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 guazi; 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 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 " lasting hills" derive not a little of their sublimity from their ever age. Truth is more venerable because it is permanent and unchangeable. Every tie, that binds us to former ages, is sacred; and every memorial, which time has spared, serves as a landmark to guide us or warn us in our pilgrimage to eternity. If it were possible for thoughts, emotions and principles to be imaged upon the canvass, like the features of a natural landscape, and some divine artist had power to present to us a moral panorama of past ages, from the beginning of time to the present hour, with what eagerness should we all rush to the exhibition, to gaze upon this most instructive, most enchanting, unequalled representation of human life! How many thrilling associations would cluster round that period when the soul of man first waked to conscious activity! With what intense interest should we watch the subsequent conflict of reason with passion, and its final triumph over a depraved nature, as it gave birth to civilization, government and laws! With what delight should we scan all the operations of intellect, and scrutinize every new development of mind, as the light of science and literature gradually broke forth upon a world of darkness! With what admiration should we gaze upon the venerable features of antiquity, as generation after generation passed in review before us, with all their thoughts, emotions and feelings, as fixed and changeless as eternity! With what reverence should we view those illustrious teachers of mankind, who have left the impress of their own characters upon the race, and the memorial of whose greatness is engraven, in living characters, upon the soul of man! Such a view of the past, however, is not absolutely essential to a competent knowledge of its history. We need not call up the sleeping dead to question them; for they have already bequeathed to us the results of their experience. In the records of the past, the thinking spirit still lives, still speaks. Whatever is truly valuable in the creations of intellect or art, "men will not willingly let die." Of the world's benefactors and teachers, we may now say as the philosophic Tacitus said of his admired Agricola," Quidquid amavimus, quidquid mirati samus, manet mansurumque est in animis hominum, in eternitate temporum, fama rerum." Through the instrumentality of written language, time and space are virtually annihilated. Nations living remote from each other are intimately associated, and the very ends of the earth are united. Through the same medium, early and recent ages meet, and, mingling their intellec |