In reply to this, I shall first inquire, whether you are quite certain, that the words in the 19th verse of the 28th chapter of St. Matthew, "baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," are genuine. I admit that if they have been interpolated, the interpolation must have taken place previous to the existence of any of our present manuscripts. But as the earliest of these does not go back further than the fourth century, and some interpolations, and numerous various readings, have taken place since, we are by no means at liberty to declare positively, that during the three first centuries there were none at all, and in particular that this passage was not one, especially if we have strong evidence, intrinsic or extrinsic, to favour the opinion that it was. Now in the first place, upon a strict examination of the context it will be found, that if the words in question be omitted, it will not disturb the context at all, which will read as easily and smoothly, if not more so, than when they are present: for the words (ver. 19 and 20)“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you," where the words 'teaching' and 'teaching' coming so near to each other would have an unpleasant effect, on leaving out the intermediate words, being the words in question, are not so in the Greek; but the expression is varied, as if to prevent the ill effect which would have arisen from the almost immediate repetition of the same word. In that lan

guage it is Πορευθέντες ουν μαθητεύσατε παντα τα έθνη... διδασκοντες αυτούς τηρειν παντα όσα ενετειλαμην ὑμιν και ιδου, εγω μεθ' υμων ειμι πασας τας ημερας, έως της OUYTERELAS TOU AIWvos. Go forth, (or having gone forth,) therefore, instruct (or make disciples of) all nations..... teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always to the end of the age." To my ears the passage, thus di vested of the words in question, runs more smoothly than it does with them. There is no want of a con junction between 'instruct' and teaching', the one being in the imperative mood and the other in the participle present, as there seems to be between 'bap tizing' and 'teaching, both of which are participles present. Laying no stress, however, upon this, such omissions not being unusual, and my design in noticing the construction of the passage being only to shew that it will read at least as well, without the words alluded to as with them,-I proceed to the extrinsic evidence against them, which appears to me to be very strong. In the first place, if our Lord had, at the time in question, (after his resurrection and just before his ascension,) commanded his apostles to baptize all nations into the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit; such a command, being one of the last he ever delivered to them, would, having been enjoined upon them at such a time and in so solemn a manner, have made the deepest impression upon their minds; and a regular and constant compliance with it

would have been considered by them—as it is by the Trinitarians at present to have been of the greatest importance. It must necessarily have been regarded as a most solemn law, binding them to the strictest performance, and requiring to be carefully enjoined upon every Christian, by all who called themselves teachers of Christianity. But what is the fact? Three out of the four historians who have written the life of our Lord,—one of whom professes to give an account of all that he did and taught,-take no notice of it at all, but pass it over in absolute silence. In addition to their histories, we have numerous Epistles explaining and enforcing the principles and practice of Christianity, written by five of our Lord's own apostles, not one of whom mentions, or even alludes to, this commandment or this form of baptism; as if they had never heard either of the one or the other. But what is still more extraordinary, and wholly unaccountable, (except upon the supposition that these words are a subsequent interpolation,) these writers,and particularly Saint Luke, who has given us a narrative of the transactions of the apostles for a period of thirty years after our Lord's ascension,—often treat even of Christian baptism, not only without mentioning or alluding to this form; but actually describing the form made use of by themselves, and by those whom they appointed to baptize, which never, in any one instance, appears to have been the form prescribed by this supposed commandment; but on the contrary,

instead of being a baptism into the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, appears to have been a baptism into the name of our Lord only! How is this to be accounted for? Is it not much easier to believe that these words were interpolated at some subsequent period, after the death not only of St. Matthew, but of all the rest of the apostles, than to adopt the absolutely incredible opinion, that our Lord's own disciples and companions should have wholly disregarded one of his last, and most authoritative and weighty injunctions? that seven of the New Testament writers out of eight,-six of whom were his apostles, knowing it well,-should have utterly neglected to make the least mention of it, as if it had been a thing of no consequence whatever; and should, in all the instances of baptism, which they have recorded as having been concerned in or acquainted with, have entirely disobeyed it themselves, or have related its disobedience by others, without a single remark in disapprobation of their conduct?

Such are the circumstances attending this famous

text.

Let every one determine for himself what degree of credit he can believe to be due to it. Who will venture to affirm, after he has maturely considered the whole, that it is unquestionably authentic? And unless it is, how could it be regarded as an authority to prove any doctrine; and more especially so important and extraordinary a doctrine as that of the Trinity? supposing it capable of proving it, if it were in

dubitably genuine, which will be another question for our future consideration.

The following texts will evince, that if this supposed commandment was ever given, it was not only not attended to, but was disregarded and disobeyed from the very first. Acts ii. 38: "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit." This exhortation of the apostle, it will beremembered, was given by him in the first Christian sermon that was ever preached after our Lord's resurrection, a very short time only after the supposed command to baptize in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is pretended to have been so solemnly promulgated, and when it must have remained so strongly impressed upon the memories of all those to whom it was addressed. The Holy Spirit is mentioned too, so that the apostle's attention was called to it at the very time; yet he mentions it as a gift, something to be given, some property or power; and never once as a person, into whose name his hearers were to be baptized. Can any one make up his mind to believe, without any doubt or hesitation, that this chief of the apostles, or any one else who had ever heard of this supposed commandment, would not have said upon the occasion in question, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," according to the very form

66