this mystery, that blindness in part has happened to Israel till the fulness of the Gentiles be come in; and so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, Out of Zion shall come the Deliverer, who will turn away ungodliness from Jacob."

Some important facts are here indicated, such as

1. The blind unbelief of the Jews is not to be perpetual; it will come to an end.

2. The fulness of the Gentiles is to be the termination of that partial and limited blindness.

3. Isaiah is alleged by Paul as sustaining his views in predicting a full conversion of the Jews.

Much will depend here on understanding the phrases "the fulness of the Gentiles," and "the fulness of the Jews," their "fall," their "diminution," and "the riches of the world." The argument, verse 12th, is-"Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles, how much more their fulness ?" Again, verse 15th, “If the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be but life from the dead?" Of the many versions and commentaries which we have seen on this passage, not one is fully satisfactory. We cannot now find room for an exegetical exposition of these verses. I shall therefore give my conclusion without the premises. Now if the fall of the Jews from their national rank and privileges has been the enriching of the world, with an exaltation to the rank and privileges from which that nation fell; and if their diminishing in numbers has been the riches of the Gentiles, by the addition of that fraction to the Gentile church, and also by the addition of all its gifts of apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers to the new community, how much more would their fulness-the conversion of the great mass of the Jews-contribute to the riches of the Gentiles? For if all the luminaries of Christianity were Jews, and if the nucleus of the Christian kingdom was Jews, how much would the aggregate mass of that people, newly converted, with all their present gifts of tongues in all the languages of the world, enrich the present Gentile churches and consummate the fulness of the Gentiles? For again, if the casting away of the Jews from their ancient privileges has proved the occasion of reconciling the world, what would the resumption of that people to the participation of the blessings of the kingdom of God be, but life from the dead ?"

Here, then, is clearly intimated a general conversion of

the Jews and of the Gentiles. The fulness of the Gentiles is not yet come, in the sense of Paul; for in that case the blindness and hardness of heart of Israel would have been taken away. For blindness in part happens to Israel, only till the fulness of the Gentiles be come in; consequently the fulness of the Gentiles is yet future.

The fulness of the Jews is to be, perhaps, more complete than that of the Gentiles; "for all Israel shall be saved." It is not said that all the Gentiles shall be saved. The Deliverer that comes to Zion "shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob." But of this hereafter.

But that the Jews will be converted before the final triumphs of Christianity, is farther evident from Paul's second letter to the Corinthians, third chapter. He says that when Moses is now read among the Jews, the vail is upon their heart or head, as it was seen hanging over Moses' faceindicating this blindness of which Paul now speaks. But that the vail will not always hang there, the apostles indicates in the same chapter, saying, "When their heart shall turn to the Lord the vail shall be taken away." then see, and believe, and turn to the Lord.

They will

The xi. to the Romans opens brighter scenes to our vision. A thorough conversion and restoration of Israel to the rank of being once more the people of God in common with the Gentiles-a restoration of them to "their own olive tree," to a covenant relation to God, in virtue of the Messiah's triumph, is the burthen of the prophecy.

That the return of Israel to Canaan is not a matter in which the Christian church is much interested, any more than the Jews themselves, we infer from the following considerations and facts:

1. The return or restoration of Israel to Canaan, is neither promised nor intimated in any form in the whole New Tes

tament.

2. Unless their ancient temple and religion should be restored, and the ancient wall of partition between the Jews and the Gentiles were to be rebuilt, we can discover no great blessing that it could be to the present Jews to take possession of the desolations of many generations, the ruined and dilapidated cities, and the poor impoverished valleys and rocky eminences of Judea. Besides, such blessings as the land of Canaan contained in its best days, so far from being any part of the new covenant promise, they are rather contrary to its genius and design. What have rich hills and

valleys, floods of wine and oil, rivers of milk and honey, to do with the new covenant with the house of Israel!! It would then be true that "there is Jew and Greek in the kingdom of God and of Christ- a state of things no where contemplated; nay, rather, every where discountenanced in the New Testament.

3. Again, if returned to their own land in the style of some of the interpreters, they must have a government and national privileges of their own-a new monarchy of theocracy, or the Lord Messiah in person. David was to be their king politically, when a restored people. Are we Gentiles prepared for this? Have we not proved already that he will never revisit the earth till the last day of all time! And were he to come in person as the Son of David to reign in Jerusalem over the Jews, should we think the Gentiles were at all blessed by such an event? Should we then be "all one in Christ Jesus," as Paul has taught us?

