"Feed my sheep." "Blessed is that servant whom his lord at his coming shall find so doing." "Ye blessed of my Father inasmuch as ye have done it unto the least of these, ye have done it unto me.' "Preach the gospel to every creature, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you, and lo I am with you always, even to the end of the world." "Behold I come as a thief, blessed is he that watcheth and keepeth his garments." "Take heed that no man deceive you, for many shall come in my name." "If they shall say, behold he is in the desart, believe it not, for as the lightning lighteneth out of the east and shineth even to the west, so shall the Son of man be in his day." "When the fig tree putteth forth leaves, ye know of yourselves that summer is nigh at hand."

"Be not soon troubled in

The apostles write in a like manner. mind, neither by word or letter, as that the day of God is at hand." "It is needless for me to write to you of the coming of the Lord, for yourselves know that day cometh as a thief." "Seeing that we look for such things, be diligent to be found of him without spot." "When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall we appear with him in glory." "And now little children abide in him, that when he shall appear, we may have confidence." "The anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you." "Now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be, but we know that when he shall appear we shall be like him." The general tenor of Scripture connected with the coming of our Lord, seems rather to call us to constant readiness, and calm resting on the promises, than to anxious expectation; but I may be mistaken, and shall be glad to be set right. It does seem, however, the first duty of a millenarian writer to point out any time foreshown in Scripture, at which the church was to be called off from doing the revealed will of God, to the more exclusive study of unfulfilled prophecy. Your correspondent quotes three Scriptures in the way of defence. The first is the example of Daniel. I am not able to discern how this prophet resembles a Millenarian, and wish to mention a few points in which he appears to differ from them. He "understood by books the number of the days." They seem at a loss in this particular. Daniel sought the Lord by prayer and fasting; I know not how far they resemble him in this, but I know it is not peculiar to them at this time, to wait on the Lord in prayer for the coming of his kingdom-" thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth." Daniel undertook no interpretation, "I heard, but I understood not." Nor would this seem any prejudice to him; "go thy ways till the end, for thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot at the end of the days;" here I trust we may add what St. Paul says of Abraham, "It was not written for his sake alone." The remaining two portions of Scripture applied by your correspondent to Millenarians, do not, I trust, apply exclusively to them. They are thus marked with italics- The glorious appearing"-" Look for and haste unto :" on referring to the context, however, I found no exhortation to the

study of prophecy; the one is an exhortation to denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, the other to all holy conversation and godliness.

There is a third thing I cannot understand-Why Millenarians apply the case of the Jews rejecting their Messias, to Christians who do not adopt their opinions. They say that others take too spiritual a view of the coming and kingdom of our Lord. Did the Jews do so? Or did they not, on the contrary, expect a kingdom and glory in this world, rather like Millenarians themselves?

My next difficulty arises from what is called " personal advent." I would feel much obliged by this gentleman, or any other, directing me to any text clearly expressing these three ideas-Our blessed Lord, his coming to this world, and his abiding on it. If no such passage occurs, does not the doctrine rest on inference only? I do not make this remark so much about the certainty of the personal reign, as about the manner in which I have seen the doctrine brought forward. If it be only inferred by separating Scriptures from their context, and disposing them in a different connection, should not such a doctrine, however true, be taught with patience at least, if not with diffidence? Is it right to compare labourers in the Lord's vineyard, who are showing their faith by their works, to the foolish virgins in the parable? Is it right to call the foolish virgins the Lord's people? He that cannot deny himself, says to them, "I know ye not whence ye are." I do not like to hear Millenarians calling themselves exclusively, "the wise;" it is contrary to a wise precept -"let another praise thee, and not thine own lips." The gospel is not the belief of what God shall do for his people, but what he has done. "This is life eternal, to know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." "Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for he hath visited and redeemed his people." "If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." "He that hath the Son, hath life."

