bears record, that while, at the request of the Jews, the legs of the malefactors were broken, the Saviour being already dead they brake not his. Psal. xxxiv, 20. John xix. 33. It was predicted that he should be with the rich in the state of the dead; (Isa. liii. 9,) and it is also recorded by the various Evangelists, that Joseph of Arimathea, an honorable counsellor, having begged from Pilate the body of Jesus, he wrapped it in fine linen, and laid it in his own new sepulchre, wherein never man before was laid. It was again said, in prophecy, "Thou shalt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption;" and early in the morning of the third day his resurrection was declared to his disciples, by an angel whose countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow. Psal. xvi. 10. Matt. xxviii. 3. And, lastly, it was prophetically declared, "Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast led captivity captive." And so it is recorded, that "while his disciples beheld, he was taken up, and a cloud received him out of their sight." Psal. Ixviii. 18. Acts i. 9. Eph. iv. 8."

"Prophecy has hitherto been literally fulfilled, and there is the same ground as ever for believing that it will still continue to be so. And indeed it is to be remarked, as a singular inconsistency, that even those who are most strenuous in maintaining the spiritual interpretation of all prophecies which relate to the future, seldom pretend that this has hitherto been the way in which prophecy has been fulfilled. They will admit that, in almost all that relates to the past, the predictions have received their plain and proper accomplishment; and just as the time has elapsed, the point for commencing this spiritual fulfilment has been advanced.

"But from the continued operation of the same principle of which up to the present hour we are not left without exemplification-and from the entire absence of all authoritative imitation of any intended alteration, we may reasonably infer-nay, we are bound to believe, that in this respect no such change is designed, and that any interpretation assuming this as its basis, is altogether unwarranted.

"In maintaining the literal fulfilment of prophecy, we are not, however, to be understood as denying that the prophetic scriptures contain many figures, which are only to be explained as figurative language must always be. In pleading for the literal fulfilment of prophecy, we are only asking for it the same principle of interpretation that is extended to other compositions. In every case, except that of interpreting God's word, it would be considered as the highest injustice to an author to change entirely the meaning of the language ordinarily employed, simply because figures occasionally occurred; nor would any one consider himself warranted to interpret even the figures themselves otherwise than in consistency with the connecting statements given, discriminating the one from the other. Yet without the least pretence to divine authority for the principle, statements in scripture, given wholly or partially in unfigured language, are equally subjected to the spiritualizing process, and meanings extracted which nothing less than a new revelation could enable the reader to discover;

or rather, it may be said, which is itself a new revelation, having never been in the written language, to be in any way elicited from it.

"Although the Apostle Paul speaks of the seed of Abraham (Rom. xi. 17-24.) under the figure of "branches broken off," and to be yet again "grafted into their own olive tree," no one supposes that the use of such a figure is a reason for denying that the literal Israel is there meant. Yet such is the very treatment given to the Old Testament prophecies.

"But fidelity to the word of God requires, that where figures do not occur, figurative interpretations be not introduced; and where figures are introduced, that they be really interpreted as such."

DIALOGUE ON RE-IMMERSION.

[Continued from page 229.]

Matthias.-AND what did you think of Mr. Saurin's discourse, friend Rufus?

Rufus. He stated his proposition, and illustrated it with all perspicuity and precision: but his manner is not engaging. He seemed to be all the while imitating I dont know what orator; but one, no doubt, whom he admired. His whole manner is unnatural, that he admires some one more than himself.

and argues

M. But you seem to evade my question.. I inquired not about his manner, nor about the stating and illustrating of his proposition; but, Did he prove to your satisfaction the proposition which he so clearly propounded and illustrated?

R. No. His proposition was, that a person might be converted to God and neither know the time nor the place. Whether true or false the proposition, his proof was inconclusive. His analogies were his main proofs. They were not just analogies; and had they been, still analogies are only illustrations, and not proofs. A person in his dotage may forget the time and place of his marriage; but would it be just hence to argue that he never at any time in his life could tell when and where he was married!

