naum, and declared it to be a prophefy concerning himself, which was then actually fulfilled, Luke, iv. 16. In allufion to that, he is called, Acts, iv. 27, God's holy Son, or fervant, whom he anointed. The word Meffiah in Hebrew, and Christ in Greek, fignifies the anointed. And chriftians, who in the apoftolic age had fo generally miraculous gifts of the Spirit, are faid alfo, 2 Corinthians, i. 21, to be anointed of God. And in John, to have had an unction from the Holy One.

Kings also used to be inaugurated, by being anointed with oil. Thus God expreffed himself concerning David, the progenitor of the Meffiah, Pfalm, lxxxix. 20, "I have found David my fervant; with my holy oil have I anointed him." And our bleffed Lord, who was fet upon the throne of David, and who was actually king of this fpiritual kingdom, was anointed at his baptifm with the holy Spirit, that oil of gladnefs above his fellows. So that, in whichfoever of his offices we view the bleffed Jefus, whether as prophet, prieft, or king, the baptifm with the holy Spirit was highly proper, to initiate him into his high, facred, and distinguished miniftry.

Taking into confideration the numerous allufions to the ancient ceremonies, at the inauguration of prophets, priests, and kings, it is natural to conclude, that the baptism of Jefus by John was his regular introduction to his office, as the Meffiah. It was fulfilling righteoufnefs, in relation to the law, for confecrating men to the priestly office. It was a practical conformity to divine directions, for introducing men to the priesthood. Chrift was "A minister of the fanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.'

SERMON II.

ACTS, XVIII. 25.

KNOWING ONLY THE BAPTISM OF JOHN.

THE inquiry, refpecting the baptism of

: Chrift by John, being finished, it now remains to confider John's baptifm, and that used by the difciples under our Lord's miniftry. And here I fhall be understood to speak of John's baptifm, when administered to the Jewish nation, including the baptifm of the disciples under the direction of Christ. "Though Jefus himself baptized not," yet his difciples, for a time, did baptize. The main queftion now to be decided, is, whether John's baptifm is to be placed under the chriftian, or legal difpenfation. In other words, was John's baptifm chriftian baptifm? Ianswer, it was not. The following reasons are now offered to prove, that John's baptifm was not christian baptifm.

1. The ends propofed by John's baptifm were different from thofe of New Teftament baptifm. The principal defign of John's baptism was to manifeft, or point out Chrift to the Jewish nation. John i. 31. And I knew him not; but that he fhould be made manifeft to Ifrael, therefore am I come baptizing with water." But New Teftament

baptism is defigned for other purposes. Believers are faid to be baptized into the death of Chrift. Romans, vi. 3 "Know ye not, that fo many of us as were baptized into Jefus Chrift, were baptized into his death?" John's baptifm could not be used for this purpose. For Chrift was not crucified.

2. John's whole ministry muft be placed under the legal difpenfation. John was a prophet, but he lived and died under the legal difpenfation.John the Baptift was a minister of the Jewish, not the christian church. Luke, vii. 28, "For verily I fay unto you, among thofe that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptift: but he that is leaft in the kingdom of God is greater than he." These words evidently fuppofe that John's miniftry pertained to the legal difpenfation. They make John one of the greatest prophets, who had ever appeared under the Mofaic eftablifhment; but they make him inferior to the least in the gospel kingdom.

As John was the laft prophet under the Jewish difpenfation, he lived, as it were, in fight of gospel times, and therefore was the greateft prophet that had arifen; but compared with the gospel flate, he was inferior to the leaft in the gofpel kingdom.

Christ, therefore, places John's ministry under the Mofaic economy. John feemed to confider himself and his miniftry in this light, when he spoke of himself and of Chrift. John, ii. 30, "He muft increase, but I muft decrease." By which he intimated, that the difpenfation, under which he miniftered, was about to come to an end. The conclufion is, that as John is placed back in times anterior to the gofpel day, he did not administer ordinances peculiar to the gofpel church. Therefore his baptifm was not christian baptism.

3. The legal difpenfation actually continued till the crucifixion of Chrift. Much has been faid in favour of giving an earlier date to gofpel times. It is prefumed, however, that no man would plead in fupport of this scheme, unless he were driven to it, in defence of fome peculiar favourite tenets.

In oppofition to the fyftem, which makes the gofpel kingdom commence under the ministry of John the Baptift, I bring forward the example and doctrine of Chrift. Chrift, throughout his whole ministry, both yielded and taught obedience to the ceremonial part of the Jewish law. He attended the appointed feasts. He kept the Jewish paffover with his disciples, even the very night in which he was betrayed. To the cleanfed leper he faid, Matthew, viii. 4, " But go thy way, fhew thyfelf to the priest, and offer the gift, that Mofes commanded, for a teftimony unto them." Did our Lord teach

obedience to rites, which were already abolished? If the ceremonial part of the law was abrogated; if gofpel times had commenced, why did he give an example of obedience to the ceremonial law? Why did he teach and practise in conformity to the Jewish ritual, if it was done away? The Jewish rites and ceremonies were in being during the ministry of Chrift, or they were not. If they were set aside, why did Chrift give them support, by his example and direction? Without hesitation, it may be declared, that the legal difpenfation, with all the Jewish ritual, continued through the miniftry of Christ, even to his death. It remained in full force until the vail of the temple was rent in twain. This is clearly the doctrine of the Bible. Hebrews, ix. 8, "The Holy Ghoft this fignifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifeft, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing.

Here it may be obferved, that the first tabernacle was ftanding till the death of Christ. Gifts and facrifices might be offered in it, till the death and crucifixion of Chrift. Therefore the gofpel difpenfation did not commence until Chrift put away fin by the facrifice of himself. This receives confirmation from the following words, Hebrews, ix. 16, 17,"For where a teftament is, there must also of neceffity be the death of the teftator. For a testament is of force after men are dead; otherwise it is of no ftrength at all while the teftator liveth." According to these words, New Teftament times cannot be dated earlier than the death of Chrift. For a testament does not begin its operation till the 'death of the teftator. The death of the teftator is neceffary to give life and existence to the teftament. Common fenfe teaches us, that a teftament does not begin to be in force while the teftator liveth. ' In order to explain away the import of this text, may be faid, as fome have affirmed, "that a tes-tament is made, figned, fealed, and witneffed, before the teftator dies, and he whofe will is a fovereignlaw, to govern in all the concerns of his teftament, may, if he please, bring things into that ftate before his death, which he intends they should be in afterwards."*. This author afferts that the teftator's will is a fovereign law. I add, it is while he lives. His will, and not his teftament is the law, during this life, but this does not prove, that the teftament of the teftator becomes a law during his life. It does not. Therefore according to this writers ftatement, New Teftament times did not begin till the death of Chrift. Confequently John's baptifm belonged to the legal, not the christian dispensation.

:it

*Edward Clark.

1