not necessary to the validity of baptism, until made so by the terms of the commission itself. John baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus-in the name of him who should come after him. And it is a matter in some degree questionable, whether the form used by John, including the Trinity, was not valid even after the commission had been given. Peter "commanded" the converts at the house of Cornelius "to be baptized in the name of the Lord"-i. e. says Mr. Clark, "in the name of Jesus Christ; which implied their taking upon them the public profession of Christianity." Now it must be remembered that this command was given by the inspired Peter after the precept of Christ, "Go teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

There can be nothing very heterodox in this idea to those who believe that each person in the Godhead is equal in every divine perfection.

5th. Objection. John did not baptize any but Jews; but Christian baptism is designed for persons of all nations. This is really so weak that I would not mention it at all, only it might seem unfair not to consider every objection which I recollect to have been made, and some feeble minds are influenced even by weak arguments. Well then, as to this small objection to John's baptism, I would remark, that you might with the same propriety say that the disciples when first commissioned did not preach the gospel, because forbidden to go among the Gentiles, and required to preach only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And as well might you argue that the sun has not actually risen because it is not yet seen by those who dwell in the lowest vales.

6th. Objection, arises from the supposed re-baptism of some of John's disciples. The most formidable objection to the identity of John's baptism with the Christian institution, is raised from a portion of sacred history recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, xix. 1-7. It is contended from this account that these disciples were re-baptised by Paul, and that therefore their former baptism by John could not have been valid. I have reserved this objection to the last, because it is the most plausible. I now design to give it a full examination.

Our first inquiry is, what was the religious character of these twelve men at Ephesus? It must be admitted that they were Christians. They are expressly called disciples. The question which Paul propounded to them, implied that they were believers in Christ. We next ask, what is the import of the inpuiry," Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?" It could not relate to the ordinary operations of the Holy Spirit, for these were necessary to make them disciples, and to give them faith. The inquiry then must have related to those extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost which had now begun to be conferred on Christians. In this opinion I am happy to be supported by some great men whose conclusions differ widely from mine.

Mr. Henry says, "Extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost were conferred on the apostles and other disciples presently after Christ's ascension; had they participated in these gifts?" Mr. Scott says, " He inquired of them whether the Holy Spirit, in respect of his miraculous gifts, had been communicated to them on believing the gospel." Mr. Clark says, "Paul asked them if they had received the Holy Ghost since they believed? For it was the common privilege of the disciples of Christ to

receive not only the ordinary graces, but also the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit.

I am also happy to find these great and good men agreeing with me in opinion, that when these disciples replied, "We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost," they answered with reference to those miraculous gifts. The prophets, to whom they doubtless had access, had foretold the remarkable effusions of the Spirit, and John had said of Christ, "He shall baptise you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire." They had then heard of the promise, but from their reply we infer that they had not yet heard of the fulfilment.

Paul asked again, "Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, unto John's Baptism." In the next two verses the apostle gives an account of John's preaching and baptism. "Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance. When they,” (i. e. the people to whom John preached,)" when they heard this," (or became converts,) "they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." Luke the historian now continues the account by saying, " And when Paul laid his hands on them, the Holy Ghost came on them, and they spake with tongues, and prophecied." His inquiry related to this gift of tongues and prophecy— their answer related to the same-and Paul conferred upon them the gifts of which he ascertained their deficiency. There is no baptizing or re-baptizing asserted or even intimated.

66

To me this is perfectly plain and intelligible. If it is equally so to you, the account does not in the least militate against John's baptism as a gospel ordinance. Calvin, the reformer, speaking of these disciples, says,

(among other things in accordance with the views I have given,)" I deny that they were baptized again."

I look upon the case of these disciples to be similar to 1 that of Apollos. Acts xviii. 25. "This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John." Aquila and Priscilla who had heard him in the synagogue, took him and "expounded unto him the way of the Lord more perfectly;" but there is not the least intimation that he was re-baptized.

If I have succeeded in proving the fact that John's ministry was the commencement of the gospel dispensation-from the submission of Jesus to his baptism— from the simultaneous administration of baptism by John and the Saviour-from the inspired reference to it-or, that the baptism of John was from Heaven, and not of men; and that no objections that have been offered invalidate its claim to be regarded as Christian Baptism—then it follows that all who possess the requisite qualifications are under solemn obligation to submit to it.

What those qualifications are, I shall attempt to shew in the next sermon of this course.

SERMON II.

THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM.

"And when they believed Plilip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women."Acts viii. 12.

WHO are the suitable persons to be admitted to the institution of Christian Baptism, and consequently to the privileges of" the household of God"? is an important question. On the answer given to this question, and the correspondent practice, depends the purity or impurity of the Church of Christ. Some have asserted that all who are born in a Christian land are meet subjects. In one enlightened nation, baptism was not long since held to be an indispensable qualification for every civil, military, and naval office in the gift of the govern

ment.

Others not quite so latitudinarian in their sentiments on this subject, nevertheless contend that believing parents and their infant seed are equally entitled to the sacred ordinance of Christian Baptism; and in some instances it has been averred that the children of parents who give no evidence of saving faith, but simply 'own the covenant,” ought to be admitted to this gospel privilege. The latter children are said to be baptised by virtue of the "half-way covenant." It was in this half-way manner that I received what is called baptism when I was eight years old.

66