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 Χριστοῦ—is 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 oroua is omitted, and is precedes Xororór or Goue, 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-ruar; 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-λovzgor

παλιγγενεσίας denoting the first, and ἀνακαινώσις πνεύματος áriov 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

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 both modes were used, and Christian liberty everywhere enjoyed.

4. A tendency to formalism led to a misinterpretation of Paul in Rom. 6: 3, 4 and Col. 2: 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 a 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.

It appears, then, that the whole subject turns on three points: 1; the import of ßantico; 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 Barrio 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. 6:3, 4 and Col. 2: 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 the Fathers and others is proof of their philology, and that, therefore, they must have re

garded the command to baptize as a command to immerse. The falsehood of this assumption has also been clearly shown. The result of the whole is, that as to 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 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.

ARTICLE III.

THE STUDY OF THE CLASSICS AS AN INTELLECTUAL DISCIPLINE.

By E. D. Sanborn, Prof. of the Latin Lang. and Lit., Dartmouth College, N. H.

"HE who calls departed ages back again into being," says Niebuhr," enjoys a bliss like that of creating ;" and, we may add, he, who carefully studies the records and memorials of past ages, enjoys the pleasure of a new existence. The sphere of his intellectual vision is enlarged, and the objects of delightful contemplation indefinitely multiplied. Such study is not only pleasant but useful. It awakens serious thought, checks presumption, chastens the imagination and rectifies the judgment. Without a knowledge of the past, we cannot act discreetly for the present, nor fully appreciate our privileges and obligations. Whoever, therefore, sincerely questions the past, becomes more prudent; and, whoever gives earnest heed to its responses, becomes a wiser and a better man. The Creator has implanted in the soul an instinctive reverence for antiquity. The " everlasting hills" derive not a little of their sublimity from their