outlines of the whole picture. It is not the glorious gospel that fills the mind, as held by all real Christians, but the peculiar solemnity, fitness and significance of the form of immersion, or else the solemn promises made when immersed. And on a mind averse to self-crucifixion, and tending to self-complacency and censoriousness, what must be the moral effect of such appeals as these: "Yes, my brethren, we have been truly baptized. We have been immersed, and now the world looks to us for a proof of its sanctifying power?" Let it be granted that these things are not always said in pride, but often in deep and humble sincerity. But what art can extract the venom they are adapted to infuse, or prevent the inevitable tendency to magnify certain forms, and to freeze the heart of Christian love to all who are without the range of those forms? In multitudes of noble spirits, I rejoice to record it, the last effect is not produced. But it is to be ascribed to other and powerful counteracting causes, whilst, where no such counteracting causes exist, the venom rages unchecked; and we are not obscurely told that it is at least uncertain whether a person unimmersed can ever enter the kingdom of God, and immersion, as of old, practically usurps the place of regeneration. Among the evangelical Baptists this, indeed, is not true; other causes prevent. But there have long been others who equal or even exceed them in their zeal for immersion, and the Mormonites are now to be added to the list. If there is a real sanctifying power in this view, why are such multitudes of men, in all parts of our land, so zealous for it, who yet give no signs of crucifying the flesh with the affections and lusts thereof? The fact cannot be denied. Why is it so? Is it not because it presents, as a cross to be taken up, a mere external rite, and promises, in some way, by the mysterious operation of a form, to enable them to escape the selfcrucifixion they so much dread? And can holy men-men of prayer-sustain that very mode of interpretation on which it all rests, and not, whether they will or no, confirm such men in their views? Let all who are truly holy cut loose from this view, and soon the unholy will sink it by their own moral gravitation, and it will disappear.

On the other hand, the internal interpretation directs the attention of Christians directly to the interior, central and fundamental work of self-crucifixion, under the influence of forgiving love, and declares that true and real forgiveness of sins always indicates itself, by the destruction of the flesh with the affections

and lusts thereof, and it stimulates and aids Christians, in the highest degree, by example and gratitude and sympathy between the believer and Christ.

It is no small loss then to the Christian world, not only to lose the whole power of these passages for good, but even to have them perverted for evil, or else so obscured in the smoke of controversy, that they produce almost no effect, except to awaken in the mind an anxiety to know whether they do mean immersion or not. Let them be redeemed from all perversion and controversy, and let them utter, in clear tones, the full heart of Paul, and they will arouse the whole church to the earnest pursuit of eminent holiness as with a trumpet call.

§36. Objection from authority considered.

The influence of authority, with many minds, is great; and I should not be surprised if some should try to urge the argumentum ad verecundiam, in view of opinions so numerous and respectable against this result.

To this with all deference I would make the following reply: 1. In a radical discussion of the question, Are the majority right? an appeal to names is totally illogical. This is manifestly a case of the kind.

2. In some cases, numbers are a presumptive argument of error, and not of truth; i. e. in the case of old errors long established, and never thoroughly reinvestigated.

3. That this is a case of the kind, one striking proof will clearly show, that in every argument for the external sense, which I have found after extended search, has rested entirely on an obvious, yet fundamental petitio principii. I refer to the fact that in every case it has been assumed, without proof or even an effort at proof, that the baptism spoken of is external,-just as if there were no such idea, in the word of God, as internal baptism, or as if it were of no importance, and, therefore, it is always a priori probable that whenever the word is used, the external rite is meant,-so probable that it may always be assumed without proof. Look now at the works of Prof. Chase, Mr. Carson and Prof. Ripley, so often alluded to, and you find not even an effort to prove, philologically, that the baptism is external. It is always assumed. And yet, as all know, this is a fundamental point in the whole discussion.

What then are the facts as they present themselves in the New Testament? They are these:

1. There is a baptism, infinitely more important than the external baptism, and of which the external baptism is but a sign.

