But it was essential to all baptism-whether merely preparatory, as that of John and our Lord's disciples, in the days of his flesh, or initiatory, as the Jewish proselyte baptism and that of the apostlesto receive its signification from some doctrinal accompaniment expressed in an appropriate formula. We have little doubt, reasoning from analogy, that the formula appropriate to Jewish proselyte baptism was, "into the name of Jehovah, the Creator of the heavens and the earth;" or, "into the name of Jehovah, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob;" or, "into the name of Jehovah, the Lord God of their fathers, the God of Abraham," &c., (Exod. iii. 15,) or some equivalent. The formula connected with John's baptism was probably, "into the name of the Lord (Acts xix. 5) who was to come:" for though he pointed to Jesus as the Lamb of God, &c., (John i. 29) and as the prophet coming after him, whose shoe's latchet he was not worthy to unloose, it is, on several grounds, not probable (see Acts xix. 4, 5) that the name of Jesus was included in it. The formula appropriate to Christian baptism is explicitly given in Matt. xxviii. 19, "into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." All equally implied repentance as a necessary duty of their receivers, but we can see some variety in the form of this repentance as required in the different baptisms. The repentance of proselyte and Christian baptisms, for instance, while in connexion with that required by John's baptism, it was "repentance towards God," involved what that did not, "a turning unto God from idols to serve the living and true God." They had also other differences: proselyte baptism and John's baptism involved obedience to the whole law of Moses. To this, John's added some special obligations, (see John iii. 11,) especially that of receiving Jesus as the Messiah who was to come. Christian baptism required the observance of all things whatsoever Christ commands as Head over all things to his church, (see Matt. xxviii. 20) and as referring to the same by anticipation, (John xiv. 14, 21, 23.) But the great doctrinal difference lay in the manifestation and love of the Holy Spirit, expressed in the formula of Christian baptism. The Holy Spirit had worked, there can be no doubt, under the Mosaic dispensation; but he had worked as an influence, not revealed himself expressly as an object. He was not "given" to the church, until the Christ was glorified. (John vii. 39.) The gifts and graces of God's people had not been traced to Him as the willing, conscious "giver" of them, who might be grieved, and who was to be loved and obeyed. Lastly, the name "Son of God" includes, in its full import, the doctrine of our Lord's resurrection from the dead, as its evidence, (Rom. i. 4,) the world's assurance of the last judgment, (Acts xvii. 31,) and the type and earnest of the resurrection of his saints to life everlasting. (1 Cor. xv. 20.) How essential to the Christian doctrine, as such, our Lord's resurrection, as a fact, was, may be seen from Acts ii. 24, 32; iii. 15; iv. 2, 10; 1 Cor. xv. 1, 4,

12-20. The above is all that we have room for in evidence of the doctrinal enlargement and distinction expressed in the Christian formula. But it is sufficient to induce and guide further investigation. We close this branch of our argument with the inquiry: "For what purpose did our Lord command the apostles to tarry at Jerusalem, "waiting for the promise of the Father," (Acts i. 4,) until they were ordained with power from on high, (Luke xxiv. 49,) if it was not that they might be qualified for a new ministry, which should gather disciples by a new baptism? We do not say that this question can be certainly answered; but it can be answered with as much probability as others which are introduced into the subject now under consideration; and the fact must have had some reason. It would seem that the apostles ceased for the time to baptize: but why, if the old baptism continued valid? Why this pause, this check? Was it because they were waiting to be endued with power to do an old thing better than before, or a new thing altogether?

We have omitted, we perceive, to mention another most important doctrine, one so essentially involved in the didactics of Christian discipleship as to be implied in the Lord's supper, (1 Cor. xi. 26)— our Lord's second coming. This was, indeed, announced to the disciples before the crucifixion, (John xiv. 3,) but not until Jesus had administered his last baptism by their hands; and it appears to have been one of the many things which they were not then prepared to understand, but which the Spirit was to show to them for the future service of the church. (John xvi. 12, 13.) Were this the only addition to the former doctrine which we could clearly prove, it would, with all that is implied in it, denote so great a revolution in the faith and prospects of God's people as to justify our designating the system of doctrine of which it forms part, as a distinct system. Added to the particulars before mentioned, it constitutes a marked and essential difference.

