age;—when, instead of seeking, by observation, to learn how the world was constituted, they endeavoured, by reasoning, to ascertain how it ought to have been made ;—when, instead of carefully surveying all that could be brought under examination, they thought the knowledge of a few cases sufficient to justify the most general conclusions,-little could be expected but inconsistent, useless, and erroneous doctrines. The methods, by which we have been led to a right interpretation of nature, must be observed, to secure a right interpretation of Scripture. Instead of repairing for instruction to the volumes of the Fathers, Christians must go to the volume of inspiration; instead of framing a complete system of religion from a few doubtful maxims, and obscure texts, they must receive, as children, the wisdom which cometh from above, neither adding to it, nor taking aught away, nothing enlarging, and nothing diminishing ;-and then, but not before, may we hope that they will all agree; being "perfectly joined together in the same mind, and in the same judgment." The present diversity of opinion is the reproach of the church, and not of the Bible. It has arisen from the adoption of other guides, and not from the reception of its teaching. Only that unity which exists in the Bible, can produce that unity in the church, which is so much to be desired.

The ceremonies belonging to Christianity are not frequently referred to in the New Testament; and when noticed, much importance is not attributed to them; but they have been made the occasions of many controversies. Among these controversies, those relating to the nature, subjects, and mode of baptism, continue to hold a chief place. The common propensity of men, to prefer what is ceremonial, to what is spiritual, may, alone, lead us to expect many corruptions in this department of the Christian system; and shows the necessity of repairing to the only pure source of truth, the only sure standard by which all religious opinions should be tried-the word of God. Having in a former series of papers prosecuted an inquiry into the mode, we purpose, now, to institute a similar inquiry into the nature and subjects of Christian baptism. These two topics are more closely connected than is commonly supposed. In the progress of the discussion it will, we think, clearly appear, that the views which are held in regard to the nature of this ordinance, almost determine those which must be held in respect to the subjects. The two branches of our inquiry, therefore, cannot, with propriety, be altogether separated.

The different opinions which have been entertained, concerning the nature of Christian baptism, may be resolved into these three. First, Some have supposed that it could properly be administered, only to those who have been truly converted to God, whose hearts have been changed by the Gospel of Christ, which they have believed. According to this view, he who receives baptism, receives it as a mark that he is already renewed and purified in mind; for it is held that all

such persons, and only such, ought to receive it. And he who confers the ordinance, does it as a mark that he is satisfied with the professed convert; for when satisfied, but not till then, he ought to administer it. This representation of Christian baptism, exactly accords with the nature of the Jewish purification, observed by those who had recovered from the leprosy. In such cases, the person restored to health, went to a priest for this ceremony. By applying for his purification, he professed that his leprosy was healed. But this profession was not sufficient; the priest was ordered, closely and carefully to examine the patient; and when convinced, by personal inspection, that the malady was cured, he sprinkled the leper seven times with blood and water, and declared him to be clean. It was not necessary that this rite should be described as a mark or sign of bodily purity; its use constituted it such. Now, if it be thought that only regenerated persons should apply for the rite of Christian baptism, and that they who administer it, should have satisfactory evidence that the applicants are regenerated, then it becomes a mark or sign, that they who are baptized, profess to have been regenerated, and that they who baptize, credit this profession. As the ceremonial purification, administered by the Jewish priest, was a sign of corporeal cleansing from disease, which the leper had already experienced; so it must be thought, that the ceremonial purification, administered by the Christian minister, is a sign of the spiritual cleansing, which every regenerated person has already experienced. It may not be so described, but its use, as in the parallel case, clearly determines its character. Other things may be exhibited also, but if Christian baptism is to be observed in this manner, it must be the SIGN of a professed and credited moral regeneration.*

Secondly, This rite is by others thought to be properly administered to infant children, as well as to adults; and when administered by proper persons, it is imagined to be the means of effecting a change in the spiritual nature, and religious condition of the recipients. It is said, that when the water of baptism has fallen on a babe, it is no longer what it was before. A great and most beneficial alteration has been effected, unseen indeed at the time, but leading we are told, to consequences most evident and momentous. According to this representation, the water of baptism resembles that of Siloam, to which, at the bidding of Jesus, the blind man went, and washed, and received sight. The change produced in the latter case was physical and material, and that attributed to baptism is moral and spiritual; but in both, the means

*"In baptism, we profess to have renewed spiritual life."-Booth. "Baptism is a figure of washing away sins, with respect to those who are already washed."-Carson. "It is necessary that we should have satisfactory evidence of the regeneration of the candidate for baptism, prior to the performance of the rite.”—Cox.

employed owe their wonderful efficacy, to an extraordinary appointment of God. The miraculous virtue of the water of the font is, of course, as possible, as that of the pool; all that we should in either case desire is, sufficient evidence that the change really is effected. They who hold this view believe that all persons, children, and adults, if rightly baptized, are thereby made new creatures; and in their esteem, Christian baptism is the MEANS of spiritual regeneration.*

Thirdly, In the judgment of others, this ceremony is not the mark of regeneration already effected in the minds of those who receive it; nor is it preternaturally, the means of effecting this change. It is the statement in symbolical language of a Christian doctrine, being an emblem of that moral purification which all the children of men require, and which all may obtain if they will seek it by trusting to the Lord Jesus Christ. Where this view is taken, baptism may be regarded as also the token of certain associated promises; and the sign of external connexion with the disciples of Christ, and of an acknowledgment of his Divine mission. It may, moreover, be regarded as a means of introducing to this connexion; and also as a means, in common with every exhibition of Christian truth, of spiritual change, and moral improvement. What is maintained by the advocates of this view, in opposition to the two before mentioned, is, that Christian baptism is not the sign or the means of the spiritual renovation of the person baptized, but that it is an EMBLEM of that regeneration or purifying of the soul, which, by the Gospel, is promised to all who believe.

