was declared to be "more than a prophet," even though it had not been ordained by our Lord as of perpetual obligation under the gospel dispensation.

But, whilst these considerations appear to me strongly to favour the views of those who regard Christian baptism as being wholly spiritual, it may be thought they are not positive evidence that it was only on the grounds above referred to that water-baptism was made use of.

Let us inquire what Paul says, who was emphatically the apostle of the Gentiles. In the first chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, we read, that Paul, having learnt that the Corinthian believers were getting into parties, saying, "I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ," reproved them for it, and queries, "Was Paul crucified for you, or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?" (the baptism here referred to was, no doubt, that with water); and then says, "I thank God, I baptized none of you, but," mentioning a few by name, "lest any should say, that I baptized in mine own name;" but he does not give thanks that he had preached so little unto them, lest, when he preached Christ unto them, they should have understood him to have preached himself. If the baptism, joined with teaching, in our text, were that of water, would not Paul's language be equivalent to rejoicing, that, in so few cases, he had fulfilled his Lord's commission; a sentiment we are by no means at liberty to entertain respecting so highly gifted and eminently favoured an apostle.

But, after this negative declaration, Paul goes on to assign a reason for his conduct in so generally omitting to baptize, (with water); "For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel;" such is the plain, and, (as it appears to me,) unequivocal language of one, who was not a whit behind the chiefest of the apostles. Our Lord after having, in the same interview with his disciples, pointed out the distinction betwixt John's baptism

with water, and his own with the Holy Ghost, gave the short, simple command, "Go ye, therefore, teach [or make disciples of] ALL NATIONS, baptizing them in [into] the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," and yet here we find one of the most eminent of his apostles expressly says, "Christ sent me NOT to baptize,” (referring, no doubt, to water-baptism.) If Paul had not received such a commission, who had? It seems to me impossible to reconcile the command of our Saviour with the declaration of his inspired apostle, if water-baptism was enjoined; unless we consider the injunction to baptize as given exclusively to those apostles to whom the words were spoken; which those who differ from me on this subject will not, I presume, be willing to admit. I cannot but regard the injunction of our Lord, as equally obligatory upon his servant Paul, as upon the other apostles; and that in executing his Lord's commission "to preach the gospel," he fulfilled the whole command to go "teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Through that demonstration of the Spirit and of Power which attended his preaching, he was doubtless made the instrument of introducing men into the church, even into fellowship with the Father and the Son, through the Holy Spirit, and thus to "teach, baptizing."

Some attempt to explain Paul's language, by saying, that he meant, he was not specially sent to baptize; but this plea is, I think, quite inadmissible; for he does not himself say any thing of the kind, and it is completely to beg the question. It was, obviously, very important that he should not in any way mislead the Corinthian believers, or give them any reason to doubt his having received a full qualification for the important service to which he had, in so remarkable a manner, been called, which could hardly

B

have failed to be the case, had he told them he had not received a commission to perform one essential part of our Lord's command to his apostles, and that a part which had especial reference to the receiving new converts into the Christian church.

Whilst fully prepared to admit that the silence of one of the sacred writers on any particular subject, ought not in any degree to invalidate what another has said on the same subject, it is notwithstanding worthy of remark, that whilst many of the canonical epistles are entirely silent on this subject, others allude to it only in an indirect manner, and none speak of it as a binding ordinance of perpetual obligation. The apostle Paul, in giving special instructions to Timothy and Titus respecting the churches under their care, does not even hint at waterbaptism, neither does he give any instructions about baptizing, in his epistles to the believers at Rome, Corinth, Galatia, Ephesus, Philippi, Colosse, or Thessalonica. In his epistle to the Hebrews, one great object seems to have been to prove that all ceremonial worship was at an end; that all types were fulfilled in Christ the antitype. whilst the types of the Mosaic dispensation were done away in Christ, a new outward ordinance had been set up as a part of the religion of Jesus, would not the apostle under such circumstances have not only expressly mentioned it, but been very particular in his instructions respecting it, and yet in his epistle of thirteen chapters we find not one word on the subject, except that in chap. vi. 2, he simply mentions "The doctrine of Baptisms."

If

Adverting to the very precise instructions given by God to Moses, in regard to the numerous typical and ceremonial enactments of the Jewish law, and the fair presumption grounded thereon, that if our Lord had intended to institute an outward rite in his church, his

directions as to the mode of administering it, would have been very plain and definite; and more especially when we bear in mind that the gospel dispensation was to do away with one abounding in outward observances, it appears to me, that those who are of opinion that the command in Matt. xxviii. was designed to institute or continue water-baptism, as a Christian ordinance, must admit that so much of particular instruction as our Lord was pleased to give, must be strictly binding,-bearing in mind that the rite in itself is inefficacious.* We find then the language "baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost" a part of the command of our Lord; was this part of the command duly observed? I am ready to admit, that the advocates for water-baptism might with some reason have assumed that those so likely rightly to understand the language of Christ as his apostles were, would doubtless perform the ceremony in the way prescribed, had no notice been taken by the inspired penman of the manner of its being performed; but this is far from being the case. Have we then ANY account of the rite being administered, in which the form of words prescribed was used? None. Have we an account of another form of words being used? So far as we may judge of the form from the narration of the circumstances, we have several-viz. Acts ii. 38, Peter says "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ." Chap. viii. 16, Luke, speaking of the converts of Samaria, says, " Only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." Chap. x. 48, Peter commanded them [Cornelius, &c.] to be baptized in the

I have not before adverted to the inefficacy of the rite in itself, conceiving, that had it been enjoined in clear, definite, and unequivocal language, it would not become us to enter upon such a consideration; but as the case now stands, an inquiry into its agreement, or otherwise with the nature and design of Christianity, does seem not only allowable but needful in our search after truth.

name of the Lord." Chap. xix. 5, (at Ephesus) "when they heard this they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." Thus, so far as we are informed, we see that baptism with water was not performed in the manner prescribed by our Lord, respecting the baptism which He commanded to be used; and is not this circumstance alone sufficient to make us doubt whether the waterbaptism administered by the apostles was in pursuance of the command of our Lord; for I cannot perceive any reason why the apostles should, so far as appears, always have departed from the form of words prescribed, if an outward rite was really instituted by our Saviour.

Whilst, as I have before remarked, some of the apostles did occasionally baptize with water, on receiving converts either from Judaism or Heathenism (there being, as then stated, no account of any of the apostles themselves, except Paul, receiving any water-baptism, besides that of John,) we find in several of the Epistles a baptism spoken of that cannot, I think, be understood of water, as "Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death, therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death."-Rom. vi. 3, 4. "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free, and have been all made to drink into one Spirit."-1. Cor. xii. 13. "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ."-Gal. iii. 27. "There is one body and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism."-Eph. iv. 4, 5. To the Colossians the apostle writes "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments [or as in the margin, the elements] of the world, and not after Christ;" and then adds, "in whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the