That the water in baptism has not the saving virtue of itself, is manifested by the expression, ' Not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God.' There were divers washings under the Levitical priesthood, to take away the filth of the flesh, i.e. a bodily purification ; but holy baptism is infinitely more ; it is the answer of a good conscience toward God. The washings under the Law were not performed in the name of the Holy Trinity, but baptism is ; hence it effects not a mere carnal, but a spiritual purity. But here an objection is urged, which must be answered. It is said St. Peter in this text can have no reference to water-baptism ; because he said, ' not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,' which shews that he does not allude to an outward means. I answer if the apostle did not mean water-baptism, why then did he say that baptism was the like figure of the flood ? Did not the flood consist of water ? Is it reasonable to suppose that he would have contradicted in the latter clause, what he had asserted in the first ? Did he write the first clause, which is, ' baptism is the like figure of the flood,' in a dream, and then suddenly awake, and contradict it by another clause which means no water baptism at all ? Such a conclusion is ridiculous. If the apostle found his first clause erroneous, why did he not finally erase it ? It is evident that the apostle by the expression, ' not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,' intends to magnify baptism above all the carnal washings under the law. It is not a putting away of the filth of the flesh, but something far more valuable ; it is not simple water only, ' but the answer of a good conscience toward God.' How highly is baptism hereby plumed !

Back: The flood in which the antediluvians perished...

Next: 'The answer of a good conscience...