yet speaketh." Heb. xi. 4. But Cain, though he believed in God as his creator and benefactor, and, therefore, deemed it proper to acknowledge his munificence by an eucharistical or thank-offering, yet, not being humbled for his sins, nor believing in the promised Redeemer, refused to bring that species of offering which typified redemption by the blood of Christ; and he was, consequently, rejected or disapproved of, as one who obstinately clung to the violated covenantself-confident, and unwilling to be a debtor to grace. A short extract from Dr. Adam Clarke's notes on this passage of scripture, shall close this article of our lecture. Cain, the father of Deism, not acknowledging the necessity of a vicarious sacrifice, nor feeling his need of an atonement, according to the dictates of his natural religion brought an eucharistic offering to the God of the universe. Abel, not less grateful for the produce of his fields and the increase of his flocks, brought a similar offering, and by adding a sacrifice to it, paid a proper regard to the will of God, as far as it had then been revealed, acknowledging himself a sinner, and thus, deprecating the divine displeasure, showed forth the death of Christ till he came. Thus his offerings were accepted, while those of Cain were rejected; for this, as the apostle says, was done by faith, and therefore he obtained witness that he was righteous, or a justified person, God testifying with his gifts, the thank-offering and the sinoffering, by accepting them, that his faith in the promised seed was the only way in which he could accept the services and offerings of mankind."

Did God, then, abandon the unbelieving Cain, and allow him no farther time or space for repentance? Far from it. Even when he became wroth, and his fallen countenance betrayed the blasphemy of his heart, God," who delighteth not in the death of the wicked," con

descended to expostulate with him, in a manner eminently calculated to bring him to repentance, and the acknowledgment and love of the truth. "Why art thou wroth, and why is thy countenance fallen? If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door." In the words of our Saviour to the unbelieving Jews, we have a short but excellent comment on this address of the Most High to Cain: "Ye will not come unto me, that ye might have life!" Cain knew the terms of salvation as well as his brother Abel; and if he refused to comply with them, he must abide the consequences. The righteous Lord loveth righteousness, and cannot do an unrighteous act. His word of threatening, as well as of promise, must stand fast, and be unbroken for ever. "The soul that sinneth, it shall die." Cain had sinned; and if he refused to accept of redemption through the mediation of the second Adam, the Lord from heaven, he must die. Yet he might have life-a ransom was provided. "Sin lieth at the door." This passage may, and we think ought to be rendered, a sin-offering coucheth at the door; that is, a lamb, for a sin-offering, lieth at the door of the sheep-fold. And it seems to be implied that, if he would bring such an offering, in faith, as did his brother, he should be pardoned and accepted. And though he began to meditate mischief against Abel, from the base principle of envy, God, as if to prevent the horrid deed that ensued, assured him that none of his rights or privileges, as the first-born, were at all abridged-that Abel would still render him all due respect, and treat him, in the family circle, with that deference and submission which belonged to the elder brother. But all this could not satisfy his jealous soul, or melt his obdurate heart. He regarded the ways of God as unequal, and resolved

that Heaven's favourite should feel the weight of his vengeance. He talked with his brother-probably disputed with him on religious subjects, and, having lured him into the field, rose up against him, and slew him, as an apostle informs us, because his own works were evil and his brother's righteous. Mark, here, the difference between him that serveth God and him that serveth him not. Abel was a believer, a professor of godliness; he, therefore, suffered persecution-his career on earth was short-his death was premature and violent. But he suffered for righteousness' sake, and he was blessed, in his deed and in his end. He may be considered as the first martyr; and he probably now leads the van of that noble army of witnesses for the truth, which, encircling the throne of glory, cry with a loud voice, "Salvation to our God, and to the Lamb, for ever and ever."

Let us learn from the subject of this lecture the importance of worshipping God in spirit and in truth, and the necessity of a believing regard to the Lord Jesus Christ, in all our endeavours to honour the Creator, and to secure the Divine acceptance of our persons and services. We are sinners: and heaven is inaccessible to us, save through the merits and intercession of the divinely constituted Mediator, in whom it hath pleased the Father that all fulness should dwell. From that fulness may we receive, and grace for grace!

W. N.

FOR THE PRESBYTERIAN MAGAZINE.

Brief Review of a Debate on Christian Baptism, between Mr. John Walker, a Minister of the Secession, and Mr. Alexander Campbell, a Minister of the Baptist Church; in three Letters to a Friend.

LETTER III.