We have to inquire which of these views accords with the statements of the New Testament. It is agreed that Christian baptism has some connexion with the regeneration of the soul. What is this connexion? Is it that of a particular sign? Or is it that of a preternatural instrument? Or is it that of a general emblem? Such an inquiry as this, one might suppose, could not be very difficult. We may hope soon to reach the truth, if we pursue the right way. If baptism be a sign of the possession of a renewed mind, this will appear from the nature of the rite, or from the character assigned to it by the sacred writers, or from the manner of its administration. If it be the means of producing a renewed mind, this also must appear from the nature of the performance, or from the declarations of inspired men concerning it, or from the effects which are known to result from it. And, in like manner, if it be an emblem of spiritual regeneration, this will be evident, from a consideration of its physical nature, and from the various references made to it, by the writers of the New Testament. "Prove all things, hold fast that which is good." "To the law and to the testimony."

* 66 Seeing now, dearly beloved brethren, that this child is regenerate, &c.” “We yield thee hearty thanks, most merciful Father, that it hath pleased thee to regenerate this infant with thy holy Spirit, &c." Book of Common Prayer.

Before examining the evidence of Scripture in regard to the nature of this religious rite; it will be proper to consider what is there taught concerning the nature of the religious rites which previously existed. This is necessary in order that the evidence, concerning baptism may be duly appreciated. We do not assume that Christian baptism was in all respects the same as Jewish baptism. But as it possessed the same form, and bore the same appellation, at least a presumption exists, that there is a general accordance, and no difference in any thing essential. Christianity has an external purification with water, which is performed as a religious service, and which is named a baptism. Judaism had external purifications with water, which were performed as religious services, and which were named baptisms. There is some probability that the Christian and Jewish rites being alike, both in appearance and designation, are also alike, in their whole nature and we may conclude with certainty that they are alike, unless some difference be expressly mentioned. In the interpretation of any new law, we look to the known interpretation of similar laws, and judge that there is to be an accordance of usage, where no statement of difference is made. And in the study of natural objects, if a partial agreement is observed, an entire accordance is inferred, unless there are indications of diversity. So too, in investigating the nature and usage of Christian baptism, we ought to look to the known nature and usage of similar rites, and to conclude, that agreement exists, where difference is not proved. The mode of reasoning which is universally adopted in reference to human laws and natural objects, is equally appropriate to the laws of God, and the institutions of religion. In pursuing this plan our object is, not to prejudge the matter, before direct evidence is adduced, but simply, to exhibit those considerations which are necessary to a right estimation of this evidence. We would conduct the inquirer to the position occupied by the first Christians; from this position, the object he would survey may be most clearly and completely seen.

It may perhaps be objected, that the difference between the Jewish and Christian dispensations is so great, that we cannot with propriety argue from the former to the latter. There were many things in Judaism which are not found in Christianity, and there are many things in Christianity which were not found in Judaism. Analogical evidence must always vary with the degree of observed correspondence, being strong where the resemblance is great, and feeble where it is small. All this is readily granted, but in reply it may be observed; first, That the proper application of this principle of reasoning is, to the parts of Judaism and of Christianity, rather than to the two complete systems. The Christian system in some things differs much from the Jewish, in others it has a close resemblance. We may not argue from the institutions of Moses to those of Christ, when we have no direct information

of the latter, or where they are obviously different in name, appearance, or design. But we may thus argue where there is such an obvious correspondence, as that which exists between the purifications with water called baptisms under the old dispensation, and the purification with water called baptism under the new. Secondly, This objection does not in the least affect the inference drawn from previous customs in regard to the language of Scripture. Whether Christianity differs much from Judaism or not, this is certain, that its chief differences required at first to be pointed out; and they are distinctly stated. We may be quite sure that if in its nature and usage, Christian purification differs essentially from the Jewish rites to which the first Christians were accustomed, this difference will be very apparent. A little direct evidence should suffice to convince us, that the nature and usage of Christian and Jewish ceremonies are the same, since, first, there is some probability of their accordance; and secondly, we could not expect much, if any, notice of the absence of change in well known customs. But on the other hand, only clear and strong evidence should lead us to believe that these rites differ in their character and efficacy-since, first, such a supposition is in some degree antecedently improbable; and secondly, it cannot be doubted, that, if Christian rites possessed a character and efficacy unlike any thing belonging to Jewish rites, this new character and efficacy would be expressly ascribed to them, and their difference from former institutions would be noticed. What has the colour and sound of copper, we readily believe to be copper, without any further proof; but we should be persuaded that it was gold only by the most decisive evidence.

We purpose then first to consider, the nature of the three principal rites of Judaism, Purification, Circumcision, and Sacrifice. If these were the signs of a spiritual change already experienced, or the means of producing such a change, then there will be a presumption, that Christian purification or baptism is, like them, a sign of a spiritual change already experienced, or the means of producing such change: and this presumption will become a conclusive argument, if nothing is said in the New Testament to indicate that this new ceremony possessed a nature different from that of the ceremonies to which the first Christians had been accustomed. But if, on the other hand, it shall appear, that in respect to a spiritual change, these Jewish rites were neither signs that it had been experienced, nor means by which it was to be effected, but only emblems of general truth, then there will be a presumption that the Christian rite is not, in respect to spiritual regeneration, either a sign that this great change has been experienced, or a means by which it is to be effected, but simply an emblem thereof: and this probability will become a certainty, if we find that the New Testament does not convey any intimation that Christian baptism had an efficacy unlike that of all the Jewish rites, and was administered