M. Think not, my good sir, that I defend his views. I only desiredto see whether you and I would agree in finding the same faults with bis speech. But if our friend Alexander were here, I would press him on this point. Many of the Regular Baptists contend with Dr. Saurin, that a person may be converted to God, and not know when nor by what means.

R. He would call that metaphysical, or perhaps whimsical conversion; for you know he resolves many mysteries into the speculations of that airy and sometimes fantastic science.

Eugenius.-I am come to apologize for the absence of brother A. this evening, and to request you to meet on to-morrow evening, as duties of paramount importance have called him hence.

M. Will you, then, Eugenius, please present to him this question and the annexed case for his consideration. The question is mine and the case was made out by brother Philip,

QUESTION. Is the Regular Baptist Institution, and the Christian Institution, one and the same institution, or kingdom, as some please to express it?

The case is drawn on the presumption that they are not the same. He sketched it himself in the following words:

"Suppose a Republic, (say Colombia, in South America,) having the naturalizing act the same in form as that of the United States. A Frenchman emigrates to this Republic-is naturalized-becomes a citizen. After some years' residence in that country, hearing of the freedom and privileges enjoyed by the citizens of the United States, he becomes discontented, and resolves to be no longer a citizen of Colombia. Hearing that the naturalizing act under the government of the United States, is the same with that of Colombia, he comes filled with the assurance of being hailed as a citizen. He claims this privilege. The records are examined, and nothing is found relative to his naturalization. He is interrogated. "Where were you naturalized?" "In South America-I became a citizen of Colombia." Here his mistake is discovered; and he is told that this naturalization will not make him a citizen of these United States. He begins, like the good Regular Baptists and some others, to ask the reasons of this, saying that the act is precisely the same. He is told, however, that Colombia and the United States are two distinct Republics, and that one and the same act will not make a man a citizen of each of these Republics. This is the case fairly made out. The New Institution, or Kingdom of Heaven, is as distinct from all other institutions as the United States as a Republic is distinct from all others."

Eugenius. I think I can meet both the question and the case without a moment's reflection. I would, for the sake of argument, answer the question with a fearless and unhesitating No; and yet methinks neither Matthias nor Philip has gained any thing for the cause they so conscientiously plead.

M. I will be glad to hear you dispose of both the question and the case in point.

E. I have already said that I am prepared to admit that the Regular Baptist Institution as a whole, or any other institution as a whole, now existing in the sectarian world, or anterior to the present century for 1200 years, is not identical with the kingdom of Jesus Christ. But will it follow that he has had no kingdom in the world for 1200 years, because no one sect, as such, taken in its whole constitution, laws, manners, and customs, is that institution founded by Jesus!! The Lord's kingdom always exists; he has a people scattered and peeled. The Jewish nation has existed, but not as a nation, for the last 1800 years. They are scattered among all nations. This may be an analogy to illustrate what we mean by the Lord's people now dispersed through many sects, and yet no where, or in no sect, existing as his kingdom. We plead that when any citizen-one who be lieves in Jesus as the Messiah, and has constitutionally assumed him as his Lord, presents himself to a society founded exclusively upon

Jesus, his Apostles, and Prophets, he ought, without a re-immersion, to be accredited as a disciple and fellow-citizen, and cordially received. But this is very different from receiving the whole accredited members of any one sect as citizens of the kingdom of Jesus, and feeling ourselves bound to fraternize with them because they belong to that sect.

M. We expected this answer from what has gone before; but the question to which the case adduced applies, is this: Will the immersion, or the act that introduces one into the Baptist Kingdom, introduce the same subject at the same time into the Christian Kingdom?

