could one be raised out of any thing in which he was not first buried or submerged? The Apostle was inspired, and not only this, he was historically and personally acquainted with the church of Corinth. He had founded it. He had himself baptized some of them. He, therefore, speaks both from inspiration and personal knowl edge. The statement made in this chapter is, therefore, as reliable as it is explicit. So clear is it that all the commentators on my table, with the exception of one, (and they are all Pedobaptists, or defenders of the Papal rite of aspersion,) agree that Paul's allusions here are doubtless to the ancient custom of immersion. Stuart, of Andover, is that exception, and it is the most unclassic, unwarrantable and inexcusable aberration in his volume on the Romans. His strongest and last observation, for argument I cannot call it, is "I cannot see, therefore, that there is any more reference to the modes of baptism than there is to the modes of the resurrection. The one may as well be maintained as the other."* And who does not say that the one may as well be maintained as the other; for should we regard baptism as a commemorative rite, is there not a resurrection as well as a burial indicated in the act? We are passive in being buried and raised again. And is there not an analogy in Christian baptism to a burial and a resurrection? And who contends for a literal burying or resurrection in baptism? The defence of sprinkling the face is still more lame--a thousand times more lame than the opposition to immersion. Indeed, our rising again out of the water is so apposite an allusion to our new life in Christ that Paul, to the Colossians, after speaking in the same bold figure of baptism, adds by way of exhortation: "Since you have been raised with Christ, set your affections on things above and not on things on the earth." But we have Tholuck, Macknight, Chalmers, and not to enumerate all other critical commentators and distinguished scholiasts-I may say we have all the great commentators with us in conceding that Paul here alludes to the ancient custom of immersion.

But to return. Does the Apostle, Sarah, carry his allusion to baptism farther than to the resurrection of the body out of the water?

Sarah. From your former instructions on this passage I would conclude that-the sentence-"that like as Christ was raised from the dead, by the glory of the Father, even so we shall," also, in consequence of our burial and resurrection in baptism with Christ, walk in newness of life. Because indeed, our risen and exalted

Stuart on the Romans, p. 254.

Saviour now lives in a spiritual and glorified state. For this reason we are said to be crucified, dead and buried with Christ, that the body of sin, the old man, might now waste away as the dead bodies of those buried waste away and return to dust, so we should mortify the flesh and its passions, and live a new life. In one sentence, we should now live to God, and not to sin nor to the flesh. Sin, therefore, should not live or reign in our mortal bodies.

Olympas. As, then, we hope to live and reign with Christ, and, joyfully anticipate a real resurrection from the dead, we should, indeed, live to God. How, Susan, live to God?

Susan. As dead to sin, buried and raised with Christ, our bodily members are to be made instruments of righteousness, to be hereafter employed in the service of the Lord. As we formerly lived to the flesh, we are now to live to the spirit, and to employ our mental and bodily powers to honor and glorify him.

Olympas. True, as while under the reign, rather tyranny of the flesh, with its passions and lusts, all our animal instincts; passions and powers were enslaved to a sordid selfishness, and thus made instruments of unrighteousness to sin; so, now, as alive from the dead, we are to present our members as instruments of righteousness to God, and honor him with our spirits and our bodies, which he has redeemed. Tell me, James, what you understand by the word instruments in this connexion?

James. Instruments are implements, or tools, by which we practice arts. Now the ears, the eyes, the mouth, the tongue, the hands, the feet, &c, may be regarded as the machinery by which the spirit of man operates for or against God, for or against himself--or other persons. Now, as sinners employ these in doing evil to themselves and one another, Christians may employ them in doing good works, useful to themselves and others, as well as honorable to God.

Ephraim. To this view I yield a cordial assent. I have seen those accustomed to sing vain songs, to speak wantonly, to tell falsehoods, to steal, to strike with their hands, and run to do evil; when made alive to God-sing psalms and hymns of praise, 'speak truth, exhort sinners, stretch out their hands in ministering to the comforts of others, weep with them that wept, and work by day and night to relieve the afflicted. Surely such were true converts, glorifying God with their spirits and their bodies, which he has redeemed.

Olympas. This is, indeed, to present ourselves to God as alive from the dead, and to use our members as instruments of righteousness to God. And as an inducement to this course the Apostle

adds: For sin shall not have dominion over you, since you are not under law but under favor. The term gar, translated for, in the 14th verse, is taken in a peculiar sense-according to a use noted by one of our best lexicographers, Bretschneider-as indicating rather what is implied than what is expressed in his discourse. It is a sort of promise here and not causal in respect to any preceding command, or argument. The sense, then, is, you will devote your persons and your lives to God, seeing sin shall not be able to prevent you from doing so, in as much as you are not under law but under favor. This is substantially the view given by Stuart and other distinguished commentators.

"You are not under a legal dispensation, but a gracious dispensation," therefore it is practicable that you thus consecrate your lives -your bodies and spirits to the Lord. This the Apostle illustrates and confirms in the two following chapters.

Here commences a new section of the epistle, which involves some of the most profound views of the remedial scheme, delivered by the Apostle in every one of his letters. It will require much of our attention, and a most religious regard to the scope and design of the epistle, to enter into its full meaning. The remainder of this chapter is of easy interpretation, and needs only to be attentively read in connexion with what we have already considered. But we shall analyze it more particularly to-morrow evening. A. C.

ROME'S PROTEST.

THE following document is what we could not have expected from Rome. It is greatly in advance of what we supposed to be the enlightenment of any club or association at the head quarters of the Popedom. It is, indeed, an admirable protest against Popery, and would not disgrace the most enlightened association in the Island of Great Britain. We commend it to the careful consideration of our readers. A. C.

