ing," or, as the Greek reads, "baptisms (plural), here referred to, meant the sprinkling of them, very sparingly, with a bunch of hyssop. At the marriage of Cana of Galilee, we are told (John ii. 6) that "there were set there six water-pots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews." These "waterpots," or jugs, were probably used, among other purposes, for that of sprinkling the "vessels" and "tables" with water; if they used these for "washing" themselves also that is, their hands-we are informed (2 Kings iii. 11) that this was done, among the Jews, by the servants pouring water on the hands." Hence we infer, that there were different modes of baptismsprinkling, pouring, and dipping;— and, consequently, that either of the modes is truly and properly a bap tism. The Church of England directs water to be poured (not sprinkled) over the child; and also allows the child to be dipt, "if able to endure it." No minister needs consult his Bishop as to the lawfulness of immersion, if he be called upon to employ it. Aspersion, though now general, is no where enjoined by the Church: affusion is a middle way. Most important is it to pray for the grace of baptism, be the mode what it may.

Mark ix. 41: "Because ye belong to Christ," "he shall not lose his reward." Good works are then only rewarded when done from love to Christ. Indeed, no works are good but those that are so done. This is perfectly reconcilable with salvation wholly by grace. To expect reward for acts of merely natural sympathy or human compassion, is vain. Hence St. Paul declares that a man may give all his goods to feed the poor, and yet not have charity-that is, love to Christ, and love to man for Christ's sake.

42: σκανδαλισῃ that is, "shall cause to stumble." In other words, Whoever shall,' by exam

ple, precept, temptation, or persecution, cause one of these little ones that believe in me to stumble' —that is, fall into sin, give way to despair, relapse into heresy, or apostatize from the faith- it were better for him,' &c.

Mark ix. 49: "For every one shall be salted with fire," &c. The connexion of this verse with the preceding is not, at first sight, very obvious. Jesus had said, in verse 48, "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched ;" and he adds, " For every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt." That is, as salt preserves things from putrefaction, and is used both in dressing food and in offering sacrifices; so every lost soul shall be kept from actual destruction or annihilation by the wrath of God, while yet under the infliction of that wrath. This is a strong argument for the eternal duration of the punishment of the wicked in hell.

50: "Salt is good; but if the salt have lost its saltness," &c. Here "salt" is taken for purity and wisdom. It is as if Jesus had said,

Have and retain this holy purity and heavenly wisdom, rather to part with any sin, or sinful object, though it be as useful as the hand or foot, or as dear as the eye, than to lose your souls by indulging in it.' (To be continued.)

ON THE SEALS AND VIALS.

Tothe Editorofthe Christian Observer.

HAVING perused and considered much the chief prophetical expositors of the day, my mind has been brought to the following conclusions.

I cannot, with Mr. Faber, and Mr. Frere and his followers, see the fitness of applying nearly the whole of the vials to the French Revolution. The present time always strikes us as the most important; but it was

perhaps only in the open, and in France national, avowal of infidelity, that the convulsions commencing in 1792 could, by the prophetical eye, be held to be objects to be distinguished from other anterior wars and revolutions.

No exposition has been given of the trumpets and vials in which I can concur, except in the application of the fifth trumpet to the Saracens, and the sixth to the Turks; and, consequent to this latter, the sixth vial to the decline of the Turkish empire.

There is an agreement in the trumpets and vials numerically, which, it seems to me, would demand a similar accordance in the interpretation; and yet this has been little attended to by commentators, either as to the affixing of time or object. The first trumpet sounds, and is followed by an infliction upon the earth; and after the like manner the first vial is poured on the earth. The second trumpet is attended by a conversion of the sea into blood; and the second vial is poured on the sea, and it became blood. The third trumpet leads to a visitation on the rivers and fountains; and the third vial falls on the rivers and fountains. The fourth trumpet and the fourth vial affect the sun. The fifth trumpet and fifth vial have not, perhaps, exact correspondence, the former referring to the bottomless pit, and the latter to the seat of the beast. The sixth trumpet and the sixth vial both relate to the river Euphrates. The seventh trumpet is followed by the opening of the temple of God with thunders; and the seventh vial has like consequences.

It is commonly agreed that the world is now arrived at the sixth vial; and I would take an instance in it of the fore-mentioned relation of the vials and trumpets. I regard, with almost all commentators, the sixth trumpet as indicating the increase of the Turkish crescent; and the sixth vial I look upon as its waning. Proceeding CHRIST, OBSERV. No. 344.

.

to dates, I should, with Mr. Faber, commence the 396 years of the sixth trumpet with Othman, the first sultan, in 1301; and therefore terminate them in 1697, with the great discomfiture of the Turks at Zentha. From that day the Ottoman power has declined; every war has been disastrous, and every peace been bought with some cession of territory This is the precise effect of " drying up," withering, and wasting implied in the sixth vial, which, it seems to me, ought then to commence where the sixth trumpet ends, at the battle of Zentha, in 1697. The gradual exhaustion of the Turkish strength has thus occupied, so far, full one hundred and thirty years; during which if its decline from its height at that date may be estimated to the extent f about three-fourths, some thirty or forty years must still be expected to elapse to the time of its extinction, when "the way of the kings of the east shall be prepared." A more hasty fulfilment than this would not be consistent with the consumptive decay shewn forth by the terms of the sixth vial.

