both in heaven and in earth, does baptize his children with the Spirit of his kingdom, and does, by virtue of his own power, abiliate his children to impart his Spirit, the one to the other, why may I not be believed?

That this commission stood in power and not in ceremony, is still more evident from the signs which were to follow, namely, "In my name shall they cast out devils. They shall speak with tongues. They shall take up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them. They shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover." (Mark, xvi.. 17, 18.) It would be but duplicatory to bring again all those scripture testimonies, which incontestibly go to shew, that all that was promised in the commission was really fulfilled by the apostles, and other believers. As I know of no way to ascertain the truth of the scriptures, but by comparing scripture with scripture. I have collected the commission from the several evangelists, whereas others collect but the smallest part of it from Matthew.

In passing through, I have made some remarks upon the word TEACH, and not taking the liberty to render the meaning of the word myself, I have left it to my opponents to render it as they have, and they have rendered it altogether in my favor. And as they have placed the meaning of the word (MATHETEUO) teach, in the commission, with such passages as express a baptism into Christ-baptism

into his death, &c. as these passages indisputably allude to a spiritual baptism; I have shown that the name of the Lord or the name in which the apostles were to act was but the virtue of the power which they were to receive. And I have endeavored to show that the commission had no allusion to water, but to the baptism of the Spirit, properly. called the baptism of Christ.

4

Says R. Barclay, when speaking of the commission, "Perhaps it may stumble the unwary and inconsiderate reader, as if the very character of christianity were abolished, to tell him plainly that this scripture is not to be understood of baptizing with water, and that this form of baptizing in the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit hath no warrant from Matth. xxviii. 19. &c.”

I pass now to give several reasons why the commission could not mean the baptism of water..

1. If water baptism was the thing intend ed in the charge given to the apostles, no doubt the apostles would have seen it necessary to have used the form of words which was given in the commission; but there is not one instance in scripture where the apos-tles administered water baptism, using the words "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." And as the apostles did not use that form of words, I infer that they well understood that the com

mission had no reference to the baptism of water, but to Christ's own baptism of the Spirit. And this appears very evident from Peter's own expression when he went to the house of Cornelius. For no sooner than he saw the Holy Spirit poured out upon the household of Cornelius, he remembers the very words mentioned in the commission and says, "Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost." (Acts, xi. 16.) This very confession of Peter's plainly shows that he understood that commission to be the baptism of the Spirit.

Though many profess to take the apostles for example, yet they do not; but, because they have taken the commission to mean: water, they digressed from them by using. that form of words which the apostles never used. When the disciples baptized they did both before the commission was given, and afterwards, as John did. They simply baptized in the faith of the Messiah, and that without any respect to the Spirit. The Samaritans were baptized, and the Spirit was not given them until many days afterwards.. Simon was baptized, but, perhaps, never received the Spirit at all.

2. Those who baptize with water, say they have the example of John; but John never baptized as they do-John as we have before observed baptized in the belief of the

Messiah. His baptism was unto repentance; and was to go before the baptism of Christ, and not to follow after. "I, indeed," says John "have baptized you with water unto repentance, but HE that cometh after me, is preferred before me, he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire." If we take the example of John, we find that baptism is for seekers, or for penitent persons. But if we say that baptism with water, is a christian baptism, we digress from the rules and teachings of John, in that we make the baptism of the Spirit preparatory to water; for though John taught that the christian should be finished with the Spirit, we teach that the christian must be perfected by water.-Surely I can see that there was a time when men were baptized with water unto repentance; but I cannot now see that christians ought to be baptized with the Holy Spirit unto water. John was to prepare a people for the Lord; but the Lord was not to prepare a people for John. I see no reason why the baptism of water which was unto repentance should be applicable to christians, seeing that there "is no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." Rom. viii. 1. John well knew that Christ's baptism was a finishing baptism, and that very baptism, to which his baptism and all the types of the law pointed to.And knowing that Christ's baptisin was to complete every thing, therefore when Jesus

came to John to be baptized, John "forbade him; saying I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me ?" Let such as contend for the baptism of water as a christian rite, remember that to administer water baptism with a form of words, is to digress from the apostles, and to baptize with water, such as have been baptized with the Spirit, is to digress from John, both in precept and example.

If it be urged that Christ has commanded the baptism of water, that never can be proved from scripture. For he never owned it as belonging to his ministry. He never preached it, nor did he command others so to do. The baptism of water is no where called Christ's baptism.

3. To use water baptism in the present mode, is inconsistent with the pattern of things, under the law of the Tabernacle.Surely we would expect the thing finished to resemble the pattern in some degree, unless the workman departs from the pattern shown him. When we look to the order of the tabernacle we see that types were according to the order which God gave to Moses. All kinds of water purifications were emblematical of the putting away of sins by repentance. The washing of water was to the vessel what repentance is to the soul. But the anointing with oil was undoubtedly a type of the Holy Spirit which is the baptism of Christ. When we look at the order of