telligent and discriminating pleaders for a restoration of the apostolic faith and practice.

Doctors may require theories to guide them in practice; but he that goes about among his patients, preaching his theories of medicine and of cure, will sooner make them doctors than restore them to health and vigor. Now if every patient must be a physician before he can be persuaded to take medicine, then is he a sound reasoner and a skillful preacher, who would justify the exhibition of a theory of the ancient gospel, instead of administering the word of life—because physicians cannot prescribe medicine without a theoretic knowledge both of it, and of the disease which it is intended to cure.

He that theorizes upon the ancient gospel, and he who opposes the theories of modern gospels, would be better employed in teaching a theological school, than in addressing sinners; provided he could persuade his students when he gave them their diploma, that outside of the threshold of his school they were never to open their lips on such themes. We place the theories of the Five Points, whether sharp points or blunt points, old points or new points, where the Eleusinian mysteries were placed-in the archives of the inner temples, for the benefit of the initiated; and with the same injunctions, that they be kept from the public ear; and the plain, sober, palpable matters of fact-the threatenings, promises, and proclamations of the New Testament be relied on, in addressing sinners, and in beseeching them to be reconciled to God, through Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the world.

Your remonstrances, I hope, will be well received by all those who are unwittingly giving a sectarian aspect to the faith once delivered to the saints; and who, in their zeal, are building again the things which they have destroyed in protesting against the corruptions and corrupters of the Christian Institution.

EDITOR.

NEW VERSION DEFENDED,

And 0. Jennings, D. D. Exposed.---No. III.

ΒΑΡΤΙΣΜΑ.

THE foul imputations which we have had to endure, because we presumed to translate this word, might have made it the bitterest word, to us, in the language of Greece, Rome, or England. What a heat and effervescence of passion has this question about water created! It has kindled fires which all the water in the ocean cannot quench. We had all our sympathies and predilections, as well as our interests and reputation, on the side of retaining it in Greek, and allowing it to be translated sprinkling, pouring, or dipping, as every one willed. But the Monitor from above, as well as that from within, said, 'Not so; and we obeyed. But while obedience is always

pleasant to the soul, it is often painful to the flesh; and we have been tortured, as in the Inquisition, for our presumption. If we were to

be covered in parchment, scrolled over in the finest hand, the mantle would not contain the opprobious epithets, hard speeches, and slanderous imputations which have been uttered against us for this our daring contempt of the authority of the Long Parliament, and the Court of St. James 1.

One of those delicious morsels, spiced and seasoned by one of our warm-hearted friends, yet stands upon record. Jennings' Debate, p. 144:-"Mr. C. pleads the authority of two of his Presbyterian Doctors in justification of this alteration [immersion for baptism] from the old version." Drs. Campbell and Macknight have not only occasionally 'translated baptismos and baptisma by the word immersion, but have contended in their notes that such is their meaning.

"What judgment will the reader form, not merely of the candor, but of the veracity of Mr. Campbell, when he is informed, that after a careful examination of every passage in the epistles, (the books of the New Testament translated by Doctor Macknight,) there is not found one instance of a translation of either of the Greek words contained in the foregoing quotation, by the word immersion, nor one instance in which the Greek verb BAPTIZO, or any of its variations, is translated by the word immerse.

"The only ground which the Bishop seems to have had for the above assertion, so far as it relates to the translation by Doctor Macknight, of the words BAPTISMOS and BAPTISMA, by the word immersion, is his commentary upon 1 Cor. 15:29. Both the translation and the commentary are here given, that the reader may see upon what slender grounds Mi. Campbell can make a round assertion, when it suits his purpose. The translation reads thus: "Otherwise what shall they do who are baptized (UPER TON NEKRON, Supply ANASTASEOS,) for the resurrection of the dead, if the dead rise not at all? and why are they baptized (UPER TON NEKRON,) for the resurrection of the dead?" The commentary upon this verse is as follows:-"1 told you, verse 22, That by Christ all shall be made alive: and ver. 25,26, That he must reign till death, the last enemy, is destroyed by the resurrection, otherwise what shall they do to repair their loss, who are immersed in sufferings for testifying the resurrection of the dead, if the dead rise not at all? And what inducement can they have to suffer death for believing the resurrection of the dead?" Further remarks upon this part of the Bishop's assertion, or plea in justification of his conduct, are deemed unnecessary. A discerning public cannot but see that here is a clear developement of a part of that system of deception which he has, by means of his new version, practised upon the public."