A like bearing might be made out between the preceding trumpets and vials, which I leave to the more inquisitive in fulfilled prophecy to prosecute.

But it may be said, in such a scheme where is the great event of the French Revolution to be found shadowed out? I can only see the spirit of it in the unclean spirit out of the mouth of the dragon (Rev. xvi. 13); and the wars are merely the outward tokens, differing not very greatly otherwise from many devastating hostilities of former periods.

The fall of the Turkish empire is distinct from that of Mohammedanism, which is (Dan. viii. 25) “to be broken without hand "—that is, not from external violence, but internal causes. Such causes appear to have begun in our days, under the Pacha of Egypt and the present Sultan, who have introduced quarantine

3 P

regulations against the plague, established European military discipline, and, finally, placed Christian officers in naval and other commands, and with power of life and death over Mohammedans. These innovations on the rules of the Koran multiply yearly. The French expedition to Barbary must lead to an impression on Mohammedanism and Turkish power.

If the beginning of the sixth vial can be ascertained, and the duration of its pouring out be reckoned from the time which has already elapsed, we come to the determination of the important epochs of the restoration of " the kings of the East," the Israelites; the second advent of our Saviour (Rev. xvi. 15); and the battle of Armageddon. If the extent of the Ottoman empire were taken in 1697 in square miles, and afterwards at the several periods of treaties of peace, up to that of Adrianople in 1829, when Greece was severed from it, a progression of "drying up" would perhaps appear with an accuracy to indicate what further time may be requisite to the final accomplishment.

Being remote from, and unconnected with, any body of interpreters, I only seek to come at some fixed general principle of interpretation; and submit the foregoing view with diffidence, and desire of correction where wrong. M. F.

REPLIES TO DR. NIBLOCK ON JUS

TIFICATION.

Tothe Editorofthe Christian Observer.

IN considering the propriety of the phrase, "justification by faith," to which your correspondent Dr. Niblock objects, the question to be determined appears to be this: May the preposition by be correctly used to signify by means of, or by the instrumentality of? The affirmative may, I think, be abundantly proved,

by a reference to our best English writers and Johnson's Dictionary. If so, it is as correct to say that a man is justified by faith, as that he is justified through faith; and the former expression appears to me rather to be preferred, just as it seems more correct to say that a man lives by his earnings, than that he lives through his earnings. Through seems to apply more properly to the medium through which any thing is received, than to the instrument by which it is apprehended. Through and by correspond respectively to dia and ɛK, and are so used generally by our translators. These prepositions, however, both the Greek and the English, seem to be often used indiscriminately to express instrumentality, and not unfrequently when connected with justifying faith. See particularly Rom. iii. 30: ETELTTEρ Els & Dεos os δικαιώσει περιτομην εκ πιστεως και aкρobvσriav diarηS TIOTEWS: "Seeing ακροβυστιαν δια της πίστεως: it is one God which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith." This passage alone seems to disprove the necessity of drawing the distinction which Dr. Niblock endeavours to establish.

If by is understood in the sense mentioned above, none of the evil consequences spoken of by Dr. Niblock as flowing from the doctrine of justification by faith, will follow. Of these, however, the third and the last seem more especially open to objection on other grounds. The third is, "If we are justified by faith, then, as we read of 'the work of faith,' and that this is the work of God, that ye believe ;' as faith is a work, are we not justified by works?" The Apostolic use of the expression "the work of faith" seems here to be taken as a proof that faith is a work ;-an inference that confounds cause and effect; faith, and the work that proceeds of faith. But, granting that faith is a work (for it is quite immaterial whether it be called a work or not, and in one sense it is a work, as an act of the mind), it does

not follow, that if we are justified by faith we are therefore justified by works; though it would follow that we are justified by (that is, through the instrumentality of) a work, that is, faith. Dr. Niblock's argument, if correct, would go to prove that we are justified through the instrumentality of works. For he says that we must not speak of justification by faith, because, as faith is a work, it would be tantamount to saying that we are justified by works; but we must use the expression justification through faith. Hence, if the reasoning here be valid, we are justified through works.

The last objection is couched in the query, "Is faith above all other graces? Is it more essential to salvation than love; more necessary than repentance; more indispensable than restitution?" &c. &c. If by "salvation" is meant justification, which is the point in hand, then, certainly, faith is above all other graces it is more essential than repentance, love, and the other fruits of the Spirit; for in our jus tification these have no share. In the language of our Article, "we are justified by faith only:" or in that of the Homily, "Faith doth not shut out repentance, hope, love, &c., to be joined with faith in every man who is justified; but it shutteth them out from the office of justifying." Dr. Niblock's language in this paragraph would seem rather to countenance the idea of the instrumentality of works to our justification, though it would be unjust to suppose that such was his intention.