I am the more inclined to think that the doctrine of our Lord's personal reign on earth rests chiefly upon inferences, from the way in which your correspondent goes about to prove it. I beg leave briefly to point out the difficulties I find in his inferences. He remarks on Galatians iii. 16—“ Christ was the seed to whom the promise was made, and not either Isaac or Jacob." Let us ask, does St. Paul mean to exclude Abraham also? Surely not; for this would defeat the end for which he quotes the passage—“ If ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise;" but if we include Abraham, we must admit Isaac and Jacob also, as the same promise, "to thee and thy seed," is made to them, consequently his mode of reasoning cannot be correct. Neither can I at all believe that St. Paul means the promise of the land of Canaan, because he distinctly says in the 21st verse," the promise by faith of Jesus Christ," and this was the apostle's subject, not the possession of Canaan. Scripture language does not admit of such severe straining, as to separate between promises to

Christ, and promises of Him, for he is the head, and his people members. Your correspondent says, that the seed of Abraham should be as the stars in number, is not a promise to the Saviour, but of Him; but we read on the contrary, "I will also give thee the heathen for thine inheritance," and "the children of the promise are counted for the seed." We do not read that our Lord purchased the land of Canaan, but we read that he purchased his Church with his own blood.

The second and last argument for our Lord's personal reign seems founded on a series of mistakes about the Jewish priesthood, and the kingly office of our Lord. We find that before the law, the priests' office was used by patriarchs-heads of families, the first born, into whose room the Levites were then called. The offices of king and priest would then often centre in the same perMelchisedek was priest and king, superior to Abraham, and "made like unto the Son of God," (not our Lord unto him) as being king of righteousness and peace, not king of Jerusalem, as St. Paul interprets the word, to show the likeness. Until Saul, God was the king, yet there was then a priest. When the sceptre came to David, it was to remain with Judah until Shiloh came. As the priesthood remained with Levi, the offices were distinct. There was nothing royal in the high priest's dress; a mitre and ephod are priestly, a throne and sceptre denote a king. When our Lord came, the offices were united in him, after the order of Melchisedek, a king and priest for ever, not deriving his priesthood from any, or devolving it upon another. It is remarkable that St. Paul says, "if he were on earth, he should not be a priest;" and so we find our Lord assumed his kingly office upon earth, when he entered into Jerusalem, "Behold, thy king cometh." "Blessed is the king that cometh in the name of the Lord." He acknowledged himself king before Pilate, "Witnessed a good confession." suffered as king, ascended as king; "lift up your heads ye everlasting gates, that the king of glory may come in." He reigns as king. "Him hath God exalted to be a prince and a saviour." "He must reign till he hath put all enemies under his feet;"" then he is to deliver up the kingdom:" therefore he has it. "Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion." "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth." We can build no doctrine on the supposition that our Lord is not a king. Jerusalem is called the city of the Great King; but there are two Jerusalems-"Jerusalem that is above is free, which is the mother of us all," the one we have to do with. We ought not therefore to sneer at the spiritual throne of David; we might rather ask, where could his literal throne now be found. His throne is put to denote his office, to rule God's people, and his name signifies beloved. St. James thought the prophecy well fulfilled, which said-"I will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down."

He

There is another remarkable passage which I cannot reconcile with Scripture, which says, it is a great mistake to suppose the saints after death go to heaven, and very doubtful they shall ever

go there, for though one or two passages seem to bear that interpretation, there are very many which plainly declare, that " we shall reign on the earth." I was much surprised to find, however, that this is a single passage-that neither by reference or concordance could I find a second. The first direct proof in Scripture, that the saints go to heaven, seems to be the case of Enoch," he was not, for God took him," he went to God, "he was translated that he should not see death”—that is, he went without dying where the dead believer goes. Elijah, "went up by a whirlwind into heaven." St. Paul says, the Old Testament saints thought heaven was their inheritance, "they desire a better country, that is a heavenly;" nor does St. Paul teach his brethren a different doctrine, "set your affections upon things above, and not on things of the earth.' Our Lord the says same, lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, but lay up treasure in heaven;" they must go there to possess them, or the analogy would fail, for earthly treasures are enjoyed on earth-beside he says, there rust doth not corrupt. The most exact information on the subject is found, where we might expect it, in the consolatory discourse of our Lord, "I leave the world and go to the Father." Here is no room for doubt ("Our Father, which art in heaven,")" I will come again and receive you unto myself, that where I am, there ye may be also." Instead of few passages of this kind, the time woul fail to speak of them, I shall mention one more, great is your reward in heaven."