ROME'S PROTEST.

By our former advices from Europe, we learned that the Circolo Popolare, or popular club in Rome, had issued a remarkable protest against the re-instatement of the Pope, and, in fact, against Popery itself. The paper referred to has appeared, in part, in the English journals, and it is in every sense so remarkable, and so much in advance of what we had supposed to be the state of religious enlightment among the people of Rome, that we really have been thrown

into a state of wonderment, if not doubt, respecting its origin. If it, indeed, is what it professes to be, a marvellous change must have been wrought in Rome, and the Pope may as well prolong his visit to Gaeta. We copy below a few of the most striking parts of the Protest; the whole of it makes a respectable pamphlet. It is headedPresbytsrian

Risposta All' Allocuzione di Pio IX., nel Concistorio di Gaeta, el di 20 Aprile 1849.

Avidity of power, the foolish ambition of a small and peurile mind, weighed more with you than the love of the people and the sentiments of humanity. And what is now most apparent in you? Is it not the love of rule and unmeasured desire of temporal power? Your natural disposition and character are now plain to the whole world. We can afford to smile, in these days, at words such as the right of sovereignty inherent in the apostolic chair, and in the holy Roman Church. Every one knows that the apostles had no sovereignty, and no one who calls himself a successor of the apostles can have any either. That a chair should have such a sovereignty is a most strange thing, and reminds us of the fable where Jove gives a log to be king of the frogs. This language cannot be borne. Let us see if any such right of sovereignty belongs to the Church. We deny it, in the words of the Testament of its divine Founder. If He has said, he left it in writing, that He, the true Head of this church, would have no kingdom of this world, it comes of sequence that no imitator or follower of his can claim any such right in his name. Christ, whom we worship, warned his disciples not to assume to themselves any title of dominion over the people, as this was the prerogative of the kings of the Gentiles, who, in order to exercise authority over them, are called benefactors; "But ye," he said, "shall not be so." (Luke xxii. 25, 26.) You would be king in order to receive tribute from your people, and the more they paid you, the more you called them your most dear children. Have ye ever read in the gospel of St. Matthew, the dialogue between Jesus Christ and St. Peter? You will find it at chapter xvii. 25. These are the words: "When he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon, of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter said unto him, of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, then are the children free." This proves that children and subjects are not one. How, then, dare you, calling yourself the vicar of Christ, overthrow the gospel, and make us both subjects and sons? And this you pretend to do by the power of the church. You have changed this word church to make it stand for ambition and cupidity. While the church was purely Christian, she had no other possessions than those of religion-faith and the Spirit of the Lord. Since she became Popish, (papista,) she has no more heeded these heavenly treasures, has turned her mind to worldly lusts, and became the slave of riches and of power. If we were not able to distinguish between church and religion, we should be led to believe that religion herself had fallen from her own teaching, since in the church we see so many contradictions that we cannot tell whether it is the church of Christ

or of his adversary. And, amongst other things, we happen to know what is the true meaning of this word church, which you and your acolytes repeat to us at every moment. Our parish priest, we remember, used to teach us in the catecism, that church means an assembly or congregation of believers; and since we are the believers, who assemble ourselves, so we thought that we were, properly speaking, the Roman church, which is holy if we are holy, and apostolic if we have the doctrine and spirit of the apostles. What the priests are we are also taught, viz: elders and ministers of this church, having a chief who is called a bishop-that is, a president or inspector. Now, then, who shall dare to take from Christian people the titles and the privileges of the Christian church? The priests, forsooth, and their inspector! If so, we, the church, will punish them for this their arrogance, and, with good reason, will deprive them of the exercise of their ministry, calling others to their place, and doing, as our fathers did, excommunicating the unruly, be they priests or bishops. It is our duty to watch over the rights of our church; and the bishops and priests must carry out our will. If our fathers granted to the chief priest of Rome the privilege of governing the society, we, by the same right, can deprive him of it. The sister churches of France, of Austria, and of Spain, may, for the same reason, turn their chief priest into a king, an emperor, or a president, if they choose. We do not meddle with their affairs, and we demand that they should leave us alone.

To you who, dethroned by the inscrutible providence of God, persist in still raising such an uproor, we will submit some considerations, old and new, as reasons for what has occurred. 1st. Because, after the manner of kings, you have abused the people, by oppressing them and ill using them, and have done this, moreover, in the name of St. Peter and of Christ. 2d. Because, in the gov ernment of this realm, bishops and priests were employed, so that the church, instead of having good ministers to watch over the Christian flock, was neglected and overlooked; the government monopolized all the talent; while the inferior priests were entrusted with the care of the church. The government was conducted by court intrigue, and arts and tricks of cabinets--the church taught false doctrine and a superstitious worship. The first care was given to the heaping up of gold and silver, but none bestowed to giving to the church the truths of the word of God. Hence activity and vigilance among cardinals and prelates-idleness and carlessness among mass-sayers. The one given up to luxury and gluttony, and others to want and misery.

[The writer then goes on to show the evils they have suffered from a union of church and state, and shows that the princely and Pontificial powers can no longer co-exist. He then continues:]

But if you persevere in trying to keep your temporal power, do you not see that you will lose the other? If you, who are a pontiff, cannot be a king, because God no longer wills it, and the people no longer consent to it, you had better attend exclusively to being a pontiff, or else you may cease to be either the one or the other.And here let us speak plainly, since concealment avails not. hold the religion of Christ dear, because we believe it to be true,

We