These views, as we have intimated, Dr. Halley's argument has rather confirmed than impaired. We have endeavoured—as he says, page 182, it devolves on those who maintain that the baptisms of John and the apostles were different-to show the difference.' We approve of his correction (pages 183 and following) of Dr. Pusey's interpretation of Matt. iii. 2. We agree also with some of his strictures on Mr. Hall's arguments, especially those which bear upon that able writer's interpretation of Matt. iii. 2; and the inference which he derived from the non-appearance of an express and formal institution of John's baptism. We feel, moreover, that in one or two other particulars, Mr. Hall has mixed clay with his iron in the construction of his argument. But Dr. Halley has not, in our judgment, invalidated Mr. Hall's second, fifth, and sixth particulars; and in assailing the last two, it seems to us, he has entirely exposed his own position. For in discussing Acts xix. 1-6, to which Mr. Hall's fifth and sixth

particulars refer, he has not only candidly acknowledged that the twelve men there spoken of were re-baptized, but has also admitted, that "if it can be clearly demonstrated that St. Paul, or any other inspired teacher, knowingly re-baptized any who had duly and properly received the baptism of John, the essential difference," between John's baptism and Christian baptism "is incontrovertibly proved." He, of course, supposes that these twelve men had not " duly and properly received" John's baptism. He thinks it may be inferred from the context that they were baptized by Apollos, who knew only the baptism of John, subsequently to the opening of the apostles' commission; and that their baptism was invalid, because it was thus an antiquated rite. Admitting for argument's sake Dr. Halley's inference, we cannot see that it shuts us up to his conclusion. Such a conclusion, supposing what Dr. Halley supposes, the identity of the two baptisms, attributes more to the mere form of the rite, than the genius of Christianity warrants. "The kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost." Will Dr. Halley admit that all who were baptized with John's baptism were re-baptized by the apostles? No, he expressly asserts the contrary: "Neither the apostles, nor the first disciples who were Christians at the resurrection, were," says "he, re-baptized." It was not necessary in their case they had been baptized, and with a baptism essentially identical. These twelve, then, had been baptized with a baptism essentially identical: and Dr. Halley believes, that under the Christian dispensation, the dispensation of the Spirit,-the essential oneness was of less moment than the variation of the formula; and a baptism which was essentially Christian had become extinct, because a more perfect formula had been appointed. Supposing the two baptisms to be essentially distinct, we can understand why Paul should rebaptize the twelve disciples; but on Dr. Halley's theory of their essential identity, we cannot reconcile the subordination of the spirit to the letter with the principles of Christianity. We cannot believe that these twelve were re-baptized, on any principle which would not require the re-baptism of all the multitudes who were baptized of John in Jordan, confessing their sins.

more.

But is it really so clear that Apollos had baptized these twelve? There is a good prima facie case for it; but we doubt if it is anything The context suggests that it was probably so; but let us take the facts and probabilities which a closer consideration of it suggests. Ephesus was the abode of these men; Apollos was from Alexandria : why should Ephesus derive the doctrine and baptism of John from Alexandria? It was, as the apostolic history shows, in the high way from Syria.

Look to the End; or, The Bennets Abroad. By Mrs. Ellis. Two volumes. Post 8vo. London: Fisher, Son, and Co.