2. In the spiritual baptism, a believer is actually purged from sin and guilt by the Holy Ghost. In the external, the forgiveness of sins is openly announced, on the assumption that he has repented and believes, as he professes.

3. The person baptized is regarded as calling on the name of the Lord for forgiveness, and the baptizer as announcing his forgiveness in the name of the Lord. Acts 22: 16.

4. In the case of internal baptism, there is no such external use of the name of God, but a real forgiveness resulting in actual union to Christ. Hence,

5. The form-βαπτίζεσθαι εἰς ὄνομα Χριστοῦis adapted to express the external baptism ; βαπτίζεσθαι εἰς Χριστόν, to express the internal baptism, that actually unites to Christ.

6. To this view, all facts accord. For in every instance where őroua is used, there is internal evidence in the passage to prove that external baptism is meant. Matt. 28: 19, Acts 2: 38, Acts 8: 16, Acts 10: 48, Acts 19: 5, Acts 22: 16, 1 Cor. 1: 13, 15.

But in every case where ovoua is omitted, and is precedes Xororóv or coua, denoting the spiritual body of Christ, there is internal evidence that external baptism is not meant, and that internal is meant. Rom. 6: 3, 1 Cor. 12: 13, Gal. 3; 27. In case of the first two, we have exhibited the evidence of the internal sense in the preceding argument, and in § 11. In Gal. 3: 27, the sense of putting on Christ is fixed by Rom. 13: 14, as denoting, not an external profession of religion, but a real assumption of a holy character, like that of Christ. See also Eph. 4: 24 and Col. 3: 10, 12, for a perfect demonstration of this sense. Besides, it is utterly unworthy of Paul to say: "As many of you, as have been externally baptized into Christ, have made a profession of religion," but entirely worthy of him to say: "As many, as have been baptized into Christ spiritually, have really been by it changed into his image ;" and this is true of all who have been spiritually baptized, but of all who have been externally baptized it is not true; yet Paul affirms it of all ; ὅσοι ἐβαπτίσθησαν εἰς Χριστόν.

In 1 Cor. 10 : 2, εἰς τὸν Μωϋσῆν ἐβαπτίσαντο denotes neither Christian baptism nor external baptism; but a throwing back the name of the antitype upon the type, from a regard to similar effects. Believers, by spiritual baptism are delivered from

Satan and united to Christ. The children of Israel were delivered from Pharaoh, and really united to Moses, as a leader and saviour, by the cloud and the sea. There was here no external profession, but a real union to Moses as a leader, effected by a separation and deliverance from Pharaoh. In all this, Moses was a type of Christ, and, therefore, the name of the antitype is thrown back upon this transaction, and it is called a baptism into Moses, but not into the name of Moses. On the same principle, i. e., regard to effects, spiritual baptism is called the antitype of the salvation of Noah and his family in the ark. For as one actually saved Noah in the ark, so the other actually saves believers in Christ.

If these facts are so, where is the a priori improbability that internal baptism is meant in Rom. 6: 3, which all advocates of the external sense have assumed? The fact is that the improbability, from the very form of language, is altogether against external baptism; and all, who assume it, not only do so without proof, but without the possibility of proof, and against clear proof to the contrary.

No more striking instance can be given of the influence of a technical and external use of a word, without any reference to its spiritual signification, to turn away the mind from the true sense of the word of God. For in Eph. 4: 5, 6, as well as in Rom. 6: 3 and 1 Cor. 12: 13 and Gal. 3: 27, the same cause has 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 into 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. 5: 26 has been lost, though the washing is expressly declared to be by the word of God-v éñuari; and the spiritual sense of dog 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 3: 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-Lovgor

παλιγγενεσίας denoting the first, and ἀνακαινώσις πνεύματος aylov 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. 6: 3, 4 and Col. 2: 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 ideas, 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 connection 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, etc., spoken of in Rom. 6: 3, 4 and Col. 2: 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 more 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, etc., 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 jailer in a prison, create a presumption in favor of sprinkling.

And if a possibility of immersion can be shown in the latter