with a good conscience, had I been accustomed to it. I judge not any other man's conscience, on this subject or on any subject. But for myself, I ask a better warrant for doing any thing in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 19 1-6.

A word or two respecting the fifth verse of this passage may be expected. The following is the whole passage. "And it came to pass, that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts, came to Ephesus; and finding certain disciples, he said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ JeWhen they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues and prophesied."

sus.

I fully agree with Prof. Stuart in the opinion expressed by him,* that the fifth verse, namely, when they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, is the language of Luke, relating what was done to the twelve men after Paul's conversation with them. It never seemed to me right to represent this verse, as the language of Paul, informing these men what was usually

* Pp. 386, 387.

done in the days of John the Baptist. A reader, not thinking of the controversy respecting the verse, could hardly fail to understand it, as the language of Luke the historian, relating that, after Paul had conversed with these men, 'they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus; and that he then laid his hands on them, with which action was connected the imparting of the Holy Ghost.

Prof. Stuart's reason, however, for the rebaptizing in this case, is not required either by the passage itself, or by the general tenor of the New Testament; namely, because they had been baptized only into an initiatory or preparatory dispensation.* As to the rebaptizing in this case, I feel no difficulty. It was doubtless a special case. Baptism was required for them by Paul, not because they had been baptized only unto John's baptism; but, so far as we can judge from the account, because Paul perceived there had been a radical defect in the instruction they had received previously to being baptized. They had not so much as heard whether there was any Holy Ghost; and from the sketch of Paul's conversation with them respecting John's baptism, it is altogether probable that they had not, in connection with being baptized, been directed to the great object of evangelic faith. It is not said, they had been baptized by John; nor is it probable that they did receive baptism from him; for, from the scriptural account of John's proceedings, it is manifest, he was in the habit of communicating instruction respecting the Holy Ghost, and of informing "the people that they should believe on Him which should come after him."t Their baptism, then, was an altogether ignorant and irregular transac

tion; it was, in truth, a nullity. And on this ground, doubtless, the apostle required them, having since become Christians, and having now been properly instructed, to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.'

A similar view of this passage I find expressed by Knapp, in his lectures on Christian Theology. He says, "The practice of the first Christian Church confirms the point, that the baptism of John was considered essentially the same with Christian Baptism. For those who acknowledged that they had professed, by the baptism of John, to believe in Jesus as the Christ, and who in consequence of this had become in fact his disciples and had believed in him, were not, in a single instance, baptized again into Christ; because this was considered as having been already done. Hence we do not find, that any apostle, or any other disciple of Jesus, was the second time baptized; not even that Apollos mentioned in Acts 18: 25, because he had before believed in Jesus as Christ, although he had received only the baptism of John.

"But all those disciples of John, who had not before acknowledged this truth, and had received the baptism of John or his successors in an entirely different signification, were properly considered at the time of the Apostles as not being baptized, or as wrongly baptized; and all such were therefore required to be baptized expressly into Christ as the Messiah..... This was the case with those persons whom Paul (Acts 19: 1-5.) permitted to be baptized at Ephesus, although they had already received the baptism of John. There is in this place, nothing that needs to be artificially explained. The meaning is; That when they heard from Paul that it was essential to baptism, that one should believe in Jesus as the Lord and Christ (which they hitherto had

6

not done, since the disciples of John, who baptized them, had said nothing to them about it); they were then willing to suffer themselves to be solemnly obligated by baptism to the acknowledgment of Jesus.' This was the more necessary at that time, as many of the disciples of John had entirely separated themselves from the Christians."*

'The Letter from "An Invisible Hand."-Restricted Communion.

To a mere mention of my regret that the missionary brethren in Burmah should have thought it incumbent on them, or even expedient, to inquire of Prof. Stuart, whether they should "transfer the Greek word Bantla into the Burman language, when it relates to the ordinance of baptism; or translate it by a word significant of immersion, or by a word of some other import,"+ (which inquiry, he states, contributed its influence in calling forth his article,) I will add an expression of my regret, that any one should have thought it important or judicious to trouble him with such communications as the one written by "An Invisible Hand," and inserted, in a note, at the commencement of the article. Especially do I regret, that the thought of more distinguished happiness in heaven to be enjoyed by those who are immersed, provided all other things are equal, was permitted to hold so prominent a place in the letter; for this is a subject of somewhat invidious bearing, and one, about which we may very easily incur the charge of attempting to be wise above what is written. This is a motive, too, which in the present world we are poorly able to appreciate. Without attempting to balance be

tween higher degrees and lower degrees of glory, larger measures and smaller measures of happiness, it ought to be our simple and undeviating aim to cultivate piety of heart, devotion to our Redeemer, and in true simplicity and godly sincerity to inquire, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?' With this habitual cherishing of inward piety, and this unmixed prosecution of external duty as our Lord has enjoined it in his word, we ought to consecrate ourselves, and patiently to commit ourselves, to Him who judgeth righteously, without a question respecting our own reward, or that of our brethren. After all, we shall, every one of us, have too much reason to say, 'We are unprofitable servants.' The best of men, and the best of Christian communities, even in their best estate, fall too far short of their duty, to allow the language of gratulation. The Lord forgive his people for being so unworthy servants. The Lord pour forth his Spirit more abundantly upon the churches, which profess so much regard for his commands and his example.

But while I speak thus, I must also say that Prof. Stuart's reply to his anonymous correspondent, is not adequate and satisfactory. For, even granting that external rites "are valuable only for the instruction which they convey,' ,"* it clearly follows that we ought not to diminish, nor to alter, the significancy of them. And if the particular outward act, which was originally enjoined and practised, be, according to scriptural representation, one of the sources of instruction, then we are not at liberty to depart from that particular outward act; and a solicitude about adhering to that act, does, on this ground, no more involve a belief of mystical

* P. 388,