Veracity! aye, veracity! What a beautiful word!-The want of it, what a frailty! But the contrary, what a vice in any man, and most of all in him who handles the word of God, who is truth, light, and love! With how much apparent pleasure do some spirits attempt to filch away the character, moral and religious, from those whose sentiments differ from their own. If so good a man as Mr. Jennings could so

delight in such foul imputations, alas for those who by him were taught Christian good manners!

But what is the matter? We said in note 4th, new version, that Doctors Campbell and Macknight have occasionally translated baptismos, &c., immersion. Mr. Jennings says this is not veracious— not true as respects Dr. Macknight. But yet he, discovering his error, or, perhaps, cooling down a little, finds, before he gets to the end of the paragraph, one place where Doctor Macknight, when he comes to explain, in his commentary, the word BAPTIZO, renders it immersion; and in fact, quotes from Dr. Macknight, the phrase, the identical phrase, which might have put him to the blush-"What shall they do who are immersed in sufferings, for testifying the resurrection of the dead." Now Mr. Jennings, foreseeing the tendency which this quo-' tation would have to expose his imputation of the want of veracity, prefaces it with the words "slender ground." Now if a person have slender ground for an assertion, he has ground; and unless an assertion be groundless, it is not false. Well, we will give him credit for this contrition, for this repentance, slight as it is: But, gentle reader, the careful perusal which our anthor says he gave Macknight, and from which he would have you judge of our veracity, is, indeed, but slender ground for your faith in his assertions. "The only ground," he says, "which the Bishop (with him a term of contempt,) seems to have had for the above assertion, so far as it relates to the translation, of the words BAPTISMOS and BAPTISMA, by Dr. Macknight, is his commentary upon 1st Corinthians, xv. 29." To say nothing of the extracts given in note 4th, new version, I will give a new quotation, which shows what sort of careful examination of every passage in the epistles, this gentleman bestowed, on which he imputes so great a fault to Will the reader take Macknight's translation, vol. 5, page 181, (Boston edition, in six volumes octavo,) and read Hebrews ix, 10, both translation and and comment. I will print it, literatim et punctuatim, as it stands in the copy before me

me.

"Only with meats, and drinks, and diverse (Canμ015) immersions* and ordinances concerning the flesh, imposed until the time of the reformation."

And in his comment, which is always a paraphrase or more liberal translation, he thus speaks, "Which nothing but meats, and drinks, and diverse immersions and ordinances respecting the purifying of the body, impose." &c.

Now, courteous reader, this is the gentleman who impugns my veracity, and who positively affirms that "there is not to be found one instance of a translation of either of the Greek words contained in the foregoing quotation, by the word immersion-nor one instance in which the Greek verb BAPTO, or any of its variations, is translated by the word immerse."!! Comment is wholly unnecessary.

But in the first, second, and now in the third edition of the new version, the following note is found, taken from Dr. Macknight's explanation of the word baptism, as the antitype of the water which

*Doctor Macknight puts in Italics the words he prefers to those found in the common version.

saved Noah and drowned the world. We thought it better, in the first edition, as we could only give a few extracts, to give those which most fully signify the views of the translators. In tracing the type and the antitype the greatest accuracy is necessary, and here we find Doctor Macknight giving his view of BAPTISMOS in the most full and unequivocal style. As all who read this have not access to the note, we shall extract a part of it