PHILO.

Tothe Editorofthe Christian Observer.

I beg leave to offer my thanks to your respected correspondent Dr. Niblock for his letter on justification, especially for that part of it which relates to the abuse of the phrase "through faith." He, however, appears to me, while endeavouring to remove that confusion which he

finds in the minds of many, to have himself fallen into the grand error of the middle ages of the church, from the time of Augustine, or earlier, to that of Luther, and confounded justification with sanctification.

In briefly answering his question, "How is a sinner made righteous ?" I will follow his example, in first defining what I understand by justification; to which I will add a definition of sanctification. Justification, then, is being accounted righteous: sanctification is being made holy. From this it is evident, that, since the promise of life is made to the righteous, this qualification includes their title to heaven, though not their meetness for it. Their meetness for it consists in their being sanctified, or made holy (Rev. xxi. 27). I will now subjoin two or three short reasons why these two qualities must necessarily be kept separate.

1. The distinction in the persons of the Holy Trinity is intelligible to us only by the difference of their offices. Thus, justification is the work of the Son (Rom. v. 9); sanctification, that of the Spirit (Rom. v. 5); and the acceptance of both, that of the Father (Eph. ii. 18).

2. Justification is not only the forgiveness of sins, but the putting on the seamless robe of imputed righteousness; and is external. Sanctification is conforming us to the image of God, by implanting in us a new nature, contrary to and destructive of the old: this nature is called the new man, which "after God is created in righteousness and true holiness; " and is internal. But as it is never perfect in this life, it can never stand at the bar of God's judgment together with the Redeemer's righteousness, since nothing short of perfection will satisfy the law of God; so that it can never make a part of our justification.

3. Sanctification is the recovery of God's image in the soul, by making his will our own; or, in other words, it is drawing nigh to God to

do his will as a son. But till the conscience is purged from dead works, and at peace through reconciliation with God, this is impossible. Either we must be ignorant of sin, and so unhumbled and unholy; or else we must consider the holy God as a Being to be dreaded and avoided, not approached. Therefore justification must precede sanctification, instead of being identical with it (Rom. v. 1, 2).

4. Justification is the work of One: "By one man's obedience shall many be made righteous" (Rom. v. 19). That "One" is evidently Christ. If the obedience wrought in us by the Spirit be superadded to the obedience wrought for us by the Son, then is our justification not of One, but of two; not of Christ alone, but of Christ and of us also by his Spirit; which would be unscriptural. I conclude, therefore, that a sinner is accounted righteous, "through the forbearance of God," by the life as well as the death of his Redeemer. By his death, whereby he is freed from the guilt and condemnation of his own works: by his life, in which that obedience was wrought, of which the purchased reward will be given to every member of our federal Head, to whom we are united by faith (Eph. iii. 17).

G. J.

Tothe Editorofthe Christian Observer.

Substantially agreeing with Dr. Niblock, in the answer which he gives to his own question what is justification?' and persuaded that in his further elucidation he intends to account scripturally for his third head, where he describes justification (or rather, I suppose, one of its concomitants) as the grace and "power of the Spirit, wrought in us, and imparted to us, enabling us to believe" I would beg leave, in furtherance of the discussion which he solicits, to transmit the following quotations from a sermon of the

late Rev. Wm. Richardson of York, on St. James ii. 24, Ye see, then, how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only" (vol. ii. pp. 31, &c. 1st edition); which, in my estimation, and that of friends of superior judgment to mine,contains one of the simplest and most successful of the numerous attempts to reconcile the apparent difference between the Apostles St. Paul and St. James, in their view of this important doctrine. It does not, indeed, profess to enter into the nicer definitions suggested by your correspondent; touching which I confess, that, desirable as it might be to obtain a universal accordance, I doubt whether the majority of religious persons will speedily come nearer, if even so near, to each other, than an acquiescence in the general terms employed by the venerable writer in the subjoined extract.

"Amongst the many clear evidences that the Scriptures are divinely true, there are some things which furnish gainsayers with objections, and occasionally raise doubts in the minds of the most sincere and humble believers. The principal of these are the seeming contradictions which appear in the Bible: I say seeming contradictions, because I am persuaded there are none in reality, but such as are capable of being reconciled to the satisfaction of every candid person.

"The greatest apparent contradiction has been thought to exist between two inspired writers, upon one of the most important doctrines taught in Scripture, even the doctrine of justification with God. St. Paul, for instance, strongly asserts, that we are justified by faith without the works of the law;' and that we are 'justified by the blood' of Christ; or, what amounts to the same thing, freely, by the grace of God, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.' This point he labours to prove, by a long train of reasoning, in his Epistles to the Romans and Galatians. And yet St.