thomas’ breaking bread with them, he therefore wished to know, before the meeting was opened, what was the decision of the church in the case. He was opposed to proscription for opinion’s sake, and with American difficulties they had nothing they had to do. He and another brother were acquainted with both sides of the question between Dr. Thomas and Mr. Campbell; and without assuming to judge between them, they were satisfied that there was not just and sufficient grounds for them to refuse Dr. Thomas the bread and wine, if he pleased to partake of them. The opposition, whoever they were, seemed taken aback by this initiative. Whatever they felt, its expression was feeble. Some dissent was expressed, but their premises were vague, and easily overturned; and their conclusions, consequently, without effect. The pros and cons having subsided into silence for want of more to say, we interjected a few remarks before sentence was pronounced. We observed that we had come there as a spectator, at the request of the friend who had introduced the subject before them. We came not to test their fellowship, or to raise any question of the kind in their midst. We came to Edinburgh at their instance, indeed, but for a very different purpose—it was to lay before them the Gospel of the Kingdom, and to define the Signs of the Times as evincing its near approach. We asked none for their fellowship, but simply to hear with candour what we had to say, and then to search the scriptures and see if what we said were not the truth of God. Fellowship was an after-consideration. —We eat bread, not as an act of fellowship, but as an act of remembrance, discerning no test there, but only the Lord’s body. If they said we might eat of the bread they had provided, it was well; if not, it was also well. They would of course do as they pleased. Either way we were content. Whatever was the opinion of these remarks, nothing more was said on either side, and it was agreed, on the responsibility of Messrs. Muir and Gray, who had testified in our favour, that the bread and wine should not be withheld.

            We were quite pleased at the order of the meeting. The scripture readings were from the Old and New Testament, in regular course; the prayers were not random outpourings, but the thoughtful petitions of the thankful and necessitous; the singing was scientific, melodious, and appropriate to the words chosen from “the Songs of Zion,” which used to be sung in Israel’s praises of Jehovah and his goodness forevermore; and the exhortations were words of truth and soberness. Still there was a something wanting. They were courteous, but there was not that sunniness of aspect indicative of unanimity and oneness of soul. It requires a hearty belief of the gospel of the kingdom to bring a church to this—a faith which, at our advent to Edinburgh, we did not find at all occupying the minds of the ungodly or devout.  As a society, the South Bridgians were liberal and independent; and though believing in the Bethanian philosophy, they refused to recognise its president-Professor as their master; or his Nottingham representative, and the Fife-Kingdom committee, as the gaolers of their conscience, and directors of affairs. Had they submitted to their dictation, which they had successfully resisted before our arrival, we should not have been invited, nor received. But Providence had ordered all things well. The bigotry which encountered us at the Glasgow Convention of delegates, was defeated by their co-religionists in Edinburgh, who, though they believed not, were willing to hear in a Berean Spirit, and to open to us a door of utterance, that they might know the things that had excited so much attention and interest among the people.

We sojourned in Edinburgh two weeks, during which we spoke to audiences amounting sometimes to more than a thousand people. This was very well for so Presbyterial a city, whose inhabitants, though mainly addicted to free-churchism, are but little disposed to make excursions beyond the pale of “orthodoxy,” and conventional “respectability.” Edinburgh is a beautiful city, favoured of nature and adorned by art. Royalty, Covenanter-Calvinism, physic, literature, and arms, are enthroned there, attracting, consequently crowds of retainers, and expectants of the good things ordinarily dispensed to those upon whom “fortune” smiles. These constitute “society” in “Modern Athens,” in ministering to whose wants they, who are not “society,” obtain their daily bread. This is the substratum off the upper soil underlying which are things villainous and without estimation in the purlieux of the Cowgate and Grassmarket of the lower town. This is the base upon which society rests, as base as it is low in the scale of being; the swinish multitude, whose habitations filthy in the extreme, are a malarious and piggish exposition of its brutality and desolation. Though sent to the poor and humble, for “dogs” and “swine” the kingdom’s gospel was not proclaimed—Matthew 7: 6. The advertisements, therefore, of our meetings, where the holy things and pearls of God’s truth would be exhibited for the admiration and acceptance of the public, found no response among the “baser sort.” Neither were they responded to, to any remarkable extent by Athenian “Society;” which is so pious, so highly refined, in such favour with Heaven, and on such complacent terms with itself, knowing and believing all that is “essential to salvation,” that it cares not to trouble itself with the “strange things” and “new doctrine” brought to its doors by the “setters forth of strange gods,” as it regards Jesus and the resurrection prophetically exhibited at this day. Our audiences were drawn neither from the high nor low, but from the odds and ends of Edinburgh, who in every city are the most independent and Berean of the population. We addressed them some ten or a dozen times, mostly at the Waterloo Assembly Room, in Princes Street, a spacious and elegant apartment, and capable of seating some thousand to fifteen hundred people. The impression made upon them was strong, and, for the time, caused many to rejoice that Providence had ever directed our steps to Edinburgh. Our expositions of the sure word of prophecy interested them greatly, causing our company to be sought for at the domestic hearth incessantly, to hear us talk of the things of the kingdom and name of Jesus, and to solve whatever doubts and difficulties previous indoctrination might originate in regard to the things we teach.

