lence of Scripture, the judicious reader, I presume, will conclude without hesitation, that John did not baptize in the name of Jesus, which is an essential ingredient in Christian baptism; and though it is administered, in fact, in the name of each person of the blessed Godhead, not in that of the Son only, this instead of impairing, strengthens the argument, by enlarging still farther the difference betwixt the two ordinances in question; for none will contend that John immersed his disciples in the name of the Holy Trinity. 4. The baptism instituted by our Lord, is in Scripture distinguished from that of the forerunner, by the superior effects with which it was accompanied; so that instead of being confounded, they are contrasted in the sacred historians. "I, indeed," said John, "baptize you with water unto repentance, but there cometh one after me who is mightier than I; he shall baptize you in the Holy Ghost, and in fire." The rite administered by John was a mere immersion in water, unaccompanied with that effusion of the Spirit, that redundant supply of supernatural gifts and graces which distinguished the subjects of the Christian institute. On the passage just quoted, St. Chrysostom has the following comment: Having agitated their minds with the fear of future judgement, and the expectation of punishment, and the mention of the axe, and the rejection of their ancestors, and the substitution of a new race, together with the double menace of excision and burning, and by all these means softened their obduracy, and disposed them to a desire of deliverance from these evils, he then introduces the mention of Christ, not in a simple manner, but with much elevation; in exhibiting his own disparity, lest he should appear to be using the language of compliment, he commences by stating a comparison betwixt the benefit bestowed by each. For he did not immediately say, I am not worthy to unloose the latchet of his shoes, but having first stated the insignificance of his own baptism, and shewn that it had no effect beyond bringing them to repentance, (for he did not style it the water of remission, but of repentance,) he proceeds to the baptism ordained by Christ, which was replete with an ineffable gift." (Homily XI. on Matthew.) This eminent Father, we perceive, insists on the prodigious inferiority of the ceremony performed by John to the Christian sacrament, from its being merely a symbol of repentance, without comprehending the remission of sins, (Mark 1: 4. Luke 3: 3.) or the donation of the Spirit. The Evangelists, Mark and Luke, it is true, affirm that John preached the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, whence we are entitled to infer, that the rite which he administered, when accompanied with suitable dispositions, was important in the order of preparation, not that it was accompanied with the immediate or actual collation of that benefit.

Such as repented at his call, stood fair candidates for the blessings of the approaching dispensation, among which, an assurance of pardon, the adoption of children, and the gift of the Spirit, held the most conspicuous place; blessings of which it was the office of John to excite the expectation, but of Christ to bestow. The effusion of the Spirit, indeed, in the multifarious forms of His miraculous and sanctifying operation, may be considered as equivalent to them all; and this, we are distinctly told, was not given (save in a very scanty manner) during our Lord's abode upon earth, because He was not yet glorified. Reserved to adorn the triumph of the ascended Saviour, the Apostles were commanded to wait at Jerusalem until it was bestowed, which was on the day of Pentecost, when " a sound from heaven, as of a mighty wind, filled the place where they were assembled, and cloven tongues of fire sat upon each of them, and they were filled with the Holy Ghost." This was the first example of that baptism of the Spirit, as the author of which, John asserts the immense superiority of the Messiah, not to himself only, but to all preceding Prophets. In the subsequent history, we perceive that this gift was, on all ordinary occasions, conferred in connexion with baptism. In this connexion, it is exhibited by St. Peter in his address on the day of Pentecost; "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."

Thus it was also in the case of Saul of Tarsus. Agreeable to our Lord's prediction of the signs which should accompany them that believe, there is reason to suppose, a greater or less measure of these supernatural endowments, regularly accompanied the imposition of the hands of the Apostles on primitive converts, immediately subsequent to their baptism; which affords an easy solution to the surprise Paul appears to have felt, in finding certain disciples at Ephesus, who though they had been baptized, were yet unacquainted with these communications. "Into what then,"

he asks, 66 were ye baptized?" and upon being informed "into John's baptism," the difficulty vanished.

Since the baptism of the Holy Ghost, or the copious effusion of spiritual influences, in which primitive Christians were, so to speak, immersed, was appointed to follow the sacramental use of water, under the Christian economy, while the same corporeal action performed by John was a naked ceremony, not accompanied by any such effects, this difference betwixt them is sufficient to account for their being contrasted in Scripture, and ought ever to have prevented their being confounded, as one and the same institute.

5. The case of the disciples at Ephesus, to which we have just adverted, affords a demonstrative proof of the position for which

we are contending; for if John's baptism was the same with our Lord's, upon what principle could St. Paul proceed, in administering the latter to such as had already received the former? As I am aware that some have attempted to deny so plain a fact, I shall beg leave to quote the whole passage, which, I am persuaded, will leave no doubt on the mind of an impartial reader. "It came to pass, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passing through the upper coasts, came to Ephesus, and finding certain disciples, said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? but they replied, we have not even heard that there is an Holy Ghost. He said unto them, into what then were ye baptized? they said, into John's baptism. Paul replied, John indeed baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him who was to come, that is on Jesus Christ. And when they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus; and when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came upon them, and they spake with tongues and prophesied." (Acts 19: 5.) I am conscious that there are not wanting some who contend, that the fifth verse ("When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus,") is to be interpreted as the language of St. Paul, affirming that at the command of John, the people were baptized in the name of Jesus. But not to repeat what has already been advanced to shew that this is contrary to fact (for who, I might ask, were the people, who at his instigation were baptized in that name, or what traces are in the evangelical history of such a practice, during the period of his ministry?) not to insist further on this, it is obvious that this interpretation of the passage contradicts itself: for if John told the people that they were to believe on him who was to come, this was equivalent to declaring that he had not yet manifested himself; while the baptizing in his name as an existing individual, would have been to affirm the contrary. Besides we must remark, that the persons on whom St. Paul is asserted to have laid his hands, were unquestionably the identical persons who are affirmed in the preceding verse to have been baptized: for there is no other antecedent, so that if the meaning of the passage be what some contend for, the sacred historian must be supposed to assert that he laid his hands, not on the twelve disciples at Ephesus, but on John's converts in general, that the Holy Ghost came upon them, and that they spake with tongues and prophesied, which is ineffably absurd.

