ed him, as one hateful to man, and forsaken by God. It is to be supposed, that as soon as the unclean thing was removed, and the presence of heresy no longer tainted the orthodox crowd, that then the Priest condescended to accept of the offerings of his votaries, and duly officiated in the blessing of the boats. At all events, Denis was totally ruined; and his future hopes of comfort, and I may say sustenance, for himself and family were gone; and he had nothing to trust to but the little potato-garden behind his cabin.

Denis, on the following day, called on me to ask my advice as to what he was to do, where to go, what was to become of him. I don't think there was a particle of bitterness or vengeful feeling in his thoughts ;-he felt, as well he might, the desolation of his own condition; but he was Christ's workmanship; and what would have been anger, under the agency of grace, was turned into pity for his persecutors. I believe, at the moment, I was more to be pitied than he; I am sure I felt indeed, and showed more want of faith; I could not restrain the anguish I underwent, when I considered that I was, as it were, the cause of the miserable state to which the poor fellow was reduced. But byand-by, this cloud passed away, and we talked together, and read together, and prayed together: we had recourse to the blessed word of life, and passed on in its perusal, from promise to promise, from consolation to consolation; then we referred to the warning annunciation, that all that live godly in the present world, must suffer persecution: and when we passed on to that bright and balmy passage, where it is announced to the sufferer, that our present afflictions, through faith, may and must be considered as light and momentary, when compared with the exceeding great weight of glory, which the Lord has prepared for those that love him. Before long, the man arose from his prayers and the perusal of the sacred volume, having the strong consolation of one that had fled for refuge to the hope set before him in Christ Jesus. And convinced I am, that this poor persecuted being left my door, in a worldly sense, ruined and undone as he was, the happiest person in the village of

"IRVING ON THE LAST DAYS."

TO THE EDITOR OF THE CHRISTIAN EXAMINER.

Sir,-Permit me to offer a few observations on the Review in your last number for April, of "Irving on the last days." You have there taken occasion to state your opinions as Christian Examiners on the doctrine of the Millennium, and the personal reign of the Redeemer, which opinions I conceive to be not only at variance with the Word of God, but manifesting, in a great degree, ignorance of the doctrines which you attempt to repudiate. I would therefore feel desirous of submitting to the Christian public, through the medium of your publication, a statement of the scrip

tural view of those doctrines, the arguments and proofs by which they are supported, and a justification of those who maintain them from the serious charges that have been brought against them. In doing so I shall be as brief as the nature of the subject will permit.

First then, I shall endeavour to correct a few mistakes into which you have fallen, in stating the views of Millenarians. One is, that the 20th chapter of Revelations is the great magazine of Scripture, out of which they draw arguments in support of their tenets; this, I can assure you, is not correct: we do not exclude this portion of Holy writ from our creed, but we conceive that the Bible furnishes many other passages fully as strong in support of the personal reign and the first resurrection, as this important passage. Some of these I shall have occasion to refer to before I close. Other statements are made in your review, but they scarcely deserve notice; such as- that we desire to walk by sight, and not by faith-that we are disinclined to wait God's time for the accomplishment of his purposes-that the most appropriate motto for our system would be, "here is the impatience of the saints." These are all bold assertions, and may serve to catch the unwary, but the best answer to them is, that they have no foundation whatever, but in the imagination of the reviewer.

Does it manifest a disinclination to await the fulness of the time appointed for the accomplishment of the Divine purposes, if we imitate the example of Daniel, when understanding by the books of the Prophet, that the period of the Jews' deliverance from Babylon was at hand, he set his face unto the Lord and prayed, saying " Defer not for thine own sake, O my God!" (Dan. ix.) -Does it exhibit a spirit of impatience in the saints, to examine what is written concerning the signs of the times, that they may avoid the punishment brought upon the Lord's people of old, because they knew not the time of their visitation, and may if possible ascertain the arrival of that period, so emphatically dwelt upon by the Lord, when the saints are to look up and lift up their heads, for their redemption draweth nigh? (Luke xxi.) -Do we walk by sight instead of by faith, when we "look for that blessed hope and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;" (Titus iii. 13.) when we "look for, and haste unto the coming of the day of God?" (2 Pet. iii. 12.) If these be the charges which you bring against us, we plead guilty to them, and we earnestly desire that we may be more guilty, and that God's people generally were more guilty in these respects.