CHRISTIANS are divided in their opinion concerning the lawfulness. of reading works of fiction. While some act on the apostolic maxim, "To the pure all things are pure," and feel no scruple of conscience on the subject; others utterly repudiate fictitious productions, with the exception perhaps of a very few, which, from early prejudice, or powerful recommendation, have been suffered to enter their family circle. If fiction be proscribed because it is fiction, and because, in its very essence, it is criminal; then all fiction should be proscribed, as every fiction is criminal. But if books of this class be disapproved of because of faults which attach to them as accidents, while select instances are tolerated because of their excellence, the objection is of a different character. In this case, works of fiction, when they are good, are to be welcomed; when they are bad, to be condemned. With this opinion we agree. But some persons think that fiction is in itself unlawful, and is to be regarded by Christians as a forbidden indulgence. In the present day, this is a question of no slight importance, from the rank which works of this class occupy in our national literature; we shall therefore devote a page or two to a sober examination of the subject.

Those who include all works of fiction in their sweeping condemnation sometimes proceed on the assumption that there is no difference between fiction and falsehood. All tales or stories, according to their phaseology, are lies. Nothing can be more incorrect than such a statement. The essence of a lie, is the intention to deceive; but fiction deceives no one. Falsehood is the opposite of truth; fiction is only the opposite of fact. The excellence of fiction, in a critical estimate of its merits, consists in its adherence to truth: it is a representation of that which takes place constantly around us. Without this truth-like character it cannot please. If the productions of the imagination are to be rejected on this ground, then, to be consistent, we must renounce painting also; for it is a fiction presented to the eye; and we do not see how a consistent objector to fiction, can look with complacency on a picture. On the same principle almost all poetry must be abandoned; at least every thing which involves a tale or a fable; and all the bold tropes of rhetoric, especially the metaphor and prosopopoeia for if fiction be a lie, the mere accident of its being adorned by a poetical dress will not make it true.

It is in the highest degree probable that many parts of our blessed Lord's instructions were fictions; the parable of the ten virgins, for instance, and that of the prodigal son. The contrary cannot be shown. If it be replied, that the Saviour would not descend so low as to employ such an instrument, it is only assuming that which is to be proved.

In these beautiful parables, and in many others, he probably mentioned, as illustrations of his doctrines, circumstances which had often occurred, just as the writer of fiction does now. But the events may not have happened in the precise order in which they are mentioned: that is, we never consider Christ in his parables as narrating an historical fact, but as illustrating a sentiment by a probable representation of incidents. A common objection to works of fiction is, that they present false and exaggerated views of human life; that they give an undue prominence to the passion of love; and so colour and heighten the scenes they describe as to render them unnatural. But is this a necessity attaching to the thing itself; or is it only an error or a weakness in the artist, who deforms his pictures by false perspective, exaggerated colouring, and caricatured features? If fiction be only, like painting, a representation of nature, the various beauties of which are selected, arranged and combined, according to the will or fancy of the author, we are not to charge upon it all the deviations from nature, which are the consequence of ignorance, or want of skill. Many works of imagination may be found in which the characters are naturally and faithfully drawn, and in which the passions are not unduly excited. It has been frequently remarked as extraordinary, how little love has to do with some of the most interesting of the Waverley novels ; certainly occupying no more prominent place than that important passion does in human life. Where this is the case, the charge we have mentioned falls powerless. Those works of fiction which do present false and exaggerated views of human nature, we should as readily condemn as any of our readers.

It has been said that works of imagination excite the mind too much, and make it unfit for graver and more important pursuits. And this is an objection which deserves serious notice, as it has some foundation in truth. But the effect which forcibly-painted imaginary scenes and characters produce on the mind, will depend very much on the character of the mind itself. Where there is much imagination, the influence of such productions is great; the mind is fascinated and charmed; and the effect is not unlike that produced on the body by intoxicating drink. Beings of an order so keenly susceptible should taste and sip the dangerous beverage with caution. Very copious draughts would be injurious to the health and to the very constitution of the mind. But we have generally heard objections of this kind urged by persons whose solemn gravity, not to say heaviness, places them out of danger from such a cause. The greatest and most determined enemies of fiction are those who have no natural taste for such reading; in whose minds imagination seems to form no component part. Such persons are the victims of a false alarm. They torment themselves with the fear of evils that can never happen. There is nothing in their mental constitution on which imaginative works could