masterpieces, and which had won the prize at the exhibition of the Academy. He was told that it had not been sold.

"Can it be possible? Not sold! Where is it to be had ?"

"In this very room. Here it is;" producing the painting from a corner, and wiping off the dust.

"Is it for sale? Can it be bought ?" were the eager interrogatories.

"It is for sale; but its value has never yet, to my idea of its worth, been adequately appreciated, and I would not part with it." "What is its price?"

"I have done affixing any nominal sum, I have always so far exceeded my offers. I leave it to you to name the price."

"Will four hundred pounds be an adequate recompense?"

"It is more than I have ever asked for it."

"Then the painting is mine."

The stranger introduced himself as the Marquis of Stafford, and he became from that moment one of the warmest friends of Mr. Allston. By him Mr. Allston was introduced to the society of the nobility and gentry, and he became one of the most favoured among the many gifted minds that adorned the circle to which he was thus introduced, but in which he was never fond of appearing often.

The instantaneous relief thus afforded by the liberality of this noble visitor, was always regarded by Allston as a direct answer to his prayer, and it made a deep impression upon his mind. To this event he was ever after wont to attribute the increase of devotional feelings, which became a prominent trait in his character.

THE GOSPEL AND THE MIL

LENNIUM.

We have received from Mr. Young a rejoinder (much too long for our pages) to Mr. Cox's remarks on Mr. Young's antimillennarian letter in our February number. In the former part of the present letter, Mr. Young fully shews, by numerous quotations from the best millennarian writers, that he has not misrepresented their views of the conversion of the world by the "preaching of the gospel."* We have only room for the latter and more important half of his letter:

To the Editors of "The Church."

mon our doctrine, and your correspondent's denial." Good, so far; but he should not have added that premillennialists had long asked in vain for one passage to prove that the world would be converted before the coming of Christ, when he had not answered one of the five I gave him.

Having given this challenge, your correspondent proceeds to adduce certain passages to prove his view of the question. The short space I have forbids that I should examine more than two or three of the principal ones. I will select those that are made most prominent by writers on the other side of the controversy.

Daniel says, "I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed" (vii. 13, 14). These words, I have no doubt, point to the millennium, and will have their full accomplishment during that happy period. They promise the lordship

of the world to Christ; but they no more predict the second coming than the first coming of the Saviour. Daniel does not say that he saw the Son of man, but one like unto him. He does not say the Son of man will come at some future time, but that one like the Son of man "came;" the action was past when he recorded the vision. He does not say that one like the Son of man came to the earth, but to the Ancient of days. If the scene was laid on the earth, it was only one of the accidents of the visions. When Christ comes the second time, it will be from the Ancient of days, not to him. The Saviour has asked the heathen for his inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for his possession; and the vision presents a beautiful symbolism, by which Christ is represented as taking from the divine Father the dominion of the world.

The rising of the four beasts from the sea (3rd verse) symbolized the rise of four empires. But as the likeness of beasts did not symbolize the literal appearance of beasts, so the appearance of one like the Son of man did not symbolize the personal appearance of Christ, but the rise and establishment of his kingdom.

The parable which represents the wheat and the tares growing together till Christ comes with his angels to separate them, is thought to afford conclusive proof that Christ will come before the millennium. "For how," it is asked, "can there be a milJennium of universal conversion and holiness, while there are tares in the field with the wheat?" It is a wonder that premillennarians give such prominence to this argument,-its feebleness is palpable. For, first, those who hold the ordinary view of the millennium do not believe that the conversions and holiness of the millennium will be absolutely universal. Premillennialists add the word universal, or give the absolute sense to it, before they can make their objection plausible. There will be some sinners in the millennium, though they may be few in the best periods of it. And if there be sinners and saints on earth when Christ comes, whatever may be the proportions, both may be said to grow together till the harvest. When he separates them, too, all will be before him that have lived in every age; there will, therefore, alas! be many tares for the angels to bear away to the place of burning.

Secondly, after the millennium there will

be a "little season" marked by the prevalence of evil, so that the proportion of tares will increase a little time before Christ

comes.

Thirdly, upon the premillennial hypothesis, the wheat and tares will grow together in the millennium, therefore Christ will not come to separate them at its commencement.

