may surely conclude, that these differences will be found to be explicitly stated. The first Christians, with Jewish notions and habits, would necessarily attach to the Christian rite, the signification which had always been given to Jewish rites of the same name and appearance. They would need complete directions, if, in the observance of the new institution, they were to do much which they had never been accustomed to do in attending to any former services; and they would require distinct cautions and warnings, if that which in all Jewish baptisms was right, in Christian baptism would be wrong.

By a portion of the church of Christ, a rite is now observed, designated by a title unknown in Scripture, Believers' baptism. There is no difficulty in seeing that this rite is unlike all those which belonged to the Mosaic dispensation. This is a point universally admitted; and it appears equally clear and certain, that it differs from the baptism of John, as much as it differs from other Jewish baptisms. They were administered to all,-this is confined to a peculiar class of persons. They were given without a previous course of religious instruction,-this is only conferred on those who have for a considerable time attended on some Christian teacher, and have become acquainted with the facts, doctrines, and duties of the Christian system. They were performed on the same day and hour in which one who was a stranger to the priest made his application;-this is done only after a period of probation, which in general lasts for some months and not seldom for years. They were not preceded by any questioning in respect to knowledge, purposes, or experience, nor accompanied by any professions on the part of the person baptized, nor by any attestations on the part of those acquainted with him ;-this is always preceded by such examinations, the candidate professes that he has that faith which Scripture declares will suffice for the salvation of the soul, and that in his regeneration he has already experienced the accomplishment of the Saviour's promise to those who thus believe; he must exhibit to others satisfactory evidence that he is a new creature; and, if possible, have the testimony of others, that for some time past he has been living in accordance with the commandments of Christ. They were emblems of a general precept and promise ;-this is a sign of peculiar personal excellence a mark of regeneration-which it would be absurd to put on the unregenerated, and improper to put on any whose regeneration is not proved. They merely introduced, or restored, a person to the enjoyment of general external privileges,-this introduces him to a little society of believers, who, having examined and approved his character, authorise their pastor thus to initiate him, and he henceforth takes his place as a tried and accredited Christian. The difference between believers' baptism, and the baptisms of Moses and of John is very great. It would be scarcely possible for any one to refer to the former, without giving some indication that its nature differed from that of the latter;

and it would be quite impossible to record the facts of believers' baptism, without making it very evident, that it was administered in a manner in almost every particular opposed to that of the Jewish baptisms. Now, if believers' baptism accorded with Christian baptism, there would be the same contrariety between Christian baptism and Jewish baptisms, that there is between believers' baptism and Jewish baptism; and such evidence as sermons and narratives now afford of the difference in the one case, the writings of the evangelists and apostles would afford in the other. But this evidence is no where to be found. The references to Christian baptism, and the records of its administration presented in the New Testament, all prove that Christian baptism agrees with Jewish baptisms and John's baptism, in those particulars in which believers' baptism differs from them. This rite is therefore as unlike to that which was instituted by our Lord and observed by his followers, as it is unlike those which were before instituted and observed among the Jews. In support of the proposition that Christian baptism accords in its nature and usage with Jewish baptisms, and is opposed to believers' baptism, the following remarks are offered to the reader's consideration.

I. There is not the slightest account given in the New Testament of the institution of Christian baptism. The declaration made by our Lord to his disciples at Jerusalem, recorded by St. Mark, xvi. 14—16, has been shown to contain no reference to purification with water. Had the term been translated, few, if any, would have imagined that when Christ said to his disciples, "He who believes, and is purified, will be saved," he meant to refer to a purification of the body with water, by the hands of men, rather than to a purification of the soul with the Gospel, and by the Spirit of Christ. But if this passage be taken to refer to that purification with water, which is the initistory service of Christianity, then it is plain that this is referred to as an institution already existing, and well-known, and not as one, then, for the first time, established. So in like manner it may be observed, of the direction given by our Lord to the disciples in Galilee, recorded by St. Matthew, xxviii. 16-20, that this also mentions only that purification of the mind, which the Gospel was to be the means of effecting, in those who, by the preaching of the Gospel, were brought to trust to the Saviour. And if this passage should still be held to relate to purification with water, it does not thence follow that it contains the institution of Christian baptism. This cannot be, both because in two passages of St. John's Gospel mention is made of Christian baptism, as observed at the beginning of our Lord's ministry; and because this passage only directs the apostles to extend to all nations, what hitherto had been confined to the Jewish people. "Go and make disciples of all nations, purifying them.... teaching them, &c.".. As well might we suppose that they had never before been directed to make disciples of their own countrymen, because here they are directed

to make disciples of all nations, as that they had never before been directed to baptize Jews, because here they are directed to baptize Gentiles also. The two passages in the Gospel of St. John, which relate to the observance of Christian baptism, during the ministry of our Lord, do not contain the institution of the rite, but merely incidental allusions to it as something already existing.

