pure water;" where again the symbol, i. e. the washing of the body with pure water, is joined with the thing signified by it, viz. the having the heart sprinkled, purified, from an evil conscience.

In accordance with all this, Peter likewise expresses himself: "The like figure whereunto, baptism, doth now save us; not the putting off the filth of the flesh, [not the mere outward cleansing by baptismal water,] but the answer of a good conscience toward God," i. e. our being purified so that we live with a good conscience, or (as Paul expresses it) "sprinkled from an evil conscience;" 1 Pet. 3: 21.

The Saviour himself has uttered the like sentiment: "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God," John 3: 5; i. e. he must not only be purified by baptismal water, but he must be sanctified, regenerated, by the Spirit of God.

In all these and the like cases, it is perfectly clear that baptism is considered as the symbol of purification or sanctification. It is an emblem of that holiness and purity of life which the Christian engages to exhibit, and which the gospel requires; it is significant of that sanctifying influence of the Spirit of God, which a Saviour's death has procured, and without which all must perish in their pollution.

Even in those controverted passages in Rom. 6: 4, 5, and Col. 2: 12, baptism is connected with the work of the Spirit and is significant of his influence. It is a dying to sin and being raised to a new spiritual life, which is prefigured by it. How greatly this has been overlooked, and how much the import of baptism has been estimated amiss, both in ancient and modern. times, in consequence of overlooking the plain and obvious import of the baptismal rite, no one needs to be told, who has extensively examined this subject.

Why should baptism be made symbolical of the death of Christ? All Jewish analogy is against it. What were all the ablutions and sprinklings of the ritual law designed to prefigure and to signify? Most obviously we must answer, purification. The Jew, who washed his body, or sprinkled it with holy water, was taught by this the necessity that his soul should also be made clean, in order that he might be an acceptable worshipper of that God who is a Spirit, and seeks for spiritual worshippers. How could any thing but his ignorance or superstition overlook this? Yet many a Jew did overlook it, and trusted, as multi

tudes now do, to the virtue of the external ordinance, to the opus operatum, to save him. But neither "the blood of goats nor bullocks, nor the ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean," could do any more of themselves than "purify the flesh;" they were the mere emblems of a higher and spiritual purification.

So it is with baptism. How could an intelligent and spiritually minded Jew ever have regarded this rite as designed to prefigure the death and burial of Christ, when there was not a single thing that bore any analogy to this, in all the ablutions prescribed by the ritual law; nothing even in all those prescribed by the superstition of the Pharisees? The thing is in itself altogether improbable. It is doubly so, when we take into consideration those passages of the sacred writers which I have quoted above, and which shew the views of Christ and of the apostles, as to the symbolical meaning of baptism.

Under the ancient dispensation, the rites were divided into two great classes, viz. those significant of purity or purification, and those significant of atonement for sin. Nothing could be more appropriate than this. Man needed the one and the other, in order to find acceptance with God; the one is the work of the Spirit, and the other of the Saviour who redeemed us by his blood. Is there then any change in the essential conditions of salvation under the new dispensation? None, we must anAre not the significant symbols, then, under the new dispensation, a summary of those which existed under the old? The belief of this spontaneously forces itself upon my mind. The work of the Spirit is still symbolized under the gospel; and a Saviour's blood is still represented. The one baptism signifies; the other is as plainly indicated by the Lord's supper.

Whither must we be carried, if we dissent from this view of the subject, and maintain with many of the Christian fathers, and not a few of our brethren of the present day, that baptism is a symbol of the death and burial of Christ? All analogy is against it; for thus the ancient dispensation was not arranged. The nature of the thing itself is against it. Water, as exhibited in washing, sprinkling, etc. is never an emblem of death and the grave; it is only the image of overwhelming floods, or of mighty rushing streams, that is appropriate to signify the work of destruction. But both of these are foreign to the rite of baptism.

Finally, the explanation of the apostles and of Jesus himself, is clearly in favour of connecting baptism, as a symbol, with the

sanctifying influences of the Spirit of God. The texts produced above, and which are so plainly to this purpose, will not be overlooked by a candid and intelligent inquirer.

How can so much stress be laid, then, upon Rom. 6: 4, 5 and Col. 2: 12, as ascertaining the ancient mode of baptism? Where else in all the Bible is a ritual washing with water an emblem of death and burial? No where; and I venture therefore to say, that it is only moral or spiritual baptism into the death of Christ, of which the apostle speaks in these two passages. I know well, that an appeal against this opinion, can be made to many of the fathers. But I know, too, that by the like appeal I may prove, equally well, that baptism must be performed on naked subjects; and moreover, that it is regeneration and spiritual illumination, and is necessary to our final salvation. And if the appeal be also made against my opinion, as doubtless it will be, to the sentiments of the great body of modern critics respecting Rom. 6: 4, 5 and Col. 2: 12, I must still say, that they appear to me not to have sufficiently investigated the twofold division of the external ritual under the ancient dispensation and under the Christian one, viz. into rites emblematic of purity, and rites emblematic of atonement for sin. Where is the first of these, if baptism is merely a type or emblem of the death of Christ? Have we then two rites under the new dispensation, and both significant of only one and the same thing, viz. the death of Jesus? Is this probable? Is it credible? Can we believe it to be so, without the most explicit testimony?