Mr. Cox, for instance, who asks so "confidently" for an interpretation of this parable upon our principles, believes that men will be saved through the millennium, and that by faith, he says, in the word of truth. Now, if there be men to be saved, there must be men unsaved; if men to believe, there must be unbelievers. And what are these unsaved, unbelieving men but so many tares living in the millennium? He may say, that the glorified saints will occupy the New Jerusalem, and thus be separated from the ungodly; but this will not answer his purpose. The risen and perfected saints are, according to the hypothesis, to rule the nations, and must, therefore, be brought into contact with them. Besides, as the work of conversion will go on, those who are converted must become wheat, while the unconverted will remain tares. The wheat and tares will therefore grow together. Moreover, suppose the walls of the New Jerusalem were a line of separation between the two classes, the condition of the nations would not be that indicated by the parable after the coming of the Son of man. Surely it will not be maintained, that the nations in a convertible state, and dwelling in sight of a glorified Saviour yet willing to bless them, can be represented by tares cast into a furnace of fire?

I should like to explicate 2 Thess. ii. 1-10, but space absolutely forbids. I will therefore pass to the 24th of Matthew, which is so triumphantly adduced by premillennarians. It would be easy to prove that the predictions in this and corresponding chapters in Mark and Luke, refer primarily to the destruction of Jerusalem; but whether they are to be referred to this early destruction, or the last judgment, or both, they have never been proved to refer to an intermediate time. That they refer to the commencement of the millennium is a mere conceit. Two modes of proof are resorted to. Mr. Cox adduces (as do all other writers) Luke xxi. 24, 27, 28. He would say, I suppose, that Christ predicted the treading down of Jerusalem of the Gen

tiles, until the time of the Gentiles be fulfilled (24th verse). And that after this long time of affliction shall have expired, the saints shall see the Son of man coming for their deliverance. And that, consequently, the coming referred to must take place after the time of Gentile ascendency over Jerusalem is past. But the words will give no such conclusion. That the events of the 27th and 28th verses must be referred primarily at least to about the time of Jerusalem's destruction, is evident from the 32nd verse. When Christ says, "Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the time of the Gentiles be fulfilled," he speaks by anticipation. He merely gives a glance into the future, and returns to the events near at hand. It was natural that he should tell his disciples that the great city should remain under Gentile power, when predicting its overthrow. It is a mode of speaking common to all times and peoples.

There is another argument, by which it is attempted to prove that these predictions belong to the millennium, more ingenious and novel. At the 21st verse of this 24th chapter of Matthew, Christ says, "For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not from the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be." Like phraseology occurs in Daniel xii. 1, and Joel ii. 2. From the collation of these passages the argument is drawn. There cannot be, it is said, two or more periods of trouble of each of which it can be said, there never was such a time before, nor ever will be after. Therefore, Daniel, Joel, and Christ must refer to the same time. Now Daniel, it is argued, cannot refer to a period so early as the destruction of Jerusalem, Joel can scarcely refer to a time so late as the last judgment, and, as the three passages must refer to the same calamities, Christ's predictions must be assigned to an intermediate time. I suppose brother Cox has great confidence in this argument; he has brought

it forward in both his published works; and no wonder, when Dr. Tregelles, and other men of mark, urge it as unanswerable. To me it looks suspicious. There seems a strain upon the link that holds the passages together. But let us try its power. We find it written of Hezekiah, "He trusted in the Lord God of Israel, so that after him was none like him among all the kings of Judah, nor any that were before him” (2 Kings xviii. 5). Of Josiah, a successor in the same kingdom, it is written, “And like unto him was there no king before him, that turned to the Lord with all his heart, neither after him arose there any like him" (2 Kings xxiii. 25). Now, as there cannot be two or more kings of each of whom it can be said there was no such king before him, neither after him arose there any like him, therefore Hezekiah and Josiah were the same man. True, they are said to be separated by several generations, but as logic is inexorable, they must be identical. Now, which of these two horns of the dilemma will my brethren take? Either these two men, so called, were, after all, only one man, or their boasted argument is worthless. The truth is, the language is hyperbole, with probably a proverbial cast. It is a strong mode of expressing the great troubles of the several times, and the unusual piety of the two kings. The 24th of Matthew cannot be fixed to the commencement of the millennium.

I shall not offer any reply to what Mr. Cox has said about neutralizing one of my own objections. Your readers will be able to discriminate between a fact being the basis of some remote result, and the direct means of bringing it about. With an earnest desire that truth may prevail,

I am, dear Sirs,
Yery truly yours,

Cork, June 2nd, 1852.

