mon of St. Peter, three thousand entered the Church through the gate of baptism: and there follow very many instances of the administration of the ordinance, as was stated in the lecture. Against all this, nothing is brought under the head of practice, except St. Paul's being thankful* that he had baptized none of the Corinthians, besides Crispus, Gaius, and the household of Stephanas: adding-"Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel." It is here evident, that under the terms "not to baptize," must be meant-not that only. This is a usual species of ellipsis in the writings of St. Paul; of which an instance occurs, not far below this place. There we read-"The kingdom of God is not in word:"t meaning-not in that only, for it was preached through the instrumentality of the word "but in power." On no other principle, can we justify St. Paul's baptizing of the few persons above mentioned: for why do this, if it were no part of his commission? But here was a special reason for his being glad of not having baptized more than a very few, in Corinth. And although this was insisted on in the lecture; yet there may use, in here giving the reason of it more at large. In the tenth verse of the chapter, the apostle exhorts the Corinthians, to be "perfectly joined to. gether in the same mind, and in the same judg ment." In the next verse, he manifests the cause of his solicitude in this respect-" For" (says he) "it hath been declared to me, brethren *** that there are contentions among you." What were these contentions? they were, that some said “I am of Paul;" others "I am of Apollos;" others"I am of Cephas;" and others "I am of Christ." On this the apostle demands-“Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?" And then comes in his pleasing of himself with the recollection, that he

be

had baptized none of them besides the persons specified. Here was a reason, peculiar to that case; and certainly evidencing the Christian spirit of the apostle. We may imagine a case resembling it. Let there be supposed a congregation, among whom different preachers of the gospel from different quarters, had occasionally exercised their ministry. The congregation become occupied by foolish dissensions, concerning the comparative merits of these men, and their respective gifts. One of them, in a pastoral address of censure to that people, tells them among other things, that he is glad of having preached to them very seldom, lest he should seem to have contributed to the excesses of their litigious spirit. To infer from such an address, that the minister making it considered preaching as not within his ecclesiastical department, would be an argument very like the supposing concerning St. Paul, that he had little esteem for the ordinance of baptism; because it had been only in a few instances adminis tered by him, in the single city of Corinth. If the same minister be supposed occupied in a theological depart. ment, not requiring him to appear often in the pulpit; and if he were to allude to that his occupation, as what had principally been the cause of his not having preached oftener to the congregation in question; it would bring the case still nearer to that under consideration.

The next point, is the irrelevancy of what is urged concerning the baptism of the spirit, foretold by John. It was foretold, not only by the Baptist, but by Jesus himself after his resurrection, when he instructed his disciples-" John verily baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost, not many days hence."* It is confessed on all hands, that the prophecy was fulfilled by what is recorded in the next chapter"And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the spirit gave them utterance." This construction is also warranted

*Acts i. 5.

+ Verse 4.

by the authority of St. Peter; where, in reference to the case of Cornelius, and the descent of the Holy Ghost in that instance, the apostle says" Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water, but ye shall be bap tized with the Holy Ghost."*

It was conceded in the lecture, that these places have no reference to any baptism, accompanied by the element of water; but it was contended, that neither do they relate to those influences of divine grace, which are affirmed on the other side to be intended in Matt. xxviii. 19; and which the advocates for water baptism consider as attached to the due use of that element. If this view of the subject be correct; it follows, that in the places in question, the word baptism is used in a metaphorical sense; as on other occasions, the terms life and death are transferred from a temporal to a spiritual signification; and as we are said to be crucified with Christ, when it means, not any bodily injury, but the mortifying of corrupt propensities.

The propriety of this construction, will appear on due attention to the circumstances of the last mentioned case, and to the tenour of the prophecy thus fulfilled.

Although in the descent of the Holy Ghost on the Cæsarians, Peter already perceived the fulfilment of the promise of his master, in that metaphorical baptism which was without water; yet the narrative represents him saying "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost, as well as we?"+ And then follows-" He commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord"-confessedly meaning with water. How little does this agree with the supposition, that the one and only baptism was what the apostle had immediately before seen performed by a divine energy!

There are other considerations manifesting, that the pouring out of the miraculous gifts, which began on the day of Pentecost, could not have been the spiritual † x. 47. + Verse 58,

⚫ Acts xi. 16,

baptism, affirmed to be the sense of Matt. xxviii. 19, and to be undergone by all believers. On this question the contending parties are agreed, that the influences of divine grace are essential to the production of holy dispositions in the human heart; that they were with holy men at all times, before the day of Pentecost; and that they continue to be alike needful, since the gift of tongues, then vouchsafed, has ceased. Therefore, what happened at that time, was neither what is contended for on the other side, as a spiritual cleansing; nor what is here interpreted as this very matter, accompanied by the use of the element of water; but it was a transfer of the term "baptism," to express that cleansing of the infant Church from the stains of those faulty prejudices, which had hitherto prevented an insight into the spiritual kingdom of the Redeemer. The great change which immediately took place in the minds of the apostles, is a comment on this construction.

This will be the proper place of remarking on the use made of what is said-" One Lord, one faith, one baptism."* Here it is urged on the other side, that as there can be but one Lord and one faith, so there can be but one baptism; which is the spiritual, in contradistinction from the carnal.

To this it may be replied, in the first place, that as to baptism merely carnal, none such is admitted to be discoverable in the Scriptures. It is "the washing of regeneration," and the being "born of water and of the spirit." So that the argument from the passage in the epistle to the Ephesians, is predicated on the supposition of an opinion not existing; unless, as is here thought, under a mistake concerning the nature of the rite of baptism. The argument may perhaps hold good against such an opinion; and yet be irrelevant to the institution, as confessed by the Christian world in general, from the beginning.

* Eph. iv. 5.

† Tit. iii. 5.

John iii. 5.

But it may be remarked further, that the argument is the result of the indefinite use sometimes made of words. Although there is "but one Lord," in the sense contemplated by the apostle; yet there would be a lord in every husband, if wives should think themselves bound literally to follow the example of Sarah, in what she is commended for by St. Peter.* Although there is but one faith of the Christian profession; yet there is a faith, by which "the devils believe and tremble."t And although, as a door to the Christian Church, there is but one baptism, consisting of the outward and visible sign of water, and the inward and spiritual grace, of which it is the emblem; yet the great ordainer of it made a figurative application of the word, to the wonderful event which took place on the day of Pentecost.

The last point, is the untenableness of the hypothesis of temporary indulgence: that is, of Jewish prejudices; to which, it is said, the apostles accommodated in the rite of baptism; under the design, that it should be discontinued in due time.

The question arises-On what ground did the use of water baptism stand among the Jews? It will not be alleged to have been an ordinance of their law; and therefore we must have recourse to historick testimony extraneous to scripture, in order to account for the introduction of it, and for the extent in which it was practised.

In the first dissertation, it was noticed on the authority of the Talmudists, that baptism was administered to proselytes from heathenism, who received both this and circumcision; while the latter only was obligatory on native Jews. It was also stated, that this fact was denied by some, who receive the rite now in question; although under conceptions of it, different from those there sustained. But the merits of that question, are foreign to the present point; since it will be admitted on all hands, that water baptism made no part of the Jewish dispensation, as the mean of admission to the

* 1 iii. 4.

James ii. 19.