DEAN STANLEY confesses that baptism in the apostolic age was immersion; that this "is the very meaning of the word baptize;" and that "on philological grounds it is quite correct to translate John the Baptist by John the Immerser." He also says that the subjects of apostolic baptism were believers only; and that infant baptism and the use of affusion and aspersion arose in post-apostolic times. This would seem to condemn both the theory and practice of the English church, to which the Dean belongs. So it does in fact; yet the Dean himself does not. How can he avoid it, after such an avowal? His position is that "the spirit which lives and moves in human society can override even the most sacred ordinances." The N. Y. Independent "raises a question" on this, and says, "If one party can justly change both the form and subjects of the ancient rite, it may be asked why 'the spirit which lives and moves' in another party may not (with the Quakers) dispense with water baptism altogether." It will be noticed how readily the wisest men who call themselves Protestants take the ground of the Catholics when they try to justify a departure from the letter of the sacred word. "The power of the church," is the ground of appeal with the Romanist. Dean Stanley has not at all improved it when he refers the right and power to "the spirit which lives and moves in human society." What if this spirit in human society should choose to dispense with this ordinance, as here suggested, or with all the ordinances, or with the whole Bible, and dictate a way of its own choosing instead? Will not this be just as well? It will only be carrying out the principle laid down by the eminent Dean, and followed by the multitude, both Catholic and Protestant. We strongly distrust this "spirit which lives and moves in human society," which presumes to amend and professes to improve the ways of the Lord's appointment. It seems to us to be very closely allied to "the spirit which now worketh in the children of disobedience." Eph. 2:2. If we "try the spirits whether they are of God," 1 John 4:1, we shall find it to be the "spirit of error." And why? because it teaches to err from the divine precepts. The Pope, in all his presumption, never essayed to do more than this,—to release from that which the Lord has said, and to bind to that which the Lord has not said. The Independent applies this principle to other subjects, and among them, to the Sabbath. It clings to Sunday, and yet tells some honest truth which ought to wake up the dormant sensibilities of some who are daubing a slight wall with untempered mortar. It says:— "The discontinuance of the observance of the seventh day is another case in point. True, there are grounds for sanctifying the first day; but how do these furnish a reason for the abandonment of the observance of the seventh? That Christ rose on the first day and that the disciples assembled for worship on that day may make that day sacred; but how do these things make the seventh day less sacred? The consecration of the new day would not necessarily make it 'take the place' of the old day of rest; but would simply give an additional sacred day. Indeed, the Apostolic Constitutions command the keeping of both days. They say (Book vii, 22): 'Keep the Sabbath and the Lord's Day festival, because the former is the memorial of the creation and the latter of the resurrection.' And again (viii, 32): 'Let the slaves work five days; but on the Sabbath day and the Lord's day let them have leisure to go to church for instruction in piety. We have said that the Sabbath is on account of the creation, and the Lord's day of the resurrection.' Those who laid down these rules evidently regarded the Lord's day as not superseding the ancient Sabbath; but merely as additional to it. The fact is, there is not a line of Scripture to justify the discontinuance of the observance of the seventh day. It must be justified, if at all, on extra-scriptural grounds." Here it seems, with the majority of authors on this subject, to labor under a strange misapprehension as to what it takes to sanctify or make holy a day for observance. The fact that a certain event took place on a certain day does not prove that the day is sanctified. The resting of the Lord on the seventh day did not make it holy; but the resting furnishes the reason for its sanctification—not by the people, but—by the Lord himself. Thus we read in Genesis: "And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because that in it he had rested." The act of sanctifying was entirely distinct from the resting. Again, in the commandment:—"For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore [for this reason] the Lord blessed the Sabbath day [the day of the rest], and hallowed it." To show a parallel reason for observing Sunday, it is necessary, not merely to prove that Christ rose on the first day of the week, but, to show that God blessed and hallowed the first day because of that event. Who has yet made the attempt to show that Jehovah sanctified the first day as an act supplementary to the resurrection of Christ? Until this is done, let no one claim reasons for keeping the Sunday equal with those for keeping the seventh day—the sanctified rest day of Jehovah. And we deny "the power of the church," in the premises. We deny that "the spirit that lives and moves in human society" has any right to lay its hands upon the statutes of the Most High. Is it possible that Protestants shall join with the "mother church" to fulfill every part of Dan. 7:25? It surely looks that way now. A LETTER from a sister east of the mountains, in conversation with a brother, in which he referred to the commandments, said:— "I am glad to hear you say these things; but I do not see how the commandments can be kept. The disciples after the Saviour's death broke the ten commandments, and it is impossible to keep them now." Let us notice this extraordinary statement:— 1. The ten commandments did exist, and were kept by the patriarchs and other godly men in all previous ages, or the Saviour would not have said, "it was written." Therefore it was a wrong thing then, as well as now, to commit adultery, to steal, to murder, to covet, bearing false witness, etc., as much now exist, as ever they did. And I bid the writer show me any text that did where the Saviour said they did so,—if they were abrogated, so prevalent to the present time, the law does not sanction a wrong requirement, in the premises. And as to that which the writer says concerning it, it does not rest on the law; and certainly not the law "which was set forth by Moses." The law from the beginning was holy, and how is it that the Saviour commands to observe it, if it has become dead? The truth is, the law of commandments of that law, is the rule of life and error. Let us notice this both abide. The fact that both abide, and possess the same vitality, we can perceive it. 2. The writer calls it "the law," and "the law of commandments," and it is presumed that he means by "the law" the ten commandments, themselves; and it is a fact that the preacher in his place, takes the position that the ten commandments are a noise; after having himself undertaken to keep the fourth in the position. We now invite the writer to take his pen, and to consider the subject of the law in the Old Testament. He has declined. We will here state that the position which the writer has taken, is this assumption: That the law was abrogated by the Saviour. Let the reader read the article again, and see that the claim that the law is dead, is false, as we do indeed. The fact is, we see that no such thing ever happened as that no law was given from Sinai; as one that has been abrogated is a false position, which we now have. And anyone who will read the article in the New ... ...tinction, and "the law" is alive. Remember, the writer says, the death of the Saviour has often been called the abolition of "the law," but it has no such law in it. It is a mere dialogue to the writer, and the truth is not in him. "The law" is the law of commandments; clearly the moral law, [not the ceremonial law], and it was never abrogated. That "the law" is the moral law, is justified by the fact that the Gentiles, who never had the law, speaks of the deeds of the law, which is the law of commandments, and the doing of those deeds of the law are required by the Gentiles. The "things of the law" are the things of the law of moral precepts, having the work of the law in their hearts, and showing the work of law in their lives. The (the death of the Saviour) circumcision of the flesh, which was of the ceremonial law, was uncircumcision, the keeping of the law, which is the letter of the law, Romans 2:14, 2:29. Now, let the reader who did read the article in the last article, and we will oppose to him the...