"suffered it, in condescension," to remain unexplained, and never once either told his disciples, or those who came to hear his doctrine, that "the outward water was no part of his baptism ?”

Has any thing worse than this ever proceeded from the school of the Jesuits?

III. Our Lord having himself been baptised, and having, during his ministry on earth, largely baptised others through his disciples, whom he authorised to administer the rite, was pleased to give solemn injunctions for the continuance of baptism, in one of his last addresses to his disciples after his resurrection. Here, again, was another opportunity, if ever, for disclosing the secret, that "outward water was no part of his baptism;" and this was the time, if ever, to declare that all he had done hitherto, with regard to the rite, was to bear "a spiritual interpretation;” in other words, that there was henceforward to be no baptism at all, and that the laver of repentance for the remission of sins was never again to be represented to the church by the ablution of But not so did our Lord: he had never, hitherto, deceived the church, by using words which expressed one thing and meant another; neither did he deceive them at the last, when he said, " Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world,” Matt. xxviii. 19, 20.

water.

This injunction is very plain, very easy to be understood, and is involved in no obscurity. When our Lord commanded his disciples to teach and baptise all nations, he meant that the Gospel should be preached to all nations, and that all converts to the faith should be baptised. He as little meant to say that they were to be taught, and NOT baptised, as that they were to be baptised and not taught; and if we are bold enough to affirm that the baptism here mentioned is not the baptism wherewith our Lord himself had been baptised, which he had made to be a practice of his church, and which his church afterwards continued to practise, then may we say any thing of our Lord's words, give them any turn we choose, and even lay down as a canon of interpretation, that the commands and doctrines of Christ frequently mean the exact opposite of that which they express, and that they are to be taken frequently in the contrary sense.

IV. Our Lord having ascended into heaven, soon made it manifest that he was the Great One to whom all power was committed, by sending down gifts for men, and ruling in the midst of his enemies. The pentecostal effusion of the Holy Spirit may be considered unto her the

coronation-day of her King. On that day the apostles received the gift of tongues; on that day they preached the word with power; on that day they made numerous converts amongst the enemies and murderers of the Lord of glory; for some of them had taken an active part in his death, "and with wicked hands had crucified and slain him." These his enemies were now, by that power which out of the stones can raise up sons to Abraham, "pricked in their hearts ;" and, in deep evangelical repentance, said, " Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."-" Then they that gladly received his word were baptised: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls," Acts ii. 37, 38. 41.

No one will deny that the baptism here mentioned was the baptism of water; neither do I find that it has ever been denied, even by the Quakers. But how, then, must we be astonished, if their doctrine be true, to find, on this memorable occasion, Peter and the apostles recommending, or rather commanding, the first converts after the resurrection to be baptised in water, and that, in consequence, three thousand converts submitted to this "unprofitable rite," and "went into bondage under the beggarly element?" We are told that the Spirit of truth has led the Quakers out of this rite, and that they could not return to it without grieving their heavenly Monitor; but from whence, then, came that Spirit which lighted on the apostles on the day of Pentecost, and which added three thousand converts to the church? If ever there was exhibited the Gospel in its "spirituality," it must have been on that day, for on that day, if ever, the apostles were divinely inspired; on that day, if ever, the Gospel was preached in the Spirit; on that day, if ever, the doors of the mediatorial kingdom were thrown open to send forth the Spirit of truth, and light, and power on the church; and yet on that day did the apostles, speaking in the Spirit, command three thousand converts to be baptised in water, who were so baptised accordingly! But why, then, did no primitive Quaker rise up in the assembly to give a warning testimony, and to declare that the Spirit of truth was leading a contrary way, and that they could not submit to this rite without grieving the heavenly Monitor? Why, on this occasion, was all silence in the church, so that no intimation was given of that doctrine which the Quakers would now persuade us is a necessary part of the spirituality of the Gospel?

There can be no solution of this difficulty, but by affirming that the

Holy Spirit formerly taught that to be true, which, by the same Monitor, has been subsequently taught to be false; and that the religion of the apostles is, in fact, not the religion of the Quakers.

V. The church, after this commencement of error, continued still in darkness; or, if we are to suppose that the apostles knew more than they cared to divulge on this subject, according to the theory of Job Scott, then did they, in some instances, perpetuate the error when there was no imaginable necessity for it, and when the practice of it was quite superfluous. This is manifest in the baptism of the eunuch, the "officer of great authority under Candace, queen of Ethiopia.” To him Philip was sent by a special commission, (Acts viii. 26.) He met him riding in his chariot, in the road through the desert, and reading the prophet Isaiah. "Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot." The eunuch asked him to get into the chariot, and there Philip expounded the passage of the prophet which the eunuch was reading. He made it a text for preaching Christ and his Gospel; and, having explained to him the faith of the church, and having shown him the nature of baptism as the initiatory ordinance of Christianity, the Ethiopian said, "See, here is water ; what doth hinder me to be baptised?" verse 36.

