entirely hid the true and spiritual sense, and put an external rite where the whole context demands the work of the Holy Spirit. One Lord,-even Jesus Christ who made atonement,—one faith, or glorious system of truth to be believed, and one regeneration, -the glorious result of the application of that truth by the Holy Spirit! How incongruous to place an external rite in such relations, and, especially, so to exalt external baptism, and to say nothing of the Lord's Supper!

Through the same external, formal habit of mind, the beautiful and spiritual sense of Eph. v. 26 has been lost, though the washing is expressly declared to be by the word of God-v

par; and the spritual sense of dwp is overlooked, though God has expressly used it as a symbol of truth. "I will sprinkle clean water on you, and ye shall be clean."

So also the spiritual sense of Titus iii. 5 is drowned beneath the flood of external baptismal regeneration, though the language is exactly adapted to express the beginning and progress of spiritual life, or regeneration and sanctification—λουτρὸν παλιγγενεσίας denoting the first, and ἀνακαινώσις πνεύματος ἁγίου the progressive sanctification, caused by abundant effusions of the Holy Spirit.

Finally, not only is it true that external baptism is not meant in Rom. vi. 3, 4, and Col. ii. 12, but it is also true that there is no reason to think that any part of the language is taken from that rite.

For,

1. Even had there been no external rite, but internal baptism only, the force of the analogy would have called for the use of burial in both of these passages. In speaking of the spiritual crucifixion, death, and resurrection of the believer, how could Paul help inserting burial?

2. The real origin of the language is obvious. Christ was buried in fact, as well as crucified, and the same series of events, that furnished to Paul all the rest of his figures, would naturally furnish this.

3. The genius and habits of Paul's mind demand this origin;

for it was not external baptism that was daily before his mind, but the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ.

4. The supposed connexion or similitude between the word βαπτίζω and burial, does not exist; for βαπτίζω means to purify, and, therefore, would not suggest the idea of burial. Such, then, is the proof of the position originally stated, that the baptism, burial, resurrection, &c., spoken of in Rom. vi. 3, 4, and Col. ii. 12, are all internal, and that the passage does not refer to the external rite at all, nor derive any of its language from it; but that the language would have been just as it is, if the rite had been administered by sprinkling alone, or even if there had been no external rite whatever.

§ 37. Apostolic practice considered.

After what has been said, but few words are needed on this point. It is plain,

1. That to us it is of very little consequence, what their practice was; for the command was only to purify, and God attaches no importance to any one mode rather than another.

2. It is not possible decisively to prove the mode used by the apostles; for if going to rivers, going down to the water and up from it, &c., create a presumption in favor of immersion, so does the baptism of three thousand on the day of Pentecost, in a city where water was scarce, and of the jailor in a prison, create a presumption in favor of sprinkling.

And if a possibility of immersion can be shown in the latter cases, so can a possibility of sprinkling or pouring, be shown in the former.

3. The command being to purify, and the facts being as stated, the decided probability is that either sprinkling, pouring, or immersion, was allowed, and Christian liberty was everywhere enjoyed.

4. A tendency to formalism led to a misinterpretation of Paul in Rom. vi. 3, 4, and Col. ii. 12; and this gave the ascendency to immersion, which increased, as before stated, till it became

general, though it was not insisted on as absolutely essential on philological grounds.

5. Various causes, even in the Roman Catholic church, at length produced a relaxation of this excessive rigor of practice. And most Protestants, at the Reformation, took the same ground. But,

6. A mistake in philology, after the Reformation, introduced a practice stricter and more severe than even that of the Fathers, and which reprobates Christian liberty on this subject, as a corruption of the word of God; because various causes induced even the Roman Catholic church to relax a little of the excessive strictness of antiquity. I know that all that comes from the Roman Catholic church is à priori suspicious. But bad as that church is, no one can deny that there is some truth there. The view I have advanced, I hold, not on her authority, but on its own merits. And I will not reject or deny a truth, even if it is found in a corrupt church.

§ 38. Final Result.

3

It appears, then, that the whole subject turns on three points : 1, the import of Barrigw; 2, the significance of the rite; 3, early practice. On each, the argument in favor of immersion rests on a petitio principii. 1. It is assumed as improbable that Barriw can mean purify, without respect to mode, if it also means, in other cases, immerse. The falsehood of this assumption has been shown, the existence of an opposite probability proved, and the meaning purify clearly established by facts. 2. The improbability of internal baptism in Rom. vi. 3, 4, and Col. ii. 12, has been assumed, and external baptism has also been assumed without proof. It has been shown that the external sense, and not the internal sense, is improbable, and that against the external sense there is decisive proof. It has also been assumed that the practice of immersion by the Fathers and others, is proof of their philology, and that, therefore, they must have regarded the command to baptize as a command to immerse. The falsehood of this assumption has

also been clearly shown. the mode of purification we may enjoy Christian liberty; and that immeasurable evils attend the operation of those principles, by which many are now endeavoring to bring the church upon exclusive ground. There is no objection to immersion, merely as one mode of purification, to all who desire it. But to immersion as the divinely ordained and only mode, there are objections, deep and radical. We cannot produce unity by sanctioning a false principle; our Baptist brethren can, by coming to the ground of Christian liberty. The conclusion, then, to which I would kindly, humbly, affectionately, yet decidedly come is this: "Stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage."

The result of the whole is, that as to

The argument is now closed. I intend only to add a few words of a practical kind, as it relates to the translation of the Bible, the unity of the church, and Christian communion:

NOTE.

The reception of Dr. Carson's first reply to me, induced me to change the purpose announced at the close of the preceding chapter, and again to reinvestigate the whole subject. The result is contained in the next part.

PART III.

FIRST REPLY TO Ꭰ Ꭱ . CARSON.

CHAPTER I.

GOD in his providence seems to be exciting unusual attention to the long continued debate as it regards the mode of Baptism. On this subject, two opposing systems are in conflict. One based on the performance of a specific act—i. e. immersion—the other on indicating an effect, i. e. purification. Each of these systems tends to results peculiar to itself. By these results the true nature of each system will be evolved, and in consequence of them, its soundness will be tested. Such is God's mode of bringing false systems to a close.

§ 39. Present Position of the Baptists.

The system based on the performance of a specific act, is evolved. Let us look at its results, as seen in the present position of its advocates.

The denomination of Evangelical Baptists is large, universally diffused, and very active. It is in all the movements of the church, a constantly operating force. Of course the position they assume as it regards other denominations, is a matter of no small consequence. They have it in their power universally to affect the tranquillity of Zion. We shall therefore briefly consider the position which they do in fact assume. This can easily be inferred by carrying out logically the following principles, that baptism is essential to church membership, and that the command