does, is characteristically a child of his heavenly Father, who makes his sun to shine on the evil and unthankful, and fertilizes the fields of the unjust by the rain from heaven. Is not this, in the most pointed manner, condemning the conduct of the adversary? True indeed, he admonishes to agree with the adversary, and why? plainly, that the evil may be avoided, and no occasion found which can in the least justify this unfeeling conduct.

On verses 29, 30, I would simply remark, that as the word hell in both is Tesvva Gehenna in the original, and as no individual who values his reputation either for scholarship or veracity, will deny that the definition repeatedly given of this term is correct, the same result will follow its examination. Not a solitary instance can be given, where Christ or his apostles understood or used this term in any other sense than that in which it is used in the Jewish scriptures, save the exception already mentioned, which no man who is considered sane, would urge for a moment. With these remarks, I shall now conclude this number, praying that light may yet shine out of darkness, and that the writings which have hitherto been esteemed as a sealed book, which may be a lamp to our feet, and a light to our path.

Yours in the Gospel,

JULIUS.

LETTER 6.

Dear Sir-I pause in the course which I purposed to pursue, that the remarks in your last epistle may receive the most prompt attention. You object-not to any sins of commission found in my first Letter, but to errors of omission; and have dwelt with so much

a

pathos on the use of water baptism, that one might judge by your earnestness, that immersion in water is not only a pre-requisite to Christian communion, but an absolute sine qua non in the article of salvation. To the substance of your statements and authorities I shall now give all due attention. I shall, however, introduce the investigation by some preliminary observations, which, though not coming directly into the. argument at issue between us, may nevertheless be pertinent in this place, and claim some share of our attention.

In the first place, admitting water baptism to be as important as you esteem it, what is the mode, who shall perform it, and on whom shall it be conferred ? Is it merely an initiating ceremony into a church of believers, or has it power to purify the soul from the pollution of sin, as it cleanses the body from outward defilement? Or, secondly, is a repetition necessary to its ultimate purpose, or is trine immersion, as has been largely practised, important to its validity? Or, thirdly, are those who are submitted, or who submitthemselves to this rite, thereby regenerated, as is maintained by Catholics and Episcopalians? Or, fourthly, does it, as was formerly held in defence of infant bap-. tism, cleanse from the fall, so called, or the taint of original and inbred depravity? I ask these questions,. not because I am ignorant of your views on the subject, but to hint at a few of the strange notions which have been attached to this rite by co-existing sects and nations, as well as by those who have been separated by ages, and whose views have necessarily varied through the force of circumstances, and the great disparity in their respective means of information. To your better judgment I now leave these queries, with the single reflection, that the prevalence of a sentiment has no more necessary connexion with its truth, than have the clashing decisions of Popes and

Ecclesiastical Councils. But to leave this digres

sion

L

We agree in the statement, not only that Jesus Christ was immersed in water, but that his immediate disciples practised the rite on others. I am well persuaded, however, that your powers would be tasked to their extent, in proving your assertion, that water baptism was administered to all his disciples---that it was a necessary pre-requisite to communion---or that in any instance before his crucifixion, or in the grand and final commission to his disciples, Christ gave them authority for this purpose.

Having conceded the point as to the practice of Jesus and his immediate followers, you may wish to learn on what ground I now deny the validity of this rite as a positive institution in the Christian church. My reasons are at your service, and shall be given with as much method and plainness as my limited time will permit.

1. We find no direction from our Master of this import. The commission given to his disciples, Matt. 10 does not contain a syllable on this topic, as has lately been conceded by a Baptist publication in this city. The omission is the more remarkable, as they were directed to preach as did the forerunner of Messiah, The kingdom of heaven is at hand. Nor have we any evidence, nor even intimation, that Jesus baptized with water, nor thus commanded his disciples; while we have plenary testimony that he did not do either. Should you object, that nevertheless, the disciples did thus practise, the objection can have but little weight with any, and ought to have none, with those who so strongly contend for immersion in water as a positive ordinance. That Jesus submitted to the rite, is no more proof that the practice was to be perpetuated in his church, than that the ceremony of circumcision, to which he also submitted, was to con

tinue as a symbol in the gospel dispensation. I am sustained by apostolic authority in asserting, that water baptism has no pre-eminence over circumcision, excepting that it is a brighter figure, as being nearer the opening of the gospel dispensation, to which both had reference. To justify what has been said on this point, read the testimony of Paul, Gal. 5: 2, where he says, that those who are circumcised shall profit nothing by Christ: and yet the same apostle circumcised Timothy on account of the prejudice of the Jews. In 1 Cor. 1: 14-16 the same apostle enumerates the few whom he had baptized, thanking God that he had baptized no more, for which he gives the following conclusive reason; "For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel. I inquire now, with considerable confidence-If baptism by water were an important seal of admission into the brotherhood of Christians, and the apostle obtained his knowledge of the gospel dispensation " by the revelation of Jesus Christ," why was this important and positive institution entirely omitted, or utterly disregarded ?-But our surprise increases, when we reflect on the immense field in which this faithful and fearless champion of the cross laboured, and the extraordinary success of his ministry.

We have seen that this apostle practised both circumcision and immersion in water, and that he disapproves both as being entirely beyond his commission. Can any man be led to conclude that this undaunted defender of a crucified Master would shun to declare or to perform a known duty? Let the stripes, imprisonments, and the appalling catalogue of calamities which he suffered even to crucifixion, testify.

2. The baptism of John in water was a lively type and the immediate precursor of Christ's baptism in the Spirit, but a very different baptism, as shall be presently manifested. You have indeed assumed as

fact that these two form but one baptism; on what authority, let the scriptures determine. Water baptism was still considered as belonging to John's particular dispensation, and called by his name, even when the apostles used it. That this was the fact, even after the introduction of Christ's baptism, is evident by Acts 10: 24, 25. where, speaking of Apollos, it is said, that he taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John. Now if the baptism of John and that of Chrrist were one, why call it after the name of the servant, rather than that of the Master? Do you not perceive a force in the conclusion which is very difficult to obviate? But the language of the text intimates another and a better baptism, and this intimation is made certain by the context. In ch. 19: 2. Paul, having certain disciples, said to them, "Have ye received the Holy Spirit since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Spirit. 3. And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. 4. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe in him which was to come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. 5. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." The inquiry is now pertinent-Did Paul re-baptize these, (about twelve in number) with water? or did he baptize INTO the name, or power, or doctrine, of Jesus Christ? In short, was it an outward

*The blunders of the translators in this quotation are so palpable as to be discovered by a very slight investigation. No one will dispute that the use of that uncouth, and now obsolete word, unto, twice used in the 3d verse, is the same as that of in, employed in the 5th verse. All may not know, however, that the same Greek word is used in each instance, which is an obvious fact, and that its true sense is not given in either instance. See a subsequent note on the word for further light on this subject.