Yet the nature of the thing itself, and all the scriptural testimony concerning it, indicate that the rites of the new dispensation have an essential correspondence with those of the ancient one. I must regard this as being real matter of fact, until I see the whole subject in a light very different from that in which I now view it.

Once more, then, directly to our point. Is it essential, in order that baptism should symbolize purification or purity, that it should be performed by immersion? Plainly not; for in ancient times it was the water which was sprinkled upon the offending Jew, that was the grand emblem of purification. So Paul considers it, when he gives us (as it were) a summary of the whole ritual of purification, by specifying the most significant of all its usages, viz. that of the ashes of a heifer mixed with water (Num. 19: 17), with which "the unclean are sprinkled," Heb. 9: 13. So too he decides, when he speaks of " drawing

near to God, in the full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience," Heb. 10: 22. So also, even when atonement was made; for although sometimes the blood was poured out at the basis of the altar, and sometimes smeared on its horns, and on parts of the person for whom expiation was to be made, yet the grand significant emblem was that of sprinkling. On the great day of atonement, the high priest entered the most holy place, and sprinkled the ark of the covenant with blood; Lev. 4: 17. Heb. 9: 25. Hence Paul speaks of the blood of Jesus, as "the blood of sprinkling, which speaketh better things than the blood of Abel;" i. e. Jesus' blood calls for pardon, but Abel's for vengeance, Heb. 12: 24. Peter also adopts the same image, so significant to the mind of a Jew: "Elect... unto obedience, through sanctification of the Spirit, and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus," 1 Pet. 1: 2.

Nor was this all. When the whole nation were consecrated to God, at Mount Sinai, they, and the book of the Law, and the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry, were sprinkled with blood, Heb. 9: 19-21.

It is then a perfectly clear case, that the sprinkling of water or of blood, was altogether the most significant mode of purification, or of atonement, or of consecration to God, under the ancient dispensation. And so the prophet Ezekiel speaks of water to be sprinkled, under the new dispensation. After describing the gathering in of all the Jews into the kingdom of Christ, he represents Jehovah as saying: "Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean; from all your filthiness and from all your idols will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you," etc. Ezek. 36: 25, 26.

Is there no significancy, then, in that mode of a rite, which, above all others, is spoken of in the Old Testament and the New, as the emblem of purification and atonement and consecration? Could Jews, who thus spoke and wrote about the application of water and blood by sprinkling, find in sprinkling no due significaney of purification? The question answers itself, after the considerations which have already been suggested. In performing the rite of baptism, then, what are we to aim at? The shadow or the substance? The substance, enlightened Christians should say. But is not the substance the symbolizing of purity or purification? This, I hope, will not be denied. If then water be applied in any such way as to make the symbol or emblem significant or expressive, and highly so,

We have de

then is the main purpose of the rite answered. cided this to be the case, in respect to the Lord's supper; why then should we be inconsistent with ourselves, and deny it here?

After the examples which have been adduced of the significancy of sprinkling, both from the Old Testament and the New, I would hope that none of my readers will be dissatisfied, if I consider this significancy as a point made out. And nowwhat remains? Must I shew that we are not at liberty, without being justly exposed to the accusation of gross departure from Christianity, to depart from the modes and forms of the apostolic church in any respect? I have shewn that all the churches on earth do depart from these, in their celebration of the Lord's Supper; and yet, without any apprehension of being guilty of an impropriety, much less of being justly chargeable with the spirit of disobedience and revolt. I could easily extend this part of my view to many other particulars. I ask those who plead for literal conformity in mode to the ancient rite of baptism, how they dispose of the ordinance respecting the disciples' washing each other's feet, described at large in John c. xiii, and particularly enjoined in vs. 14, 15? Who has repealed the obligation to a literal conformity with this command? You will say, It is the spirit, rather than the letter, which is here inculcated. I accede. But what is the case in respect to baptism? Will nothing but the letter do here? So you may think and reason; but are you not entirely inconsistent with yourself?

Why do we not feel bound, at the present day, to follow the prescriptions of Paul to the Corinthian churches, in c. xi of his first epistle to them? In this chapter, women are directed to appear in puplic veiled; to wear their hair long; and men to wear theirs short; vs. 10-15. Is this matter of obligation now to us? Who believes and practises it? No churches on earth, unless their civil customs lead them so to do. But when and where were the precepts of Paul repealed? Never and no where, if I must answer in the spirit of those, who urge the literal meaning of ẞantiso upon the churches; always and every where, I may answer in another spirit and with other views, whenever and wherever external customs and circumstances differ from those of the Corinthian churches. Mere externals must be things of particular time and place. Dress does not make the man. One dress may be more convenient, or more decorous than another; but neither the one nor the other is an essential part of the person.