Now here was a most searching question, which surely must have elicited the Quaker notions, if the Spirit, which had commanded Philip to join himself to the chariot, had ever led him out of that rite; but not so-Philip was no Quaker, for he answered, "If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptised him," verse 37, 38.

There is no possibility of evading this statement; it is too plain and precise even for the gloss of mysticism: water here means water, and baptism means baptism. Philip, acting especially by the impulse of the Holy Spirit, did baptise the Ethiopian in water; and, as if to preclude all approach of Quaker notions, and to show that the whole work was begun, transacted, and ended in the Spirit, it is written, "when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip that the eunuch saw him no more, and he went on his way rejoicing," verse 39.

Now the record of this transaction is of peculiar force in the argument, because, as the eunuch was a stranger to Christianity, and knew nothing of it but what Philip was pleased to teach him, it was not only unnecessary, but superfluous and mischievous, to impose upon this

stranger-convert the yoke of an "unprofitable ceremony," and to lead him into captivity under those "beggarly elements" which are "discordant with the entire spirituality of the Gospel," and from which he would have been free but for the officious interference of Philip.

VI. We have seen what Peter advised relating to baptism in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost; it remains now to examine what he did amongst those who were not of the circumcision, and what were his arrangements respecting this ordinance amongst the Gentiles, who had no connexion either with the law or the baptism of John.

For this we turn to the 10th chapter of Acts, where we find him sent on a special commission to Cornelius the Centurion at Cesarea. To him and his he first preached the Gospel, and it is remarkable that he did not declare the historical fact of Christ's life, which seems to have been notorious at Cesarea (a city about 60 miles north of Jerusalem, in the extreme south-west point of Galilee) without alluding to the baptism of John, and the unction of our Lord by the power of the Holy Ghost, (verses 36-38,) concluding all concerning Jesus Christ in these words, "that to him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them that heard the word. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptised, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptised in the name of the Lord.”

One might almost say that this has been recorded in Scripture as an eternal challenge to the mystics, "Can any one forbid water?"— Yes; the whole sect of Quakers can; for they declare they have been led out of this rite by the Spirit of truth; but it was not so in the apostolical era, neither did any of the company then present, whether of the circumcision or the uncircumcision, arise to give their testimony against water, and to declare that it was "an outward observation, and that it would divert the mind from inward attention to the work of Christ, and prevent those who submitted to it from effectually being profited by Christ."* It is, however, to be observed, that on this

* The words of Job Scott. This writer thus comments on the baptism of Cornelius :"At this very time, in regard to the baptism of water which was John's, and was for Christ's manifestation to Israel, Peter so far doubted the propriety of its administration to the Gentiles, that he even appealed to the judgment of men about it, (which how would he have dared to have done had it been the Lord's command?) and though none did forbid it, yet he only commanded them to be baptised in the name of the Lord, (the Greek word here is ev,) and not in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; these words in nowise suiting the nature and design of that outward administration."-It

memorable occasion of Peter's mission to the Gentiles, the Holy Spirit had already been given to those whom Peter commanded to be baptised. “While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word: they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost." And this is an important point in the argument, for though the Holy Ghost had illuminated the new converts, (which by the Quaker theory is the only baptism,) yet, nevertheless, Peter desired that they should be baptised in water, thereby adding to the work of the Spirit this outward rite of initiation into the church. Here again, as indeed in every other instance, the sacred history accumulates circumstances of insurmountable difficulty to the mystical interpretation of baptism; for though opportunities are multiplied which would necessarily have elicited the mystical interpretation of the rite, yet not one word is recorded in the remotest degree favourable to it, or even tending that way. The Church of Christ continues pertinaciously the practice of baptism, and on most of the occasions recorded, the Holy Spirit is manifest in some remarkable manner, so as to prevent any perverter of the Scriptures from asserting that the work was not done in the Spirit.

It will not be requisite to investigate the other numerous instances of water baptism recorded in the Acts of the Apostles: suffice it to say, that Paul after his conversion was baptised, (ix. 18,) and that, too, immediately after the scales had fallen from his eyes, and he had received a new vision, when, if ever, he might have caught a glimpse of the Quaker light-that many men and women of Samaria, converts by the preaching of Philip, were baptised, (viii. 12,) that Lydia, a convert of Paul, was baptised, (xvi. 15,) that the jailer, another convert of Paul, was baptised, (xvi. 33,) that "many" of the Corinthians, converts of Paul, were baptised, (xviii. 8,) that at Ephesus, Paul, having found certain disciples who had been baptised with the baptism of John, but were not rightly instructed concerning the gifts of the Holy Ghost and the Lord Jesus Christ, had them baptised again in the name of the Lord Jesus, (xix. 5.) Another most striking instance of the sanctity attached to this rite, as an act of initiation into the Church, for not only were their Ephesian converts twice baptised, but immediately after their second baptism Paul laid his hands on them, "and the Holy Ghost came upon them,"-for this ceremony is rarely mentioned without some accompanying sign of the Holy Spirit.

is difficult to read this wilful perversion of Scripture without the deepest indignation. Woe be to them by whom offences come!