vest, the one signifying into, and the other in, to signi fy at, always when baptism is spoken of. Why then, have we two prepositions eis and en, applied to water, when the idea was neither into nor in, but only at.According to these learned criticts: when a person is in the grave, he is only at it; when he is in the house, he is only at the door; when he is in bed he is only at the side of it; when a ship is in the sea, it is only at the shore; and when a man is drowned in a river, he is drowned at the edge of it. O bigotry! O prejudice !-Not Egyptian darkness, was half so fatal to Egyptian eyes, as thy sable sceptre to the eyes of the mind. The preposition ek, out of, shares the same fate from the hand of the pedo-baptis critics. If they had diligently enquired. they might bave found it also once translated at, in the New Testament-Math. 20, 22. Then we would have at instead of all prepositions. Thus, instead of, he came up out of the water," we would have," he came up at the water." But these wise men prefer from as the English of er, and thus make is synonymous with apo, from. The Greeks were very philosophical in the use of words, and paid more attention to the use of particles than any other people.

I will transcribe from the most celebrated Greek Grammar in Scotland, a few remarks on these prepositions eis, en, ex and apo. "Eis denotes motion to a certain place; for the most part so that what is advancing may be within that place." "EN denotes that something is contained within a certain and limited place.' "Ex or ek denotes that a person departs out of a place; or that any thing is taken out of any other thing."" Apo denotes the departure, or the distance of one person or thing, from the place of another." Such are the interpretations of these four prepositions with regard to their classical import, given by the very learned James Moor, L. L. D. professor of Greek in the university of Glasgow, and a member of the Kirk of Scotland. Moor's Greek Grammar, Appendix, pages 55, 56, 57, 62, ninth edition. All translators and commentators agree in the following remark, viz. To depart from the natural and obvious meaning of any word, where there is not an absolute necessity to make sense with some other word, is contrary to all sound interpretation, and is an inlet to sophistry of the most pernicious tendency. From this species of sophistry,

there is not one pedo-baptist writer on this subject, that can be exempted. They are guilty, every one guilty of it; and most of them to an alarming degree.

We are informed in the Acts of the Apostles, that when the jailor and his household were baptized, “he rejoiced believing in God with all his house." To elude the force of this testimony in favor of the members of the jailor's house having believed, some pedo-baptist writers have said that the phraze "with all his house," might have been more correctly rendered in all his house

i. e. that he walked or ran through all his house rejoicing. This is designed to exclude his family from any participation in his faith or joy; so that it might appear that they were all infants. On this phraze, or rather word, I will subjoin a criticism from an eminent critic: The adverb panoiki (of pas all, and oikos house) is rightly rendered with all his house; for in this sense the LXX. use that word in Exodus 1, 1. "Now these are the names of the children of Israel, which came into Egypt, every man (panoiki) and his house, or with all his house." Josephus also speaking of the law respecting the offerings allotted for the priest's maintenance, says it was appointed, "that they (panoiki) with their whole families, might eat them in the holy city." Antig. C. ch. 4, § 4.

In addition to what I have already said on the households baptized, I beg leave to finish this article with a brief, but comprehensive reply to the argument of the pedo-baptists drawn from these households. It is extracted from a treatise, published by Archibald McClean, Edinburgh, the founder of a large and eminent Baptism Church in that city, and whose works were instrumental in bringing some of the most distinguished pedobaptists in Scotland, to cast their infant sprinkling to the moles and the bats, and to follow the examples recorded in the New Testament-it is as follows:

"We read that Lydia was baptized, and "her household;" that the jailor was baptized, "he and all his, straightway;" and that "Paul baptized also the household of Stephanas." These passages are urged as exhibiting examples of baptizing infants, taking it for granted that these houses contained infants, who were bapti zed upon the faith of their parents.

But this is only begging the question in debate. It must first be proved that there were infants in the houses mentioned, for there are many houses without them: and though this were done, which it never can, it still remains. to be proved that they were baptized; for the universal expression all the house sometimes signifies only the adult part of it. Judges 9, 6, "And all the men of Shechem gathered together, and all the house of Millo, and went and made Abimelech king." But the scripture account of these baptized households demonstrates that they are not infants. All the house of Cornelius feared God, and received the Holy Ghost-Lydia's household were 66 comforted as brethren"-the word of the Lord was spoken to all in the jailor's house, and they all rejoiced, believing in God, as well as himself all the house of Crispus belleved on the Lord, and the house of Stephanas addicted themselses to the ministry of the saints. Now if these things, which are affirmed of all the baptized, will not apply to infants, then it is plain there were no infants baptized in these houses."

