involve them in utter destruction, and introduce the solemnities of that awful day which shall eternally sever the wicked from the righteous, and debar them from all access to the mansions of the blessed, I think this difficulty will be removed. A diligent comparison of the thirty-eighth and thirty-ninth chapters of Ezekiel with the twentieth chapter of the Apocalypse, will suffice to shew us that all this is plainly revealed; the chronological prophecy of St. John enabling us to ascertain the place which Gog and Magog occupy among the hosts who successively assault the church of Christ.

My former essays on the four living creatures of Daniel and St. John, and on the six seals of the sixth chapter of the Apocalypse, have elicited many arguments which tend to prove what seems to me to be demonstrable, that the vision of St. John in the fourth and fifth chapters of the Apocalypse is a symbolical representation of Christ's faithful church militant, or at least of the ministers and leaders of that church. If this conclusion be correct—and its correctness is capable of being corroborated by other arguments which may hereafter appear in their proper place the triumph which St. John beheld in the ninth verse, is not that of glorified spirits in the church above, but that of triumphant saints in the church below.

Again: the chapter before us is not doctrinal, but prophetical. We need not to be informed that if we suffer with Christ here, we shall reign with him in glory; but the faithful and devout servants of Christ do need to be reminded that the sufferings which they have endured for many centuries shall terminate in a happy issue out of all their afflictions, even in this present world. For many devout and pious persons are unconsciously contaminated by the spirit of unbelief which is prevalent in these last days, and are ready to say with the ungodly, "Where is the promise of his coming? for since the Fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation." Yet there are no prophecies more numerous or more intelligible, or less liable to be misunderstood, than those which foretell the triumphant state of the church on earth: that state which the Lord promised to Adam, when he assured him that the seed of the woman should bruise the head of the serpent; and to Abraham, when he said, "Thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed."

From these and other considerations which might be adduced, I am persuaded that the first part of this chapter is intended to teach Christ's faithful servants that they should enjoy the especial protection of Almighty God, amidst all the trials to which they would be exposed from age to age, and amidst all the desolating judgments which would successively overwhelm their ungodly persecutors, amongst whom their lot would be cast; and that the latter part is designed to animate them with the pros pect of a joyful triumph, when "the mountain of the Lord's house should be established on the tops of the mountains, and when all nations shall flow unto it."

In the book of Daniel there are four distinct prophecies which occupy nearly the same period of the church's history, commencing in the days of Daniel, and terminating nearly at the same point of time. Three of these prophecies, those in the second, seventh, and eighth chapters, are symbolical; the fourth, in the eleventh and twelfth chapters, is literal; and each succeeding prophecy partially illustrates and develops the preceding one. In like manner, I conceive that the vision of St. John in the fourth and fifth chapters of the Apocalypse, the six seals of the

sixth chapter, and the sealing and triumph of the seventh, respectively occupy nearly the same period in the history of the Christian church, and terminated contemporaneously with those of Daniel just mentioned; that the first and second of these prophecies commence in the days in which St. John lived, and the third in the days of Theodosius the Great ; whose genius for a season restrained the impetuosity of the barbarians of the north, who were eager to ravage the Empire with the fury of a destructive tempest. The vision of the fourth and fifth chapters exhibits God's faithful servants in a state of bondage during this period, but confidently expecting to enjoy the dominion over their oppressors. The opening of the seals in the sixth chapter, reveals the character, conduct, and destiny of those oppressive powers who held them in subjection; and the sealing of the seventh chapter predicts the sure protection they would enjoy from the fury of the oppressor, and from the judgment which would destroy him. The vision also portrays the uniform character and expectations of the faithful ministers and leaders of Christ's faithful people. The four first seals exhibit and predict the changeable character of the ministry of the visible church in its downward progress, from a state of Christian purity and love to a state of anti-christian corruption and cruelty; the sealing reveals to us the special protection which God's faithful servants would enjoy amidst the dissolution of powers and authorities ecclesiastical and civil, and the wreck of kingdoms and empires nominally Christian; and we behold in the palmbearers a graphic exhibition of the felicity of the church, when the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heavens, shall be given to the people of the Saints of the Most High; when "all shall know him, from the least unto the greatest ;" and when all voices and all hearts shall unite to ascribe "salvation to our God, which sitteth upon the throne, and to the Lamb." The five first seals, and the sealing, are abundantly illustrated in the pages of civil and ecclesiastical history; and history shall record the triumph, when the faithful servants of God shall survive the ruin of existing systems, which already totter to their fall, and shall possess the kingdom promised them from the foundation of the world.

CHRISTOPHILUS.

ON THE CHURCH-CATECHISM DEFINITION OF A SACRAMENT. To the Editor of the Christian Observer.