Our new friends had but little mercy upon us in their demands upon our time. They seemed to think that premeditation was unnecessary, and that we had nothing to do but to open our mouth, and out would fly a speech! Of our two hundred and fifty addresses in Britain, all were extemporised as delivered. There was no help for it, seeing that we had to go oftener than otherwise from parlour conversation to the work before us in the lecture room. Indeed, our nervous system was so wearied by unrest that we could not have studied a discourse. Present necessity was indispensable to set our brain to work. Certain subjects were advertised, and had to be expounded. We knew, therefore, what was to be treated of; and, happily, understanding “the Word of the Kingdom,” we had but to tell the people what it taught, and to sustain it by reason and testimony. In this way we got along independently of stationery and sermon studying, which would have broken us down completely, and would have absorbed more time than our friends allowed us. “Come,” said one, “and take a quiet cup of tea with us on Saturday evening?” we hesitated, being desirous to have the last night in the week to ourselves, at least. “There’ll only be two or three whom you have met before. You can just take it as easy as you please—talk or not, as it suits yourself.” This seemed very fair, so we agreed to go. We found some two or three additions to our friends domestic circle, as he had said; and among them one of the pastors of the church to which he belonged. The tea-table conversation was without point: that is, nothing was touched upon concerning which the pastor and we would find ourselves in opposition; for he is respectably orthodox according to Athenian concession, while, as for us, it is well known that we have no pretensions that way. Wherever “a divine” is present, there is generally formality and stiffness in the circle, all “feast of reason and flow of soul” being quenched by the mystic afflation of his presence. His “people” look up to him as their theological syntax—the rule by which they are expected to order their words in speech. Hence their sentences are measured, and their tone subdued into harmony with his supposed approval. This is irksome to a free spirit who knows what is in the clergy, and, therefore, hath no admiration for them, yet wishes to give no cause of offence to friends who hold them in esteem. This irksomeness was fatiguing, and predisposed us to accept, with a good grace, any event that might turn up to dissolve the spell that bound us.