(Continued from page 348.) Having in my last letters briefly

reviewed Mr. C.'s book so far as respects the church of God, and the right of infants to baptism, before I enter upon a review of the mode, or action of baptism, it may not be amiss to present you again with some of his rules respecting positive institutes, that you may see how far he is himself governed by them on this part of the subject. "In positive institutes we are not authorized to reason what we should do, but implicitly to obey-and can there be a positive institution without a positive precept or precedent authorizing it?" It may also not be amiss to set before you the 99th question of his new catechism, with its answer. “ Q. How do you view all Pædobaptists with regard to this ordinance of baptism? Can you, according to the scriptures, consider them baptized persons, or do you consider them as unbaptized? A. There is only one baptism, and all who have not been immersed in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, after professing the faith of the gospel, have never been baptized, and are now in an unbaptized state."

You will have perceived, that according to this answer, not only infant baptism, but the baptism of adults, if not by immersion, is a nullity; and consequently, that there is no church of God, no lawful ministry, amongst Pædobaptists: and you will reasonably expect, that for the purpose of showing us our exceeding great error, according to his own rule made and provided for this case, he will tell us the chapter and verse in which it is said, that baptism is to be administered by immersion only; and that baptism administered in any other mode is null and void: and further, you will also expect, the words of this chapter and verse to be so clear, and distinctly defined, as to admit of no other meaning, and like axioms to involve their own evidence. And is not this the case? Not at all, sir. His rule of "positive precept and

precedent," is only to be urged when little children are to be driven out of the church, where they had been planted by Jehovah himself; but abandoned, as of no manner of use, when the right of women to the Lord's supper, or immersion, is the question. He reasons too, and infers, like any Pædobaptist; and instead of telling us where the "positive precept or precedent" for immersion is, he appeals to lexicographers and biblical critics, in support of his opinion. You will not understand me as condemning a recourse to the foregoing authorities, when under the direction of a sound discretion; but you cannot but see how inconsistent, if not ridiculous, it is in Mr. C., who tells us, that "in positive institutions we are not authorized to reason what we should do, but implicitly to obey ;" and more especially when he tells us, that the very existence of the church depends upon baptism being administered by immersion, as it is admitted on both sides that baptism is the mode of initiation. But let us hear him and Mr. W. on the point.

Mr. C. tells us that Mr. W. alleged in favour of administering baptism by pouring the water on the subject, that the Greek verb baptizo, which is translated in our Bibles baptize, does not necessarily signify to dip, but to sprinkle or pour-that the word is used in this sense in Luke xi. 39. "A certain Pharisee asked Jesus to dine with him, and he went and sat down to meat; and when the Pharisee saw it he marvelled that he had not first ('ebaptisthe) washed before dinner:" that it was not his whole body, but his hands, that were alluded to in this passage:-that this was done by pouring water on the hands; and as a proof, he mentioned what is said of Elisha, that he poured water on the hands of Elijah. Mr. W. also alleged, that " BAPTo," the root of "BAPTIZO," " is sometimes used in this sense, and

as a proof of this, mentioned the case of Nebuchadnezzar, whose body is said, Dan. iv. 33, (ebaphe) to be wet with the dew of heaven; but this could not be by immersion, but by the dew being sprinkled upon him.

To this Mr. C. replied by producing, 1. the opinion of Dr. CAMPBELL of Aberdeen, who, in his notes critical and explanatory to his translation of the four evangelists, translates the verb BAPTIZO "to dip, to plunge, to immerse." 2. The authority of SCAPULA, who also renders the word "to plunge, to immerse, to dye, because colouring is done by immersion." 3. The authority of STOCKIUS, who says, that "generally it obtains by the natural import of the word, the idea of dipping in, or immersing. Specially and properly, it signifies to immerse, or to dip-figuratively it signifies to wash, because any thing that is washed is usually dipped or immersed in water." And to these he adds the authority of Parkhurst, who renders it, 1. "To dip, immerse, or plunge in water. 2. To wash one's self, to be washed, wash, i. e. the hands by immersion or plunging in water. 3. To baptize, to immerse, or to wash with water in token of purification." Whence Mr. C. infers that immersion is the uniform meaning of the term, and "that there cannot be found one. solitary instance in all the dictionaries of the Greek language, nor in classical use, that bapto or baptizo signifies to sprinkle or to pour." Let this be remembered.

With respect to his first authority, Dr. Campbell, who says, "that although the words baptein, and baptizein often occur in the septuagint and apocryphal writings, and are always rendered to dip, to wash, and to plunge, the instance adduced by Mr. W. of Nebuchadnezzar's body being wet with the dew of heaven, is a proof that he was mistaken. But this is not all. The late Rev. John P. Campbell, of Kentucky, in