"Adam is called the type of Christ, who, on that account, is called the second Adam. Thus also the water of baptism is here called the antitype to the water of the flood, because the flood was a type or an emblem of baptism in the three following particulars:-First, As by building the ark and entering into it, Noah showed a strong faith in the promise of God, concerning his preservation by the very water which was to destroy the antediluvians for their sins; so, by giving ourselves to be buried in the water of baptism, we show a like faith in God's promise; that, though we die and are buried, he will save us from death, the punishment of sin, by raising us from the dead at the last day. Secondly, As the preserving of Noah alive, during the nine months he was in the flood, is an emblem of the preservation of the souls of believers, while in the state of the dead; so the preservation of believers alive, while buried in the water of baptism, is a prefiguration of the same event. Thirdly, As the water of the deluge destroyed the wicked antediluvians, but preserved Noah, by bearing up the ark in which he was shut up, till the waters were assuaged, and he went out of it to live again on the earth; so baptism may be said to destroy the wicked, and to save the righteous, as it prefigures both these events: the death of the sinner it prefigures by the burying of the baptized person in the water; and the salvation of the righteous, by raising the baptized person out of the water to live a new life. These things considered, may not our Lord's words to Nicodemus, Except a man be born again of water, be an allusion to the history of the deluge, and a confirmation of its typical meaning. For Noah's coming forth from the water to live again on the earth, after having been full nine months in the water, might fitly be called his being born of water. Consequently, as baptism is the antitype, or thing signified by the deluge, a person's coming out of the water of baptism, may have been called, by our Lord, his being born of water."

Mr. Jennings, as a matter of course, took no notice of this. With these documents before him, the reader will judge what sort of spirits they are with whom we have to wrestle, in rescuing the people from the deceptions which are, through a false zeal, attempted to be practised upon them. If so good a man as Mr. Jennings did act thus in the plainest matters of fact, what opinion must we form of those who, because of their Presbyterian blood and lineage, are induced to defend the sect and the system, as his nephew of Pittsburg lately boasted?

But we will not, on this subject, further defend ourselves from such wanton and imbecile attacks. The reader, if to be convinced at all, must perceive the grossness of slander, and the recklessness of truth, by which sectarianism defends itself, and assails those who oppose its proselyting career. EDITOR.

Remarks on Rev. Dr. Cleland on Campbellism. No. 2.

THE same 6th number yet lies before me; and here it must lie till its merits are fairly and fully tested. The Doctor attempts to meet us on the Scriptures, and in this number takes up some of the passages on which we rely. We have, in our previous number, examined some of his interpretations; and as this is now before our readers, we shall proceed.

We shall again introduce the Doctor, and let him speak for himself. On the term regeneration his views are as follows:

"The term "regeneration" is used by the inspired and ecclesiastical writers, to express any great change, whether mental or corporal, physical or supernatural, where any resemblance is discovered between that change and a birth: and as baptism is a sign of entering out of the world into the church, and out of a sinful into a holy state, it became customary to express that great change by regeneration, born again, &c. It is plain then, that to be "born of water" is to be baptized, by which we quit a former mode of existence and enter upon a new one, i. e. into a new state of relative existence, or enjoyment of external privileges, and consequently of corresponding obligations: whereas to be "born of the Spirit" is an effect of some operation of the Spirit of God in the mind distinct from and superior to the baptismal rite. In a word, by being "born of water" we become externally and visibly related to the Christian dispensation, we "enter" into the visible church, or kingdom of God. So that as without the external rite of baptism, the outward and visible sign of regeneration, no one can "enter" the visible kingdom of the Messiah; so, also, without the thing signified, e ven regeneration by the Holy Spirit, no man can become a true subject of his kingdom, or be admitted into it; as belonging "to the church of the first born, whose names are written in heaven."

The discriminating reader will, no doubt, perceive that Dr. Cleland and we are agreed in several important matters:

1. That the term (oh! that the reader would remark and remember the TERM) regeneration is used by inspired and ecclesiastical writers to express ANY great change; and as baptism is a sign of entering into the church, and into a holy state, it became customary to express that great change by regeneration, born again, &c. It is plain, then, that to be born of water is to be baptized. Now this is so far our controversy with Dr. Jennings. We have Dr. Cleland with us against his Presbyterian brother Dr. Jennings.

Cleland says that "the phrases to be born again and to be regenerated are equivalent;" and that "it is plain that to be born again is to be baptized;" hence regeneration and immersion are two TERMS representing the same thing. We are much gratified to see a Doctor so learned and pious as Dr. Cleland, give his testimony in favor of the true meaning of the term, however he may talk about his theory. To settle the meaning of Bible terms is more than half our business in this generation. If any Presbyterian should ever happen to read this page, I would ask him one question, viz.-Whether two Doctors of the same church, moved and enlightened by the same spirit, taught and accomplished in the same school, can both be credible authority in a question of criticism, when they expressly contradict each other on the import of a word of cardinal import, and in the application of the