Nor was a change of affairs far off. It was even at the doors. The tea service was not removed ere the bell at 13 Hope street, Charlotte Square, announced frequent arrivals from divers parts of the city. The ladies and gentlemen were ushered into an adjoining room, where our friend is wont to teach clergymen and others to read their sermons and to speak with fluency and propriety. Our little quiet tea party was invited to adjourn to this arena, when, to our surprise, we found there in fashionable costume a company of from twenty to thirty individuals. This was too bad. “O,” said our friend, “I thought you wouldn’t mind it!” The assembly was pleasant to the eye, but how it would prove to the ear was another question. Its materials were not homogeneous. We cannot define them. Some were deacons, others members of Mr. Watson’s church, some officers of the United Service, lawyers, sons of Abraham in flesh and spirit, &c. —all honourable persons, courteous, and well esteemed. Having been introduced to them, our friend remarked that, “not wishing to monopolise the good things to himself, in which he knew they were interested as well as he, he had taken the liberty, without consulting the doctor, of inviting them to meet him on the present occasion, to hear conversationally more about them. He hoped, therefore, by way of introduction to an interchange of ideas, he would favour them with a brief outline of the subject matter brought to their ears in the interesting lectures they had attended.” In doing this, we called their attention to what the prophets had spoken concerning “the powers that be,” the nations, Israel, and the saints—that “the powers” were to be abolished; the nations to be subsequently universally blessed; Israel to be organised into the kingdom of God; and, that to the Saints and their Chief, immortalised and mad equal in nature to the angels, are to be given eternal glory, honour, and dominion over all the inhabitants of the earth. That these were the things of the invisible future revealed in the Scriptures of truth as gospel, or glad tidings of great joy to all people. The prophets had given us the signs by which we might know the times when those things were about to be. These signs were political events, whose character was discernible by the light of their testimony shed upon the present and the past. That we had more particularly to do with the present in which predicted events were speaking to us trumpet-tongued, of the speedy coming of the Kingdom of God. We had come from the sun-setting to call the attention of the people in Britain, to the prophetic significancy of the notable events affecting the French, Austrian, Papal, and Turkish dominions, for their practical, individual, and everlasting weal. If they inquired, how they were to be benefited by comprehending the import of these things? —we replied, that seeing the day approaching when the King of the Jews was about to appear in his kingdom and glory, they might separate themselves from “the error of the wicked,” and “be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.” To do this they must believe the Gospel of the Kingdom—the glad tidings of that Kingdom which the God of Heaven had promised in a multitude of places to set up in Israel’s land, given to the fathers Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and their seed in Christ, for an everlasting possession in the Age to Come—not the gospel of kingdoms beyond the skies. This gospel, which indeed is no gospel, is “the error of the wicked,” from which a man must cleanse himself if he would find salvation in the Kingdom of God. The world is full of gospels. Every sect has its gospel, and the world is full of sects. These are very well in their way. They give order to society, and give the wicked pause; but can give no man an introduction to the Kingdom of God. There is but one gospel can do this; that gospel, namely, preached by Moses, promised and amplified in the holy prophets, and preached also by John the Baptist, Jesus, and his Apostles before and after Pentecost: this gospel it is that is the power of God for the salvation of those who believe—Romans 1: 16. —God’s power to save is in no other gospel than the Gospel of the Kingdom we advocate. It is that concerning which the wholesome words of the Lord Jesus aver that, “he that believeth and is baptised shall be saved, he that believeth not shall be condemned”—Mark 16: 15-16.

To this effect we spoke as nearly as we can recollect at this time. Having resumed our seat, our host observed, that “the subject was now before them, and he doubted not it would afford Dr. Thomas pleasure to consider any difficulties his outline might have suggested to the minds of his hearers;” and then turning towards his pastor, sitting on a sofa near the door, he inquired if he would not favour the company with his views upon these important themes? To this he replied, that “he agreed with several of the particulars expressed by Dr. T., but that as to prophecy we could not know much about it before it was fulfilled, and was of opinion that time be more profitably engaged in attending to what could be understood.” Thus he delivered himself substantially, and then relapsed into silence, from which it is to be inferred, that, though a professional interpreter of the Bible, the greater part of which is composed of history and prophecy, he had no views upon these important themes! Being convened for friendly social interchange of thought, we did not wish to disturb the harmony of the evening, by seeming to enter the list against our ecclesiastical friend. Having put himself in our power, we might have made him contemptible before the eyes of all. We might have demonstrated his utter incompetency for “the work of the ministry” in which he claimed to be engaged; and have convicted him of extreme presumption in assuming to speak to men in the name of the Lord, while confessedly and profoundly ignorant of what the Lord had spoken by the mouth of his holy prophets. But, out of respect to our worthy host, and that we might not be accused by any of acting offensively, we lost sight of the pastor, and imposed silence upon ourselves, for a time at least, that others might offer their ideas if so disposed.