Hatford Rectory (Berks). As some observations made by me, at a Meeting of the Prayer-Book and Homily Society, have been noticed by yourself and others; I feel it is but justice to myself to request the favour of your inserting the following remarks on this subject. The particular point referred to, is the definition of a Sacrament in our Church Catechism, and the omission in it of the comma after "grace." It will probably in some degree clear the matter of difficulty, if we consider this definition as formed, not merely to describe a sacrament in general, but also a Christian Sacrament. The ancient definition, which occurs as early as the third century, "a visible sign of invisible grace," includes the sacraments under the Jewish law, which were regarded by early Christian writers, as mysteries equally with our own. "Aaron was set apart by visible sacraments;" and circumcision and the passover were called by the same name sacraments. But to constitute a Christian Sacrament two things are neces

sary: the outward and visible sign must have been delivered, declared, and given to us by Christ himself; and the sign must have been ordained, set up as an ordinance for ever, by Christ himself. "Take, eat this ;" "Drink this :"-here is the sign "transmitted, delivered," given by his own hand unto us. (See Dr. Johnson's Dictionary 2 : under the verb "to give.") "Do this in remembrance of me:" here is the ordination. Besides, let it be remembered, the language in the definition referred to is not "given and instituted," which would have been a repetition of an equivalent expression; but "given unto us, ordained by Christ himself;" which is precisely like a similar phrase in the Communion Service, "He hath instituted and ordained holy Mysteries," or "Sacraments." The language used is admirably adapted to the two things required in a Christian Sacrament-first, the giving or the instituting of the sign; and second, the ordination of this same sign so given unto us by Christ himself. This definition, like that of Dean Nowel's Catechism, and those which occur in the continental Catechisms, was probably meant to exclude the popish pretended sacraments, of which the sign was neither given unto us, nor ordained by Christ himself; but is a vain, gratuitous figment of their own invention. The construction which makes the word "given" to agree with "grace" and not with sign," renders the latter clauses ("as a means whereby," &c.), in my view quite a redundancy, if not a tautological repetition.

The translation alluded to by your learned correspondent is not the only one which makes the word "given" agree with "sign." There is another at Oxford, "published in the reign of Charles II.," which renders it thus-" Quod datur nobis ab ipso Christo institutum :" where your correspondent will see that no conjunction is supplied in order to obtain a reading favourable to any preconceived notions; which neither Mr. Parsell, nor any conscientious person, could deliberately insert. It is quite clear that Archbishop Wake did thus connect the two words, and thus was in agreement with this translation, since the third edition of his paraphrase (which was published by Sale in 1708, during the life time of the Archbishop,) has the copulative conjunction.

The Sacraments, and the grace accompanying the Sacraments, are not necessarily, as the Papists maintain, connected. There must be spiritual and moral fitness, as well as ritual correctness, to constitute a right reception of a Sacrament; as it was well said by a very early Christian writer-" Manens in pristino statu, et mores suos, et consuetudinem non relinquens, nequaquam rite ad baptismum venit." "The Sacraments are common to all; but the grace of the Sacraments is not common to all," is the sentiment of one to whom our blessed Reformers deferred, perhaps more than to any other uninspired authority. Our Church can surely never be justly said to maintain, in her definition of a Sacrament, the views of those who were, after it was formed, called the Laudean School of Divines, which the omission of the stop after "grace" is said to favour. Nothing can, I conceive, be more alien from her real spirit and character. I am your's, &c.

JAMES HEARN.

BIBLICAL ORIENTALISMS.

To the Editor of the Christian Observer.

THE neologists make grievous havoc of the inspired word, by their doctrine of biblical orientalism; resolving into trope, figure, and fashion

of speech, whatever they do not see fit to accept in its plain meaning. But their abuse of critical canons ought not to deter us from a right use of them. The Bible is without question an oriental book; for though its penmen "wrote as they were moved by the Holy Ghost," they wrote in man's language; for God made use of human idioms to convey, by plenary inspiration, celestial ideas. There is even a marked difference between the style of the sacred writers-for example, St. Paul and St. John, or David and Isaiah-though all were inspired by one and the self-same Spirit.

There is between oriental phraseology, and that of most European nations, especially our own, a striking discrepancy as to the comparative energy of enunciation; so that many expressions appear to a vernacular Englishman overcharged, and perhaps absurd or contradictory, which to an oriental would convey a very clear and sober meaning. Some persons are perplexed by such phrases as "Another Gospel, which is not another," (Gal. i. 6); "From him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath," (Matt. xxv. 29); "Stripped the naked of their clothing," (Job. xxii. 6.) In such phrases there is an ellipsis, or rapidity of speech, which leaves something to be supplied by the hearer. "Another Gospel which is not another," means, which does not deserve to be called by the name of "Gospel;" it is not the Gospel; it is quite another thing. "Stripped the naked of their clothing," would not sound strangely to an Arab, who would call a person naked who was divested of his outer flowing robes, and retained only his closer vesture or tunic. The phrase obviously means to take from one who has little what little he has. Luke viii. 18. explains Matt. xxv. 29: "Whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he seemeth to have;" that is, perhaps, "He that hath not added to his talent shall lose the talent itself."