But I must hasten to the points at issue. The first is, as to "the personal advent of Christ," with which, to use your own words, you" directly grapple." I shall therefore now bring forward, as briefly as I can, the scriptural view of the second advent, and the arguments and proofs by which it is supported. None deny the doctrine of the second advent in one sense or other, nor do they deny a personal advent of the Redeemer, but the difference is, that Millenarians hold his coming to be for the purpose of reigning one thousand years on the earth with his saints, and

others conceive that He comes to annihilate the world, and to take His saints to heaven. Now, my object will be to show that the former position is correct.

The first scripture we meet with on the subject in the Old Testament is the promise to Abraham, (Gen. xvii. 8.) "I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger-all the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession." Let us examine this promise for a short time: In the first place, the land of promise is distinctly pointed out-the land of Canaan, and lest any should attempt to spiritualize and make it heaven, or, as it is sometimes called, the heavenly Canaan, there is a further description given, which renders it impossible to put any such construction on it; the place is distinctly marked as that wherein Abraham was a stranger, or sojourner, at the time this promise was made-the literal Canaan. In the next place, the possession was to be an everlasting one; and lastly, the promise is, that this possession of the literal Canaan should be given to Abraham and to his seed; and here an important enquiry presents itself to the reader-Who is the seed of Abraham, and has this promise been fulfilled, either to the patriarch or his seed?

On the subject let us see what is noted in the scripture of truth, and first as to Abraham-We have the testimony of Stephen recorded in Acts vii. 2-5, that the Lord "gave him none inheritance in the land, no, not so much as to set his foot on, though he promised that he would give it to him for a possession, and to his seed after him, when as yet he had no child," and this is confirmed by the author of the epistle to the Hebrews, who declares that he died in faith, not having received the promise," (Heb. xi. 13, see also Gen. xv. 15,) and consequently as far as regards Abraham, either God is unfaithful to his promise, or it yet remains to be fulfilled. And now as to the seed; Did Isaac inherit the promise ?—or Jacob? No; like their father they were strangers and sojourners in the land of promise, as in a strange country. But the twelve tribes had a possession in the land, were not they the seed? No, they were indeed the seed of Abraham, but not the seed to whom the promise was made; for what saith the apostle Paul, "To Abraham and his seed were the promises made; he saith not, and to seeds as of many, but as of one, and to thy seed, which is Christ." (Gal. iii. 16.) Christ then was the seed to whom the promise was made, and not either Isaac or Jacob, or their descendants the Jews; but what is the promise here referred to? It cannot be those promises which declare that in the Saviour all the nations of the earth should be blessed-that the seed of Abraham should be as the stars of heaven in number; for these are not promises to the Saviour but of Him, the force of the apostle's argument is, that to Christ as the seed a promise was made, and none could be found connected with the history of Abraham which can, in any manner, apply to Christ as the seed, but that which declares that he should have an everlasting possession of Canaan, or, as it is in the epistle to the Romans, that He should be the heir of the world. (Rom. iv.

13.) If, however, there should still remain a doubt as to the promises alluded to by the apostle, it is only necessary to read Galatians iii. 18, and there we are expressly informed, that the promise of an inheritance is what the apostle treats of. Now this argument is, I conceive, quite conclusive upon the point, for it will not be alleged, that Christ has ever yet had any inheritance in the land of Canaan. The argument is briefly this-God made a promise to Abraham, that he and his seed (that is Christ) should have an everlasting possession of the land of Canaan. Neither Abraham or Christ have yet had that inheritance, and if they are ever to enjoy it, they must return to this earth for that purpose; in other words, Christ must personally reign in the literal Canaan, or this promise must, for ever, be unfulfilled.