The silence being unbroken, as we thought, sufficiently long, we observed that we would briefly hold their attention to what the scripture testified for our instruction in Peter’s second epistle—2 Peter 1: 19-21; 3: 17. We then read the words following—“We have also the prophetic word more sure to which ye do well to take heed as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until its day dawn, and a light-bearer arise in your hearts.” These, we observed, are “wholesome words,” and the literal rendering of the original. The prophetic word is sure, and the things Peter, James and John had witnessed on the Mount of Transfiguration confirmed it, or made it surer. Thus made doubly sure, it became a shining light, not a feeble invisible light, such as pure hydrogen burning in day-brightness; but a light blazing as the sun in a place otherwise dark, dark as Egyptian night with blackness. We need not wonder at the sure prophetic word being radiant with brightness; for Jehovah who gave it is light, the Light of the Universe, “in whom is no darkness at all.” It is “a light that shineth in a dark place.” The heart of man is this dark place. The word auchmeros signifies not only dark, but “squalid and filthy.” This is a man’s mental and moral condition, squalid, filthy, and dark, by nature—a condition before God, if not in the estimation of his fellow-men, in which he continues hopelessly until the sure word, termed by Paul, “the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, shine into him”—2 Corinthians 4: 4. Consider the savage, the semi-barbarian, and the “civilised” man. Not to go beyond “Christendom” for examples, contemplate the man of letters, philosophy, politics, and “religion,” not to mention the thoughtless multitude, whose minds embrace no other topics than such as arise spontaneously from their “fleshly lusts that war against the soul.” Converse with these several classes of mankind upon “Moses and the Prophets,” the apostolic testimony, the mission of Messiah, the future of nations, the destiny of the earth and of man upon it, &c., and you will find that “darkness covers the earth, and gross darkness the people;” and as the necessary consequence of this universal ignorance, or blindness of heart to the sure prophetic word, their works are evil, and that continually.

Now to this sure prophetic word, or glorious gospel light, (for the gospel is still almost wholly a matter of prophecy,) the apostle says, “ye do well to take heed to it.” Surely he is an authority in the case, and one whose exhortation should be respectfully entertained. Would he tell us to take heed to the sure prophetic word if it were unintelligible? Can we take heed to a thing we do not, and cannot understand? Prosechontes, rendered giving or taking heed, signifies having in addition to. This is its derivative signification, and imports that we should have the sure word of prophecy added to our minds; but can this addition be accomplished unless we apply our minds to the word, or give heed to it? And what would be the use of studying it if it were essentially enigmatical, and insusceptible of rational interpretation? On the contrary, we conclude from the terms of the apostle’s exhortation, that it is clear, worthy of diligent study, reasonable, and improving.

But Peter’s exhortation was not confined to his contemporaries. What he said to them he says to us. You do well to give heed to it “until its day dawn.” The common version has it “until the day dawn;” but this is not the translation of hoes hou hemera diaugase. Hou is the relative to its antecedent luckno which is synonymous with “the word”—hou hemera whose day; that is, the light’s day, or the word’s day—the day testified of in the light-imparting word of prophecy, in which God will rule the world in righteousness by Jesus Christ, whom he raised up from the dead, for that very purpose—Acts 17: 31. This is the day spoken of by Moses and the Prophets—“the acceptable year of the Lord,” the year-day, or Age to Come, of a thousand years duration, (which with the Lord are but as one day, says Peter—2 Peter 3: 8, “the rest which remains for the people of God”—the day when His king shall come in his kingdom and glory—this is the day—Ezekiel 39: 8—which succeeds “Today,” coeval with the Gentile governments; the Gospel-day, when Christ shall sit upon his father’s throne in Zion, and “govern the nations upon earth”—Psalm 67: 4; 22: 27-28. This day has not yet dawned. We are in “the evening time of today,” when it shall be light—Hebrews 3: 13; 4: 7; Luke 23: 43; Zechariah 14: 7. We are of “today,” which is “a cloudy and dark day”—a day of ignorance, superstition, and foolishness; but when tomorrow comes, the day after “today,” these things will be abolished to the ends of the earth, and we shall no more need the prophetic word to give us light. But till then, the “heirs of the kingdom” can no more do without the shining light of prophecy, than mankind can do without the brightness of the firmament. Blot out the light of heaven, and confusion and death would soon pervade the world. The “children off the day”—1 Thessalonians 5: 5—must have daylight, or they would become sickly, and pine away, and die. They responded to the apostle’s exhortation, and apply their minds to the sure prophetic word, that in keeping their minds actively engaged upon it, a light-bearer may spring up in their hearts making their path “as the shining light, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day.” The way of the wicked is not so. It is darkness, and they know not at what they stumble.