E. It may or it may not: for the same reason that immersion, which brings a person into the Christian Kingdom as you understand it, may or may not bring him into the Kingdom of God, in its true and scriptural import. But let me examine the case adduced. The Republic of Colombia and the Republic of North America represent the Regular Baptist and the Christian Commonwealtns; and the act, outward and visible, which constitutes a citizen in both, is one and the same. But herein is the inapplicability of the case:- -1st. The Colombian and the North American Republic profess not to be the same Republic. 2. They profess not to have one and the same act of naturalization. 3. And in the last place, the affirmation or profession of faith antecedent to the act is essentially different. Now the Regular Baptist Commonwealth and any other christian community, (that of the Christians, for example,) profess to be the christian commonwealth-that is, to be the Kingdom of Jesus Christ.. The Regular Baptists and the Christians profess to have one and the same act of naturalization; and in the last place, they both profess faith in, and vow allegiance to, one and the same head. If to make the case analogous, the disciples professed faith in Jesus as the Messiah and vowed allegiance to him, and the Regular Baptists professed faith in Dr. Gill and vowed allegiance to him; or if they professed no faith but in themselves, and vowed no allegiance but to their own will; then, indeed, I would that if they performed the same act in the most ceremonious way, they are as distinct as Mahomet and Christ-as the Pope and Luther -or as the Colombian and American Republics. But this not being the fact, the case is not pertinent, and affects not the question in debate.

say,

M. I shall let Philip speak for himself. But to me it appears most important that the candidates for immersion should be well instructed in its meaning and design before they are immersed: for it appears that knowledge rather than faith, though connected with it, is of the greatest importance to the enjoyment of this institution and the reception of the benefits promised.

E. In this I am of one mind with you; and therefore I sometimes object to the pressing of persons to be immersed, unless they are previously well instructed in the person, mission, and character of Jesus.

[TO BE CONTINUED.]

EDITOR.

HISTORY

OF THE ENGLISH VERSIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, From the year 1380, till the year 1611-From Neal's History of the Puritans, vol. 2, p. 112-116. Boston ed. 1817.

THE New Testament was first translated by Dr. Wickliffe, out of the vulgar Latin, about the year 1380, and is entitled, The New Testament, with the lessons taken out of the Law, read in churches according to the use of Sarum.

The next translation was by William Tyndal, printed at Antwerp 1526, in octavo, without a name, and without either calendar, references in the margin, or table at the end; it was corrected by the author, and printed in the years 1531 and 1536, having passed through five editions in Holland.

In the mean time Tyndal was translating several books of the Old Testament, as the Pentateuch, and the book of Jonas, printed 1531; the books of Joshua, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, the two books of Chronicles, and Nehemiah. About the same time George Joy, some time fellow of Peter College, Cambridge, translated the Psalter, the prophecy of Jeremiah, and the Song of Moses, and printed them beyond sea.

In the year 1535, the whole bible was printed the first time in folio, adorned with wooden cuts, and scripture references; it was done by several hands, and dedicated to king Henry VIII. by Miles Coverdale. In the last page it is said to be printed in the year of our Lord 1535, and finished the fourth day of October. This bible was reprinted in quarto 1550, and again with a new title 1553.

Two years after the bible was reprinted in English, with this title, The Holy Byble, which is all the Holy Scripture, in which are contayned the Olde and Newe Testament, truelye and purelye translated into English by [a fictitious name] Thomas Mathew, 1537. It has a calendar with an almanac; and an exhortation to the study of the scripture, signed JR. John Rogers; a table of contents and marriages; marginal notes; a prologue; and in the Apocalypse some wooden cuts. At the beginning of the prophets are printed on the top of the page R. G. Richard Grafton, and at the bottom E. W. Edward Whitchurch, who were the printers. This translation, to the end of the book of Chronicles, and the book of Jonah, with all the New Testament, was Tyndal's; the rest was Miles Coverdale's and John Rogers'.

In the year 1539 the abovementioned translation, having been revised and corrected by archbishop Cranmer, was reprinted by Grafton and Whitchurch, cum privilegio ad imprimendum solum. It has this title, The Bible in Englyshe, that is to say, the Content of the Holy Scripture, both of the Olde and Newe Testament, truely translated after the veritie of the Hebrue and Greke Texts, by the diligent study of divers excellent learned men, expert in the foresayde tongues. In this edition Tyndal's prologue and marginal notes are omitted. It was reprinted the following year in a large folio, proper for churches, VOL. III. 23