I shall now address another argument for the personal reign, founded on the scriptural character of the priesthood of Christ, "The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, thou art a priest for ever, after the order of Melchisedec." Now, who was Melchisedec-and what was the order of his priesthood? He was literally king of Salem (Jerusalem,) and by interpretation, king of peace and of righteousness, and priest of the Most High Godin other words, he was a royal priest, sitting upon the throne of Jerusalem. If the priesthood of Christ is to be of the order of Melchisedec, it must be a royal priesthood. He must be literally and personally king of Jerusalem, as well as priest of the High God; and here I would remark, that while Christians give to Him the offices of Prophet, Priest, and King, the ideas of his kingly office are vague, and altogether unlike the peculiar characteristics of the other important offices. They admit that he personally executed the duties of a prophet upon the earth, in teaching and preaching the glad tidings of the kingdom of God. In like manner as a priest, he offered up himself as a lamb without spot, and entered into the Holiest of all-even into heaven itself, there to make intercession for his people. These two offices were executed literally and personally upon the earth, but the kingly office, we are to believe, is in no respect like them!

He may, to be sure, be sitting as a king upon his throne in heaven, but upon earth he only reigns in a spiritual sense in the hearts of his people. Now, is it not more in accordance with the plain declaration of Scripture, and the analogy of faith, to understand the term in a literal sense, and to believe, that as he was a prophet and a priest upon earth, so he will hereafter be a king, reigning in Mount Zion, and in Jerusalem, and before his ancients, gloriously.

But again, in the beautiful prophecy, in the 9th chapter of Isaiah, where the birth and the glories of the Messiah are so plainly and distinctly revealed, it is foretold that "of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom to order it, and to establish it with judgment and justice from henceforth, even for ever." (Isa. ix. 7.) Here we have a distinct promise, that upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, the Messiah was personally to reign;

and it was this prophecy, as well as others of a similar import, of which there are many, which led the Jews in the time of their favour, and among them his chosen followers, to look for a reigning Messiah, and to ask, "wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?" (Acts i. 6.)

The majority of them were totally ignorant of the doctrine of the two comings of the Messiah, as explained by St. Peter. (1 Peter i. 11.) and all of them were in very great darkness respecting it, as is evident from the question proposed by the apostles, which I have quoted, and in which, though they express a belief in the restoration of the kingdom, and that it was to be restored by their crucified, risen Saviour, were yet ignorant of the time at which that event was to take place; and while our Lord in his answer corrects their error as to the time, he does not deny that the kingdom will be restored at the time appointed of the Father.

The angelic announcement of the Saviour's conception and birth to Mary, furnishes another proof of the personal reign of the Messiah on the throne of David,' "The Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David, and he shall reign over the house of Israel for ever." (Luke i. 32, 33.) In vain shall we attempt to give a spiritual interpretation to this passage, consistent with itself and with the context; for whatever may be said of the meaning of reigning over the house of Jacob, the promise that he should sit on the throne of his father David, is one that cannot by any fair rules of interpretation be spiritualized. I should wish to know what the spiritual throne of the royal Psalmist was, or how the Messiah reigning in heaven, or in the hearts of his people, can be said to reign on the throne of David. Let it be remembered also, that Jerusalem is specially designated, "the city of the Great King." (Matt. v. 25.)

It is, I conceive, a great mistake, to suppose that the saints directly after death go to heaven, and there spend an eternity with their Redeemer. Indeed, it appears to me very doubtful that they shall ever go to heaven; for although there are one or two passages of Scripture that seem to bear that interpretation, there are very many which plainly and expressly declare, that "we shall reign upon the earth." We may infer from what our Saviour said to the dying thief" this day shalt thou be with me in Paradise," and from other passages of a similar nature, that the spirits of departed saints at their death go not to heaven, but to a place called sometimes " Paradise," sometimes " Hades," and sometimes the place of separate spirits, where they remain till the resurrection morn.

Our Lord, it appears, did not go to heaven for forty days after his resurrection; but while his body was in the earth, his spirit took its flight to the regions of the blessed, accompanied by that of the ransomed malefactor.

We have had a figure of heaven upon earth but once, and that figure plainly shows us, that it is not for the people, but for the high priest alone, and for the peculiar residence of the Deity