We remarked, in conclusion, that prophecy is so intelligible that those who take heed, or apply their minds to it, can tell assuredly what shall come to pass before it happens. This was the case with those to whom Peter wrote. After writing about the coming of the Lord to slay his murderers, and to burn up their city, (his second coming, not his second appearing at his third coming,) in which he discoursed also of the passing away of the heavens and the earth constituted by the old Mosaic covenant then in existence, but since vanished away—he concludes by saying to them, “seeing ye know these things before, beware, &c.” They knew what was coming upon Jerusalem and the State; for they were observant of the Signs of the Times given by the Lord in his prophecy on Mount Olivet. Their presence enabled them to eschew “the error of the wicked,” who scoffed at the idea of the Lord’s coming to punish his enemies. It enabled them to be steadfast; and at length to escape “the judgment and fiery indignation, which devoured the adversaries.” To deny that we can know before hand what is to come to pass, is to affirm that we cannot understand the gospel; for the gospel is glad tidings of what is to be to all nations and to the saints. It is the report of good things promised. A promise is a prediction, and a prediction is prophecy. The gospel is a great prophecy of what God intends to do; and they who intelligently believe it know before hand what is to be done. The little that has been fulfilled in Jesus is an assurance to the believer that what remains will certainly be accomplished. He foresees the crushing down off the thrones, the abolition of all kingdoms, empires, and republics, the setting up of a divine kingdom in Israel’s land, the blessedness of all nations under the government of Messiah and his brethren, and the will of God done on the earth as it is in Heaven; with many more great and glorious things too numerous to mention at the present time.

When we sat down a dead silence ensued. Whatever was thought, no one offered, or seemed disposed to offer, a word of comment on what had been spoken. The pastor had sighed deeply while we were speaking, thinking, perhaps, that he had fallen upon evil times in consenting to be one of our quiet tea party. But this is only supposition with us. He may have been vastly pleased at our vindication of the prophetic word; for there are some minds so nobly constituted that they rejoice in the triumph of truth, even when the result of their own defeat. We fear, however, that he did not rejoice greatly; if he did, it was with joy unspeakable for he said nothing; but rising and bending sufficiently forward to clear the sofa, he moved noiselessly toward the door, with his body at an angle of forty-five degrees with his understandings, and slid off into outer darkness, leaving us all in blank amazement at his sudden and not very dignified retreat! No remark was made, but the silence was expressive. The truth proved unanswerable, and was yielded to with prudence as the “better part of valour.” The fugitive’s vanishment from the light must have been mortifying to his friends; his retreat, however, was agreeably covered by a concerto performed on the piano and flute, which restored the balance of the evening, and prepared us for a new beginning, without reference to what had gone before.

A natural son of Abraham being present, a continental Jew who professed conversion to Gentile Christianity, our kind host invited to deliver himself upon the subject of Messiah’s coming. It was soon evident, however, that upon whatever topics he might be profound, he was far from being at home upon this. He had been a candidate for admission into Mr. W’s church, if we remember rightly, but grounds existed for suspicion that his motives were not loyal and true, so that he still remained a candidate. He was aware, doubtless, that the company was divided into believers of Christ’s personal reign on earth, and those who rejected it. He spoke so as to please both if possible; at any rate, as far as he was concerned, so as to leave them both in the right, rather inclining to the idea that it might be personal. We could not permit such stuff to pass without a word of comment. We expressed our surprise that a Jew could hesitate distinctly to affirm the personal appearing and reign of Messiah in Israel’s land as the only reign taught in the Bible concerning him. The figurative coming and reign of Christ was a mere Gentile tradition, a fiction of the apostasy, which no Jew instructed by the prophets could possibly entertain. We hoped he would make himself sure on this matter, and abandon the illogical supposition, that a proposition could be at once true and not true according to the opinion of an audience.

The repetition of music, and the introduction of refreshments, relieved our Jewish acquaintance from his entanglement, and, together, imparted a gift of tongues to the company at large. A cross-firing soon after commenced from all sides of the house. One question led to another, until a lawyer and a deacon, pious members of the fugitive pastor’s flock, led on a forlorn hope against our gospel-position, the account of which, for want of room, must be deferred to a future opportunity, which will not be unnecessarily delayed.

* * *

“Time is painted with a lock before, and bald behind, signifying thereby that we must take time (as we say) by the forelock, for when it is once passed there is no recalling it.”—Swift.

“Many have been ruined by their fortunes; many have escaped ruin by the want of fortune. To obtain it, the great have become little, and the little great.”—Zimmerman.

* * *