that feareth Him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with Him."* It was about ten years after this circumstance, that the apostles and elders came together, to consider of the propriety of exempting the Gentile converts from the rite of circumcision; and it was not till after there had been much disputing, that they concluded not to impose this yoke upon them. Although Peter was present at this conference, and earnestly promoted the decision of it; yet it was, I apprehend, after this time, that the apostle Paul had occasion to blame him for his changeable conduct towards the Gentiles, with respect to some Jewish customs. From all these circumstances, we may account for Peter's continuing the practice of Water Baptism, as connected with that dispensation under which he had been educated. However, we have reason to believe that his views on this subject enlarged, as his experience in the service of the gospel increased; for we find him several years after, in one of his epistles, describing the Baptism that "doth now save us," in this manner: "Not the putting away the filth of the flesh;

* Acts x. 34, 35. + Gal. ii. 11, 12, 13. There appears to be an inaccuracy in our translation of the verse preceding this passage. The "eight souls were

but the answer of a good conscience towards God:"* a description by no means applicable to Water Baptism, which, as it was then administered by immersion, did put away the filth of the flesh; and of which we may surely say, as was said of "meats and drinks, and of divers washings," that it "could not make perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;"+ they being imposed only until the time of reformation; by which is generally understood, the Gospel dispensation.

In considering the various arguments on this subject, part of the diversity of sentiment appears to lie in the difficulty there sometimes is, to determine between the literal and the figurative use of words, which relate to it. Even water, as well as fire, is sometimes used figuratively. To be "born of water and the spirit," has been considered, and we think rightly considered, by § some who believed

saved," not by, but from or through the water: and many translators render it in [this sense, Also the Greek word AVTITUTOY which is translated "figure," might be rendered antitype; a rendering which, in this place, gives a different idea of the meaning of the Apostle.

* 1 Peter iii. 21. + Heb. ix. 9, 10. + John iii. 5. § Calvin, Grotius, Piscator, &c.

in the propriety of Water Baptism, as figurative an expression, as being baptized "with the Holy Ghost and with fire;"* and we ought to remember the explanation which the evangelist himself gives of our Saviour's use of the word Water: "This spake He of the Spirit, which they that believed on Him should receive."+

It is frequently said, that Water Baptism is appointed in the Christian church, as a substitute for Circumcision among the Jews. In answer to this, I would first query, from what part of the New Testament can the appointment of one instead of the other be proved? Can it be supposed, that, if our Saviour or his apostles had considered it in this point of view, they would have given no intimation of it? I apprehend that not a single text which will bear such a construction, can be produced. On the contrary, there are very strong arguments to be brought against this supposition, from the epistles of the apostle Paul. He frequently speaks of circumcision as being no longer of religious obligation. If Water Baptism was to have been its substitute, the occasion to mention it was almost necessary and

* Matt. iii, 11.

+ John vii. 39.

unavoidable. Yet he is not only silent on the subject of Water Baptism, as the substitute of Circumcision; but he even shows what is its substitute. "He is not a Jew which is one outwardly, neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh: but he is a Jew which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God."* In the epistle to the Galatians, the apostle writes much on the subject of circumcision; but never mentions any other substitute for it, than "Faith which worketh by love," and a 66 new creature."+

What has been said respecting Water Baptism, is intended to apply to it, as it was originally administered by immersion; and in which manner, I conceive, if it be of religious obligation, it can only be rightly administered. But it is a singular fact, that by far the greater number of the advocates for Water Baptism, and those who are most apt to reflect on us for laying it aside, never practise it themselves; but have substituted for it the sprinkling of a little water in the face of the person pretended to be baptized; and this they apply to infants

*Rom. ii. 28, 29.

+ Gal. v. 6, vi. 15.

more than to adults. Now this I think may, with confidence, be asserted, that Sprinkling is not Baptism; but, if it must have a name of Greek derivation, should be called Rantism. Besides, it is a ceremony, which has neither precept nor example in the Holy Scriptures; the few arguments for it being drawn from equivocal suppositions. For any, therefore, to censure us for the disuse of Water Baptism, who have themselves laid aside the use of it, and substituted something else in its stead, is not a little extraordinary. Which way soever it is administered, it may be an innocent ceremony to those who consider it as a religious duty.

But, although the baptizing or sprinkling of Infants may be innocent in itself, there are some circumstances attending its administration, at least in the Church of England, which may be seriously injurious. To say after a child has passed this ceremony-"We yield Thee hearty thanks, most merciful Father! that it hath pleased Thee to regenerate this infant with thy Holy Spirit; to receive him for thy own child by adoption; and to incorporate him into thy holy church;"-is saying what, I think, neither reason nor revelation will sup