Either this must be supposed, or the words which in their original structure are most closely combined, must be conceived to consist of two parts, the first relating to John's converts in general, the second to the twelve disciples at Ephesus; and the rela

tive pronoun expressive of the latter description of persons, instead of being conjoined to the preceding clause, must be referred to an antecedent, removed at the distance of three verses. In the whole compass of theological controversy, it would be difficult to assign a stronger instance of the force of prejudice in obscuring a plain matter of fact; nor is it easy to conjecture what could be the temptation to do such violence to the language of Scripture, and to every principle of sober criticism, unless it were the horror which certain divines have conceived, against every thing which bore the shadow of countenancing anabaptistical error. The ancient commentators appear to have felt no such apprehensions, but to have followed without scruple the natural import of the passage.*

6. Independently of this decisive fact, whoever considers the extreme popularity of John, and the multitude of all descriptions who flocked to his baptism, will find it difficult to believe, that there were not many in the same situation with these twelve dis

*The intelligent reader will not be displeased to see the opinion of St. Austin on this point. It is almost unnecessary to say that it is decisively in our favor; nor does it appear that any of the Fathers entertained a doubt on the subject. In consulting the opinion of those who contended that such as were reclaimed from heresy ought to be rebaptized, he represents them as arguing, that if the converts of John required to be rebaptized, much more those who were converted from heresy. Since they who had the baptism of John were commanded by Paul to be baptized, not having the baptism of Christ, why do you extol the merit of John, and reprobate the misery of heretics. "I concede to you," says St. Austin, "the misery of heretics: but heretics give the baptism of Christ, which John did not give."

The comment of Chrysostom, on the passage under consideration, is equally decisive. "He (Paul) did not say to them that the baptism of John was nothing, but that it was incomplete; nor does he say this simply, or without having a further purpose in view, but that he might teach and persuade them to be baptized in the name of Jesus, which they were, and received the Holy Ghost, by the laying on of Paul's hands." In the course of his exposition, he solves the difficulty attending the supposition of disciples at Ephesus, a place so remote from Judæa, having received baptism from John. "Perhaps," says he," they were then on a journey, and went out, and were baptized.' But even when they were baptized, they knew not Jesus. Nor does he ask them, do ye believe on Jesus, but have ye received the Holy Ghost? He knew that they had not received it, but is desirous of speaking to them, that on learning that they were destitute of it, they might be induced to seek it. A little afterwards he adds, "Well did he (Paul) denominate the baptism of John, the baptism of repentance, and not of remission; instructing and persuading them that it was destitute of that advantage: but the effect of that which was given afterwards was remission."-Homily in loco, Vol. 4. Etona.-I am aware that very learned men have doubted the authenticity of Chrysostom's Commentary on the Acts, on account of the supposed inferiority of it to his other expository works. But without having recourse to so violent a supposition, its inferiority, should it be admitted, may be easily accounted for by the negligence, ignorance, or inattention of his amanuensis; supposing (which is not improbable) that his discourses were taken from his lips. From the time he was sixty years of age, he permitted his discourses to be taken down in short-hand, just as he delivered them.--Euseb. Lib. 6, c. 26.

ciples. The annunciation of the speedy appearance of their Messiah was the most welcome of all intelligence to the Jewish people, and did not fail for a time to produce prodigious effects.

The reader is requested to notice the terms employed to describe the effects of John's ministry, and compare them with the language of the historian, in depicting the most prosperous state of the church. "Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the coast round about Jordan, and were baptized in Jordan, confessing their sins." Where is such language employed to represent the success of the Apostles? Their converts are numerically stated, and at some distance from our Lord's ascension, appear to have amounted to about five thousand, while a great majority of the nation continued impenitent and incredulous. We read of no party formed against the son of Zechariah, no persecution raised against his followers; and such was the reverence in which he continued to be held after his death, that the Scribes and Pharisees, those determined enemies to the gospel, dared not avow their disbelief of his mission, because all the people considered him as a Prophet. The historian Josephus, who is generally supposed by the learned to have made no mention of our Saviour, bears decisive testimony to his merits, and imputes the misfortunes of Herod to the guilt he contracted by putting him to death. Antiq. Jud. Lib. 8. Colon. 1691.

From these considerations, I infer, that if we suppose the converts made by the Apostles to have been universally baptized, on their admission into the church, (a fact not doubted by our opponents,) multitudes of them must have been in the same situation with the disciples at Ephesus. How is it possible it should have been otherwise? When the number of his converts were so prodigious, when the submission to his institute appears to have been almost national, when of so small a number as twelve, two at least of the Apostles were of his disciples, who can doubt for a moment, that some at least of the multitudes who were converted on or after the day of Pentecost, consisted of such as had previously submitted to the baptism of John? Is it possible that the ministry of the forerunner, and of the Apostles of our Lord, should both have been productive of such great effects among the same people, at the distance of a few years, without operating in a single instance in the same direction, and upon the same persons? Amongst the converts at the day of Pentecost, and at subsequent periods, there must have been no inconsiderable number who had for a time been sufficiently awakened by the ministry of John to comply with this ordinance; yet it is evident from the narrative in the Acts, as well as admitted by our opponents, that Peter enjoined on them all, without exception, the duty of being immersed in the name of