Many similar instances might be pointed out, in which we must judge of the meaning, not by the preciseness of English phraseology, but by the spirit of the passage as couched in oriental idiom.

NO CRITIC.

TRACTARIAN VINDICATION OF POPISH IDOLATRY.

To the Editor of the Christian Observer.

I Do not think you have noticed sufficiently what may be called the bye-play of Tractarianism. You have devoted much remark to Dr. Pusey, Mr. Keble, Mr. Newman, the Oxford Tractators, and other accredited chieftains of the party; but the fuller developments of the system are best seen in the less cautious and constrained statements of writers in the many periodical publications which advocate Tractarian opinions. The following specimen was lately placed in my hands by a friend, who cut it out from a popular Tractarian publication. It is a reply to a writer who had alluded, though in far too lenient and extenuating terms, to some of the absurdly puerile and grossly idolatrous mummeries of the Popish church in Belgium; especially the adoration paid to bedizened dolls and pretended holy relics.

"I hope you will admit the following remarks in behalf of the Church in Belgium, which has, as I feel, been somewhat unfairly treated in a communication headed a 'Voice from Belgium.'

"I cannot consider that the dressed figures, of which your informant complains, involve, at worst, anything more than a great breach of taste. The Church actually

wishes to discourage them; but finds it, for reasons which it is not hard to understand, exceedingly difficult. The simple country people take great delight in ornamenting these figures; and many of their best feelings would be shocked beyond measure by any abrupt rejection of them. Considering the way in which many of the English poor employ themselves, I confess that I, for one, should not be sorry to see them taking interest in such an occupation; though, after all, the greatest allowance should be made for the variety of national tastes and customs. I dislike the appearance of these figures; but, were I a foreign Catholic, I could easily bear with them, in consideration of their involving no intentional irreverence, but, at worst, a mistaken sense of devotion.

"Next, with respect to the veneration of relics. If the relics at St. Gudule be genuine, who will deny that they ought to be treated with all the devotion which the Bishop claims for them? If we can sympathise with the feeling which leads an affectionate wife to kiss the picture of her husband, or any other cherished memento of him, why should we be intolerant of the motive which prompts the most ardent devotion towards a (supposed) portion of the very cross on which our Lord suffered ? If it be replied, that the relics are fictitious, this is a different question,-but I do not understand such ground to be taken by your correspondent. And if they be questionable merely, every catholic-minded person (at least) will agree that credulity is the safer side. As to the popular objection against the multiplication of the cross, a writer of our own Church has warned us against objecting to alleged ecclesiastical miracles on grounds which infidels take in their attacks on Scripture. (Newman's Preface to Fleury)

66

Again, with respect to our Blessed Lady. It is true, that much of the language which individuals of the Roman Church are accustomed to use in speaking of her, is startling to our ears; yet is it enough to show merely that the strongest words are used respecting her, unless we can also prove that the supreme honour of the Blessed Trinity is at the same time impugned? This, however, has never been attempted to be shown in the case of the Roman Church. Surely, considering the unparalleled and unspeakable nature of the Blessed Virgin's prerogative, the very most extreme language which could be used of her must fall immeasurably below the truth. So long as all which is said of her is said with an implied reserve in favour of Him who differs from her, and from all his creatures, in kind, and not in degree merely, I cannot see how the Divine honour is, in the slightest degree, entrenched upon, even by the most exalted devotion towards the Blessed Virgin. Even of baptized Christians, early writers do not scruple to speak as deified, (partakers of the Divine nature,)-why then resent the title of Diva Liberatrix, as applied to the highest of all created beings, who is also the channel to us of the blessings of redemption? And, again, if the doctrine of the Intercession of the Saints be admitted at all, (and something very like it is recognised in the admirable letter of your correspondent Laicus, in your last paper,) I can see no impropriety in using even the phrase 'refuge of sinners' in speaking of her whose mediation (subordinate and dependent mediation of course,) must be effectual just in proportion to the greatness of her dignity among glorified saints, and the intimacy of her relation to her Blessed Son."

This is not worse than scores of extracts which might be collected from Tractarian publications in town and country. And yet Dr. Pusey would have us believe that his system is a preservative and the only effectual preservative-against Popery. There is nothing in the records of Trent, or the writings of any wary Romanist advocate, such as Bellarmine and Bossuet, that is more flagrantly anti-scriptural and casuistically Jesuitical, than the admissions and arguments in the above quoted passage from the pen of a professed member of the Church of England, and probably a clergyman who has solemnly subscribed its formularies. It were superfluous to reply to such a paper: it is sufficient to have exhibited its contents. Those who hold such opinions are not members of the Church of England; and the sooner they renounce her communion and go over to Rome, the better for their own honesty and consistency, and for those whom they deceive under the mask of Anglicanism.

BEACON.