Does

4. But, in the fourth place, we are taught to expect their conversion to the Lord to occur rather in their dispersion, than when seated in their own land for it is through the mercy of the Gentiles that they are hereafter to obtain mercy: for, says Paul in this chapter, "as you in time past have not believed, yet now have obtained mercy through their unbelief, even so have these also now not obtained mercy, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.' not this indicate that the Jews are to be converted through the interposition of the Gentiles? Again, says Paul, “I would not have you ignorant of this mystery, that blindness in part has happened to Israel till the fulness of the Gentiles be come in; and so all Israel shall be saved;" for "out of Zion shall come the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob."

The passage now quoted from Isaiah lix. 20, 21, is translated by Paul, neither according to the Hebrew nor the Greek of the commonly received texts. According to the Hebrew it reads, common version, "And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob." But according to the Septuagint it reads, "For the sake of Zion, the Deliverer will come and turn away ungodliness from Jacob." Paul follows the latter rather than the former, yet makes the Redeemer come not to, but out of Zion. Well, we reconcile them thus: he was to come out of Zion (the gospel church,) and to Zion (the old covenanted

people)-and thus receive again such of the Jews as turn to him for in his providences and by his Spirit "he will take away their sins" according to an ancient covenant, a specification of which we have, Hosea iii. 3, 4. "For the children of Israel shall continue many days without a king, and without a chief, and without a sacrifice, and without an altar, and without a priesthood, and without manifestations; and afterwards the children of Israel shall return and seek the Lord their God, and David (the beloved) their king, and will be amazed at the Lord and his goodness in the last days." Put these predictions from Isaiah lix. and Hosea iii. together, with the words of Paul, Rom. xi. 23. “And even they (the Jews) when they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in (to their own olive tree :) for God is able to graft them in again."

This fully intimates their conversion. It is still more clear in the original than in the common version. It is ean, when, (and not ei, if,) sometimes an adverb of time, and not a conjunction. Many examples can be given, such as 1 John iii. 2., "When he shall appear," not "if he shall appear," &c. &c. But the common version if implies this; for the connexion-the promise of a Redeemer, turning away ungodliness from Jacob, and promising the taking away of their sins nationally, indicates their general conversion. "And so all Israel shall be saved," is Paul's own construction of it. I believe Paul, and wait for the restoration of all Israel to their covenanted rights, amongst which, their adoption to be a portion of God's heritage is one.

This is again farther intimated in another promise_still more plain, because spoken in the New Testament. Jesus says by Luke, "The Jews shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations; and Jerusalem shall be trodden down by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled." Were this the city merely, and not the people that are trodden down, it would be difficult to reconcile it with the facts of history, ancient and modern. But that the people, the commonwealth of Israel, has been so trodden down, all the world knows and attests. But the close of this period shall come: for blindness in part has happened to Israel, (only) until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in; and then "all Israel shall be saved." But yet there is room for farther light. A. C.

DANIEL ISAAC'S BOOK ON BAPTISM.

(For the Christian Messenger and Reformer.)

Hull, 21st March, 1843.

I HAVE been reading the late Daniel Isaac's book on baptism, which is, at present, much circulated among the Wesleyans. Among other oft-refuted arguments, he has repeated the following: "The laying of any weight on its being said, 'were baptized in Jordan,' shews extreme ignorance of the original; for 1st. The word en, here translated in, is in no less than one hundred and fifty places of the New Testament (a learned gentleman has observed,) translated with; and had it thus been rendered here, baptized with Jordan, meaning with the water of the river, it would have been a form of speaking neither more figurative nor improper, than is familiar both in scripture and common life. 2nd. The word is more than one hundred times in the New Testament rendered at, and en te Jordane may most justly be rendered, at the river Jordan." Now, on the face of this, the ordinary reader might inquire, that this Greek preposition had no definite meaning, as Mr. Isaac has not here produced any of these instances of the translation of en by with and at, nor shewn that they could possibly be applied to a river. I have been led to analyse the gospel of Matthew with regard to the use of this preposition, as a fair test of this argument, and the result is as follows: the translators have rendered it in, one hundred and seventy-one times; with, ten times; and at, eight times; besides, in a few instances, within, among, by, and on, which latter do not apply to this case. Now, it must appear plain to the reader, from this statement, that in, is the common and ordinary meaning of the word, and every one who has at all studied language, knows that the ordinary rule of interpretation is, to take a word in its common acceptation, unless by so doing it will not convey an intelligible meaning, in which case he must recur to some other more unusual meaning. But let us examine the translation of the words en, by, with, and at, as occurring in Matthew. Parkhurst, in his Lexicon of the New Testament, never gives it the meaning of at, although it has been a few times rendered so by the English translators. In four cases out of the eight passages, are Matt. xi. 25; xii. 1; xiii. 49; xiv. 1; xviii. 1; xxiii. 6; xxiv. 41; and xxvi. 7; it is applied to time, (not a