BENJ. CHAS, YOUNG.

THE LEISURE HOUR. Published Weekly. Religious Tract Society.

We have not been able to notice before this new attempt to interest, without injuring, the numerous class who read chiefly for amusement. We need not say that we

cordially approve the attempt on the part of the Tract Society, and fully sympathize with the great difficulty of the task. Amusement and instruction, under the guidance of christian principle, is an object worthy the time and talents of the highest christian

genius. Especially is this the case in regard to the working classes. They have become so alienated from Evangelical Christianity, by the operation of many social and ecclesiastical causes, that they are in danger of being carried away by Puseyism or Infidel Socialism, especially by the latter. They are becoming distrustful of the benevolent professions of religious people, and of religious tracts generally, but especially of those issued by the noble Society established for that purpose. It is, therefore, with no great surprise that we found, on enquiry, that the chief circulation of "The Leisure Hour" is not among operatives, but amongst chapel-going people, who are already pretty well provided for. We have been pleased with the two parts now before us. They embrace a great variety of topics, chiefly either extracts or condensations of the most interesting parts of good books; the original articles seem to be but few. It will hardly compete with Chambers', Dickens's Household Words, Eliza Cook's Journal, not to mention Cassell's Working Man's Friend, or the less desirable class of cheap publications. It is, however, decidedly the most liberal and least trammeled of the Society's cheap tracts which we have seen; and if it be not what will interest the class most needful to gain, it must be owned that that task is very difficult. There is, it must be confessed, a want of vigour and raciness about the publication. Indeed, the Society labours under two great disadvantages; one, that really vigorous and able writers will not submit their tracts, articles, or books, for rejection, mutilation, or alteration by a secret committee. Hence, it will be found, we think, that its most efficient tracts are those which were written without a thought of the Society, and afterwards adopted by it. Another circumstance is, the incompetency of the pious Churchmen, and of many Dissenters too, on the committee, to appreciate at all the wants of the present race of workmen. Hence, everything must be cut down to the standard of these excellent, but not always strong-minded, men. To all this must be added a standing rule of the Society, that every publication of the Society must contain fully the way of salvation; which is interpreted to require, that the five points of moderate Calvinism are somewhere definitely stated. It is not held sufficient to lead the reader to a knowledge of sin or of the Saviour by a shorter road. This system may have its advantages, but it has

also its disadvantages,-the chief of which is, of course, the similar cast of all the religious remarks, and the difficulty of maintaining interest. But we are descanting too largely. We cordially recommend "The Leisure Hour" as perfectly secure from dangerous tendencies, and,at the same time, as being an entertaining tract. HISTORIC EVIDENCE OF THE AUTHORSHIP AND TRANSMISSION OF THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. By S. P. TREGELLES, LL.D. London: Samuel Bagster and Sons.

This is not one of the "Lectures to Young Men," which ought to have been kept within the columns of a religious or weekly newspaper. It is a truly valuable book. Dr. Tregelles has been long employed in examining and comparing manuscripts of the New Testament, both here and on the Continent; the materials for his little volume have not been swept off the surface of a few well-known works for the occasion, but have grown upon his hands during a long, careful, and original search amongst manuscripts, editions, translations, and fathers of the church. It is, practically, an original work; and though it gives only the results of investigations which the unlearned cannot of course go through themselves, yet those results are as evidently real and credible, as the statements of the astronomer respecting the form of the earth and the movements in our solar system, and are equally comprehensible by young persons of ordinary intelligence. We most cordially recommend Dr. Tregelles's lecture to all our intelligent young men, as the book they need at the present day. We have read it carefully through, and can say with confidence that the author has given the cream of the evidence on the subject; that he has nowhere overstated the value of the evidence; and that to every sound-minded young man the book will be a treat. It bears about the same relation to the frothy declamations and speculations of many sciolists in German criticism, and of many of the conceited apostles of Carlyleism and Emersonianism, which the summing up of the judge does to the one-sided appeals of the bar. RELIGIOUS PROGRESS; AND LECTURES ON THE LORD'S PRAYER. By W. B. WILLIAMS, D.D. Pp. 336. London: William Collins.

This is the last of Mr. Collins's "Cheap Series of Valuable and Fopular Works."