en;

66

66

Your correspondent is not aware that Paradise is the third heavthe word heaven is used in three senses. 1st-the atmosphere, "Fowls that fly in the open firmament of heaven;" 2dly-the sun, moon, and stars, "the host of heaven;" and 3dly-the habitation of God and the angels, "look down from heaven thy dwelling place;" "heaven is my throne and earth is my footstool." "I am Gabriel which stand in the presence of God"-" a multitude of the heavenly host-our Lord "ascended up far above all heavens, and sat down at the right hand of God"-"the spirit" of man "shall return to God who gave it"-"St. Paul desired to depart and be with Christ;" but our Lord is in heaven. "We know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, a house not made with hands eternal in the heavens." There seem no reasonable grounds for doubt on this subject as to our Lord not going to heaven for forty days, that is a gratuitous assumption.

When we turn to the other view of the saints reigning on earth, we have but a single text spoken by emblematical beings, in a vision of things to come, which may mean only the sympathy between the church in heaven and the church on earth. To reign does not necessarily imply personal presence; the king of England reigns here. St. Paul employs the word to express prosperity and peace; now ye are full, now ye have reigned." Where our Lord is obeyed he reigns, and he grants to his people to sit with him in his throne; much stress cannot be laid on this passage.

66

As to the Jewish sanctuary being a figure of heaven to teach us that none but God enters there; St. Paul uses the same circumstance to prove opposite doctrine. The high priest entered but once a year into the holiest, to signify, that the way was "not as yet" made perfect; but our Lord has rent the veil, and entered for us into "heaven itself as our forerunner." That the meek inherit the earth does not exclude them from heaven, for "godliness hath the promise of this life."

I have mentioned the difficulties I find in this interesting subject, perhaps your correspondent in his promised paper may clear up some. Unfulfilled prophecy forms a part of holy writ for wise purposes, and if it excite our diligent search of the word, it has a promised blessing. There are two things for which some late writers on prophecy are to blame, denouncing those who differ from them, and discouraging the preaching of the Gospel. It is written that "the wise shall understand," not that those who say they understand are wise. It is also written, some of understanding shall fall." We know that Satan is not divided against himself, he does not stir up men to sow the seed, but takes it away out of their hearts. St. Peter says, "the coming of the Lord is delayed for a purpose." The Lord is not slack concerning his purpose, but longsuffering, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

66

C. M.

SKETCHES OF THE IRISH PEASANTRY-No. III.

THE STATION.

(Concluded from page 269.)

Hitherto Father Philemy had not time to bestow any attention on the state of Katty's larder, as he was in the habit of doing, with a view to ascertain the several items contained therein for dinner. But as soon as the breakfast things were removed, and the coast clear, he took a peep into the pantry, and, after throwing his eye over its contents, sat down at the fire, making Phaddhy take a seat beside him, for the especial purpose of sounding him, as to the practicability of effecting a certain design which was then snugly latent in his Reverence's fancy. The fact was, that on making the survey of the premises aforesaid, he discovered that, although there was abundance of fowl, and fish, and bacon, and hung-beef, yet, by some unaccountable and disastrous omission, there was neither fresh beef nor mutton. His Reverence, it must be confessed, was a man of considerable fortitude, but this was a blow for which he was scarcely prepared, particularly as a boiled leg of mutton was one of his favourite joints at dinner. He accordingly took two or three pinches of snuff in rapid succession, and a seat at the fire, as I have said, placing Phaddhy, unconscious of his design, immediately beside him. Now, the reader knows that Phaddhy was a man possessing a considerable portion of dry, sarcastic humour,