thers, tingere, the term used for dying cloth, which was by immersion. It is always construed suitably to this meaning-thus it is, enudati, en to Jordane. But I should not lay much stress on the preposition en, which answering to the Hebrew beth, may denote with as well in, did not the whole phraseology, in regard to this ceremony, concur in evincing the same thing. Accordingly the baptized are said anabainein, to arise, emerge or ascend, verse 16, apo tou udatos-and Acts viii. 39, ek tou udatos, from or out of the water. Let it be obser

ved farther, that the verbs raino and rantizo used in scripture for sprinkling, are never construed in this manner. I will sprinkle you with clean water, saith God, Ezek. xxxvi. 25. or as it runs in the English Bible literally from the Hebrew I will sprinkle clean water upon you, in the Septuagint-Raino eph'umas katharon udon, and not as baptizo is always construed Rano umas en katharo udati. See, also, Exodus xxix, 21: Lev. vi. 27 and xvi. 14. Had baptizo been here employed in the sense of raino, I sprinkle, which as far as I know, it never is, in any use, sacred or classical,) the expression would, doubtless, have been, Ego men baptizo eph umas udor, or apo tou udatos, agreeably to the examples referred to. When, therefore, the Greek word baptizo, is adopted, I may say, rather than translated into modern lang tages, the mode of construction ought to be preserved, so far as may conduce to suggest its original import. It is to be regretted, that we have so much evidence that even good and learned men allow their judgement to be warped by the sentiments and cUSTOMS of the SECT which they prefer. The true partizan of whatever denomination, always inclines to correct the diction of the spirit by that of the party."-Diss. vol. iv. p. 24.

Dr. Macknight declares, vol. i. p. 31. "Castalio has misrepresented the meaning of scripture, in translating baptizo by lavo to wash, and baptisma by lotio, a washing" In his notes he frequently declares that baptism is immersion, and that it ought so to be administered.Rom. vi. 4-6, on which he remarks, "Christ submitted to be baptized-i e. to be be buried under the water by John, and to be raised out of it again, as an emblem of his future death and resurrection." Other extracts

to the same effect were read.

Simon the Jesuit, on Matt. iii. 11, in his translation from the Vulgate, observes, "To baptize literally signifies to dip; and to this day, throughout the east, baptism is performed no other way, according to the ancient practice of the Christians.' These three modern translators with other Paido-baptist critics to whom we shall refer, coincide with our previous remarks.-Yes, all Protestant and Catholic critics of eminence concede this point that immersion is the proper meaning of baptism, and that it does not signify sprinkling or pouring. Our first argument in proof of the position that immersion is the only baptism is that the word baptism, a Greek word, literally signifies immersion only, or what is equivalent to it, dipping or submersing under water. Blackstone says, that in interpreting all laws, words are to be taken literally, or in their common acceptation.

Mr. M. again began :-Mr. C. has got far a-head of me. He is already done with the subject of baptism and has introduced the mode. We travel slowly; but I hope surely. His last address will be noticed in its proper place. I wish you to keep in mind one assertion he made in his last speech, viz. That Calvin and Beza were the first who taught that baptism was called circumcision. This we shall disprove in its proper place.

I came here my friends, to defend the Paido-baptist world from the charges of our opponent. In defending them from his imputations, I proposed first to give you a Divine command for infant baptism. [Here was a long recapitulation of his method and progress.] I have been lately engaged in proving that the two societies were one and the same church. First, because they had the same religion and morality. Secondly, because they had the same inspired names. For instance, they were called the same bride, house, flock, barn, floor, vineyard, kingdom, commonwealth, olive tree, brethren, treasure, Zion, and by other names equally applicable to both societies, and indicative of their identity.

I come now, in the last place under this head to

show that both societies had one and the same cove

nant.

A covenant is essential to a church state. A people cannot be associated into a visible form or society, but upon some grounds, or upon some associating principle, and for some proposed end. This is as true in the state as in the church. In the state there is a certain instrument adopted and recognized as formative of the social compact. This is called the constitution, in which the grand principles are asserted on which the people unite, and in subordination to which, they profess a willingness to be regulated or governed. The end proposed, if not always expressed, is always understood: it is the welfare of the people. Now a covenant bears the same relation to the church, as a constitution does to the state. Indeed we may very consistently, both with the nature of things, and also with the import of the original word translated covenant, call it the constitution of the church. As the body politic, called the state, is inseparably and essentially connected with, nay, built upon, its constitu tion, so the church is indissolubly and necessarily connected with, or built upon its constitution. A number of persons united under a constitution promising temporal benefits, prescribing certain rules, enforcing certain duties necessary to the present welfare of society, is called a state, a nation, or a kingdom. In like manner a number of persons united under a constitution, promising spiritual benefits, prescribing certain rules, and enforcing certain duties necessary to the spiritual and eternal welfare of the society thus associated, is called the church or kingdom of Jesus Christ. Destroy the constitution and the state is destroyed; the bond of union is severed, the union is dissolved. Change the constitution and the state is changed, it is new modified, and cemented upon new principles. If then we change the covenant or constitution, we change the church. This is, we presume admitted on all sides. These things premised, and it is evident that if the covenant on which

the Christian society is constituted into a visible church be the same as that on which the seed of Abraham was constituted into a visible church, then the Jewish and the Christian societies having one and the same covenant, are one and the same church.

Now let us enquire what was the covenant which the church of Israel had, which constituted them a visible church of God. In ascertaining this I will unhesitatingly say, that it was not the Sinaitic covenant, for God had before that time promised to be a God to. the seed of Abraham, and that they should become his people. The Sinaitic covenant we admit at once was done away, but in admitting this, we are prepared to prove that this was not the covenant which united Israel as a church. Mr. C. in his Debate with mr. Walker, labored to show that the Sinaitic covenant was done away. If mr. W. viewed the Sinaitic cove nant as the covenant on which the Jewish church was founded, he was doubtless mistaken, and the triumph gained over him by my opponent, on that view of the matter, does not affect our argument in the least. For instance, the following passage from the Debate at Mount-Pleasant represents mr. W. as holding the covenant at Sinai to be the constitution of that church. [Here mr. M. read extracts, pp. 38, 39, too long for insertion here.}

The covenant which is done away, and with which the new covenant is contrasted is the Sinaitic covenant. Let us hear the Apostle, "But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them, he saith, behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in

my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I

put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: and they shall not teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. In that he saith, a new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away."Heb. viii. 6-13. Here you observe the new covenant is contrasted with that covenant made with Israel, in the time when God took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, that is, when they came to Sinai.

The Apostle also, in his thus speaks: (iv. 22-31.) Abraham had two sons, the other by a free woman. woman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. Which things are an allegory; for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. For it is written, rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. So then, brethren, we are not

Epistle to the Galatians, "For it is written, that one by a bondmaid, the But he who was of the bond