properly certain passages of scripture, when not carefully examined, may be adduced to prove a preconceived opinion. And this has too often been done with the passage under consideration. Is it adduced to prove that there were prophets in the church continually until John? This, as we have seen above, is not true. Or is it adduced to prove that the law continued no longer than to the coming of John? For this, no doubt, it is adduced, in order to prove that John was not under the law. In this also they are mistaken, as we have seen from what Paul says of the law. Thus, by an inconsiderate adaptation of scripture to our sentiments, we may make one part overthrow or contradict another.

Furthermore, if this school-master, namely, the ceremonial law,* had been dismissed, when John appeared, it could never have performed its office, which was to bring us to Christ. The whole of the Jewish ritual continued in its full force until our Saviour's last expiring groan, when he exclaimed, it is finished. Then it ceased forever, nor could it cease till then, because he was to cause the sacrifi ces and oblations to cease by his own death." Our Saviour himself conformed to the precepts of the ceremonial law until the end of his life. For, in the evening of that memorable night, in which he was betrayed, he celebrated the passover with his

*See Note B. at the end of the volume.

a Dan. ix. 26, 27.

disciples. He had also taught them obedience to the law." and directed the leper whom he had healed, to go and show himself to the priests, and offer the gift that Moses had commanded for a testimony unto them.'

Thus it is clearly manifest, that our SAVIOUR was under the law and not under the christian dispensation. That was a dispensation which he committed to his apostles. He was indeed, forty days on the earth after his resurrection. But we do not learn that any thing was done as to ordinances, during his stay among his disciples. He did not institute the gospel ordinance of baptism until just before his ascension into heaven. It was then, when he was about to leave the world, that he commissioned his disciples to disciple and baptize. But they were not allowed to act upon this new dispensation until ten days after his ascention," when the Holy Ghost came down upon them on the great day of pentacost. Then, and not till then, did the new dispensation commence.

Now, seeing that our Saviour was under the law -John, his forerunner, must also have been under the law; consequently his baptism was under the law, and being under the law, and instituted by a different person, and for other purposes, than christian baptism, it could not have been christian baptism.

a Matt. xxiii. 2, 3. b Matt. viii. 4. e Mark xvi. 19. d Luke xxiv. 49. e Acts ii. 1, 2, 41.

Third, We prove that it was not christian bap tism, from the fact that it was not administered in the name of Christ. That it was not administered in his name, appears,

1. From John's ignorance of him. "And I knew him not," said he. It is not probable that he would have said this, if he had baptized in his name, neither could he have said it in truth; for, if he had baptized in the name of Christ, he would have known him. He knew who sent him to baptize, but Jesus he knew not, until the spirit descended and remained upon him. This was the sign whereby he should know him, and when it was given, he saw and bare record that this was the son of God.

2. From the Jews' ignorance of Christ, it is evident that John did not baptize in his name. They did not know him." They, no doubt, knew him as a man by that name, which is the same with Joshua, a name with which they were familiar. But they knew not that he was Christ-had they known it, they would not have crucified him. They supposed that John was the Messiah,d which would not have been the case, if he had baptized in the name of Christ; for, that would have manifested him to them. That the Jews knew him not, is evident from the answer of his disciples, when he asked them, saying, "Whom do men say that I, the son of

a John i. 26. b Acts vii. 45. Heb. iv. 8. I. Cor. ii. 8. d John i. 19, 25.

man, am?" To which they replied, "Some say that thou art John the Baptist, some, Elias, and others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. Hence John's baptism was not administered in the name of Christ.

3. From the charge which our Saviour gave his disciples, it is evident, that neither they, nor John baptized in his name. After they acknowledged that he was the Christ the son of the living God; he charged them not to tell any man that he was the Christ. This charge would never have been given had his name been mentioned in the ordinance of baptism. For, if John or the disciples had baptized in his name, they would, at the same time, have told all who heard them, that he was the Christ. And it is presumed that they were obedient to the positive injunction of their master, and consequently did not administer that ordinance in his name, which therefore was no christian baptism.

Again, fourthly, we prove that it was not christian baptism, from the disregard paid to it by the apostles. Among the three thousand that were baptized on the great day of penticost, some had, no doubt, been baptized by John; for, many of them were Jews, who were said to have been baptized by him," and here they were baptized again. We also find that certain disciples in Ephesus, who had been

« Matt. xvi. 14. 6 Matt. xvi. 20. Acts ii. 9, 10. d'Matt. iii. 5, 6.

baptized unto John's baptism, received christian baptism, after Paul had explained to them the nature of John's baptism."

Some maintain that these disciples were not rebaptized. They assert that the 5th verse of the 19th of Acts, is a continuation of Paul's address to them. Hence the verse might read thus: When the people to whom John preached, heard this, they were baptized by him in the name of the Lord Jesus. Who sees not the incongruity of this interpretation? The apparent design of which is, to evade the force of an argument not well relished. If such liberties are to be taken with the word of God, we may despair of ever settling upon any truth, however obvious. This venerable apostle must have appeared, not only very officious, but marvellously wise, in telling these disciples something of which they had seen and knew more than he did, namely, of what John had said and done unto them. Besides, this interpretation represents Paul as telling these disciples that they, and the people, had been baptized by John in the name of the Lord Jesus, which is not true: For, we have seen that John did not baptize in that name. The interpretation is, therefore, incorrect.

Wherefore, the 5th verse is the account which Luke gives concerning the result of Paul's interview with these disciples. He goes on to inform

a Acts xix. 1, 5.