No. Zie

THE COVENANTS.

BERITH, in the Hebrew language, Diatheke, in Greek, Foedus in the Latin, and Covenant in the English, represent the same idea. These words, though used to express the same idea in those languages, are in some respects different in meaning from one another. Berith primarily signifies a purification sacrifice, a choosing, or friendly parting; and is the word uniformly used in the Old Testament for covenant. Diatheke signifies a disposition, appointment, testament, covenant or dispensation-and is translated into Latin by foedus, testamentum, dispositio. Covenant signifies, from its etymology, to come together, to agree-or a coming together, an agreement. Because sacrifice and a friendly parting were the circumstances of covenant transactions, Berith became metaphorically a suitable name for such transac

tions. And because there was something appointed, dis pensed, guaranteed or established in such interviews, Die atheke became a proper expression of the transaction. And because the parties agreed and parted in a friendly manner, the term covenant became a suitable name for it. The word testament is often used for it, because of its be ing the usual name for the will, disposition, or arrange. ment of the testator's effects, which is rendered valid by his death-the term dispensation, so much in use, is also a very suitable term says Parkhurst, and with him I perfectly agree, for a constitution or dispensation is as expressive of the received sense of the term Diatheke, as any word in our language.

I would here observe that Mr. Brown's definition of a covenant, in his catechism, is not correctly true as applied to the divine covenants. It may apply to human covenants. "A covenant," saith he, " is an agreement between different parties on certain terms." This is that erroneous opinion which Mr. Parkhurst in his Dictionary mentions, under the word Diatheke, that has been built upon ren. dering this word covenant so generally, viz. "As if polluted guilty man could covenant or contract with God, for his salvation; or had any thing else to do in this matter, but humbly to submit and accept of God's dispensation of purification and salvation through the all atoning sacrifice of the real Berith or purifier, Christ Jesus.' The divine Covenants are, sometimes, called commands in the sacred scriptures, to denote the authority which institutes them, and the duties they obligate to perform-they are sometimes called promises, because of the grace and goodness promised or guaranteed to the subjects of them; but a general acquaintance with the various transactions called covenants or testaments in the sacred scriptures, will render these distinctions obvious and striking.

1. The Covenant with Adam..

The transaction which took place in Eden betwixt God and Adam, has been long called a covenant-it has not, however, plainly received this name in the Bible.Some read Hosea 6, 7, to favor this idea, "they like men, (Adam in the original,) have transgressed the covenant.' This is the only place in all the scriptures, that audes

to that transaction, under the term covenant. We have no objection to calling it a covenant, provided the term covenant be understood here, as it is in all those places, where it is used in the scriptures to express the divine Covenants or appointments to men. In Genesis 2d and third chapters, it is called a command. "And the Lord commanded Adam, saying of every tree, &c."-The particulars of this transaction are the following:

1. A command to Adam requiring obedience, as the tenure of his enjoyment of the felicity in which he was placed.

2. This implied his actual enjoyment of his condition while he was obedient-It was then a promise or guarantee to him of the continuance of life and enjoy. ment of Eden.

3. The penalty or punishment threatened was his death, and exclusion from bliss-"In the day thon eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

4. The token or seal of this transaction was the tree of life, which was to him a token and formål guarantee that life would be enjoyed, on condition of his obe dience.

Upon the whole premises we must observe, that in this whole transaction, Adam was entirely passive. He stip plated nothing. He acceded to every thing which God proposed. The sovereignty and absolute dominion of God and the absolute dependence of Adam, is clearly asserted in it. It was then purely a dispensation or constitution of things wholly of God, and was not, as Brown of Haddington says, "an agreement between different parties on certain terms"-Adam proposed no terms, and was never asked whether or not he agreed to the Divine command. If Adam in paradise was thus treated as a needy dependent and absolutely at the disposal of his creator, without the liberty of stipulating any thing, shall we, or can we suppose, that, at any period, subsequent to the fall, any man could enter into covenant with his maker, as one man enters into covenant with another!

2. The Covenant with Noah,

The next Covenant, or dispensation of things, of which w read, was 1659 years subsequent-to man's violation