from darkness, feems by no means to abound with modefty. In his hiftory of the baptifts, he carries back their origin to John the Baptift. The fame imagination, which could form the image of baptifts at fo early a period, might, if the fame reafon had urged him, drove him back to the antediluvian age, and there found the name, or the substance of the baptist religion among the people of the old world. He has told us, that great and learned men have been perplexed to find when the baptifts first began. But ftrange! his imagination could furmount all difficulties, and without proof or evidence make the origin of the baptift religion coeval with John the Baptift. What he calls a miniature history of the baptifts is mere conjecture, unfupported by teftimony. With as much propriety, another man might conjecture, that the name and fubftance of the baptift religion was unknown in the world, till after the twelfth century. But notwithstanding all that this author has faid to the contrary, it may be afferted, that no man has authority to administer chriftian baptifm from any command or example which existed before the refur-* rection of Christ. The authority for adminiftering chriftian baptifm is derived from the commiffion which our Lord gave to the apostles, after he arofe from the dead. Matthew, xxviii. 19, "Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.". John's baptifm belonged to the legal difpenfation. We may not imitate Chrift in his baptifm. For it was not defigned for our imitation. There is as much authority for following Chrift in his fafting forty days-walking upon the water-riding into Jerufalem on an afs-work

ing miracles-dying between two thieves-or making his grave with the rich in his death, as in his baptifm by John. In oppofition to the fentiment now advanced, baptift writers urge, with the appearance of plaufibility, that the gospel kingdom began its operation with John's ministry. It muft always be evidence that a caufe labours, when it is neceffary to prefs in its fupport, arguments which are falfe, or to deny what is fully revealed in the Holy Scriptures. One author* in the baptift intereft, with apparently greater zeal for the defence of his peculiar tenets, than love to the truth, has denied that Chrift was a Jew. This seems to be done to prove that the gofpel began with John's miniftry. After quoting from a late publication these words, "Christ was born a Jew, he lived a Jew, and died a Jew," he then makes the following affertion ; "This in a literal fenfe is falfe."But who, even on the baptift fide of the question, will give credit to fuch affertions? Jefus faid, Revelation, xxii. 16, "I am the root and the offspring of David." The apoftle faid, Hebrews, vii. 14, "For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda." If then David was a Jew, Chrift was a Jew. If the tribe of Judah were Jews, Chrift was a Jew. Moreover, Chrift was called a Jew, and taken to be a Jew. John iv. 9, "How is it that thou being a Jew, afkeft drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria?" He was called the king of the Jews. Pray for what purpose did Matthew and Luke, in their gofpels, trace the genealogy of Chrift? To prove that he was not the Son of David? No: but to prove that he was the feed of David according to promife.

* Mr. Edward Clark of Medfield.

Another writer, who pleads ftrongly in favour of making the gofpel difpenfation begin with John's miniftry, has fupported his opinion, by an argument drawn from the four first verses of the firft chapter of Mark: a flender argument in fupport of a hypothefis of fuch magnitude. The words in Mark are thefe; "The beginning of the gofpel of Jefus Chrift, the Son of God; as it is written in the prophets," &c. But why did not this author carry back the gofpel difpenfation to Abraham's time? He might have proved with as much force of argument, that the gofpel began in Abraham's day, as he has that it began with John the Baptist. The gofpel was preached to Abraham. He has evidently forced a conftruction upon the four first verfes in Mark, which may feem plaufible, but which will not bear examination. All his argument refts upon the word beginning of the gospel. Read it as it means, and his argument is loft. The beginning of the narration of thofe facts which refpect the miniftry of John and Jefus Chrift. Beginning here refers to the relation of facts, and not to the time when the gofpel kingdom commenced. The kingdom of God was not yet come, when John began his miniftry. John himself only faid it was at hand.

The fame writer proves that the gofpel difpenfation began with John's miniftry, because it is said, Luke, xvi. 16, The law and the prophets were until John.

The meaning of this text is explained by its parallel, Matthew, xi. 13, For all the prophets and the law prophefied until John. That is, the law and the prophets foretold thofe things which

*Dr. Baldwin.

fhould take place in John's time. The law and the prophets pointed out John, and the Meffiah who was to come after him. This by no means proves that the legal difpenfation ceafed upon the approach of John. For the ceremonial law was not taken out of the way till the death of Christ. Coloffians, ii. 14, " And took it out of the way, nailing it to the crofs." And the New Teftament could not begin till the death of Chrift, confequently the legal difpenfation continued till the death of Christ. "For a teftament is of force after men are dead; otherwise it is of no ftrength at all while the teftator liveth." There is therefore no authority for imitating Chrift in his baptifm by John. 2. From this difcourfe, it appears that we cannot ascertain the mode of christian baptism from the administration of John's baptism.

I know that writers on the baptift fide seem to confider it improper to inquire after the mode of baptifm. They fay that baptifm is immerfion. They fay to dip is to baptize, and to baptize is to dip. According to them, if I understand them, baptifm, in no cafe, can exift unless by immerfion. But this is the queftion in difpute. We fay, and we think the scriptures juftify us in faying, that there are divers baptifms. We fay, that immerfion, affufion, and afperfion, are called baptifm, But be it as they fay, ftill we have no authority to plead John's baptism, in fupport of immersion, under the gofpel. Because John's baptifm belonged to the legal difpenfation. And further, it is by no means certain, that John's baptifm was performed by immersion. If Chrift's baptifm by John had allufion to the inaugural ceremonies at the introduc tion of the high priest, it is doubtful whether he was

plunged all over in water. We find that only the hands and the feet of the priests were wafhed with water. John faid to the Jews, Matthew, iii. 11, “I indeed baptize you with water,--but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghoft and with fire." Confider a moment, what John faid to the Jewish nation, and keep in mind that the Jews knew perfectly well the manner of John's adminiftering baptifm. Let us then suppose, as the baptists do, that John baptized by plunging, and then read his words, as the baptifts will have us read them. I indeed plunge you all over into water, but Chrift fhall plunge you all over into the Spirit. What abfurdity! Read them as we fay they must be read. I indeed pour water upon you, but Chrift fhall pour the Spirit upon you. This reading will be natural and intelligible.

1

Certainly there is a correfpondence between the ancient cuftom of anointing with oil, and baptifm with the Holy Ghoft. Chriftians are all baptized with the Holy Ghost. They are all anointed of God. But it is difficult to attach the idea of immerfion to this unction, or baptifm. Nothing can be gathered from John's baptism, in support of baptifm by immerfion.

3. In the light of this fubject, it appears that baptifm by immerfion only, is not fufficiently fupported by exprefs fcripture declarations. It must be confidered, that the queftion is, what does the Bible teach us upon this fubject? If you have recourse to remote antiquity, teftimony against testimony may be produced. Criticism upon the original words ufed for baptifm, may be employed in fupport of a favourite theory, and a long lift of names of pædobaptift authors may be added, to prove that baptifm.