Now if Christian baptism possessed a nature essentially different from that of all Jewish baptisms, it is in the highest degree probable, that the institution of the rite would have had a prominent place among the facts of our Lord's life, and that the account of it would have a prominent place in the records of his history. The common assumption of this difference, which is made both by those who hold baptismal regeneration, and those who maintain believers' baptism, has led to the common supposition, that the passages quoted from the Gospels of St. Mark and St. Matthew do contain such a formal institution of the rite, as the imagined difference in its nature would demand. As, if Christian baptism thus differed from Jewish baptisms, an account of its first appointment would be expected, so, because no such account is found, we infer that no such difference existed. If our Lord wished to retain in his economy one of the services of the former dispensation, and to use it as those services had before been always used, as a general indication of what was required of all, and offered to all, with no difference of usage, and no other difference of signification but what the whole tenor of his instructions would obviously suggest, then it is both natural, and in perfect accordance with his conduct in other things, that this rite should simply be adopted by him, and quietly introduced to the Christian system. Not only did he retain all the doctrines, the prophecies, and the moral precepts of the Jewish economy, but he also adopted the manner of instruction, the mode of worship, the officers and form of discipline, already existing in the Jewish synagogues. We have no account of the first appointment of preaching, as distinct from the publication of the Gospel made by persons going from place to place. We have no account of the first appointment of Christian worship. We have no account of the first appointment of presbyters or bishops in the Christian church, nor, probably, of deacons. In these, and other particulars, the new religious system resembled the old, and, therefore, no mention is made of the introduction of what was already familiar to the minds of the first Christians, although its adoption is abundantly proved by subsequent references. Had the regular preaching of the Gospel been altogether unlike the teaching delivered every Sabbath-day in the synagogue—had the prayers and praises to be offered in Christian congregations been unlike anything done by Jewish assemblies-had the presbyters and deacons of the Christian church possessed an office and authority wholly different from that intrusted to the rulers of the synagogue—.

N. S. VOL. VI.

the commencement of what was new would, in all probability, be distinctly noted, and referred to the original appointment of our Lord. So, if Christian baptism differed from Jewish baptism, as believers' baptism does, the beginning of such a novelty would surely be indicated, and the requisite sanction be expressed, in an account of its institution. But if Christian baptism agreed with Jewish baptisms, no such mention could be expected. From the legal purifications which they

so often observed, the Jews had learnt the duty of avoiding that pollu tion which resulted from the transgression of any of the rules appointed by God. The purification by John, of those who had received all the ceremonial purifications of the law, would teach them that another purification, even the purification of the soul by repentance, (Báriou peravoías,) was requisite for all who would be prepared for the reign of the Messiah. And the purification by the apostles of Christ, of those who had received the purification of John, the purification of repentance, would teach them that a still higher purification, the purification of the soul by regeneration, (λourρòv nadıyyeveσías,) produced by the Spirit of Christ, was necessary for all who would possess the blessings of the kingdom of heaven. No interpretation was needed, to make these services intelligible to all. On the supposition that Christian baptism, like other baptisms, was merely an emblematical exhibition of spiritual purity, and that it was administered to all who were will ing to receive it, we should expect little, if any, reference to its institution. But if, while every other baptism was administered to all, this was to be restricted to a peculiar class-if, while others were given to those who had been impure, as emblems of the purity which henceforth they ought to seek, and might attain, this was to be given only to the purified, to those who were reformed in character, or regenerated in heart, as a sign of their already having this purity-it is in the highest degree improbable that the introduction of such a rite should pass without the slightest notice. As the absence of all mention of the institution of Christian baptism is inconsistent with the supposition that it was to be administered as the sign of a change already experienced, to those only who really or professedly were converted and renewed in mind by the Gospel and the grace of Christ, it disproves this supposition. As the same silence is fully accounted for, by the supposition that Christian baptism was to be administered like other baptisms to all, as an emblem of the change of mind which was to be experienced, it proves this supposition to

be true.

II. The references made to the observance of Christian baptism during the life of our Lord, support the same conclusion. It is recorded by St. Luke that all the people were baptized by John, and that afterwards our Lord himself received this baptism.-iii. 21. By St. John it is related, that at a period subsequent to this the apostles of Christ

were administering baptism in his name. The disciples of John came to him and said, "Rabbi, he who was with thee on the other side the Jordan, and to whom thou gavest testimony, this person is baptizing, and all are going to him."-iii. 26. And again it is said, "the Pharisees had heard, that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, although in fact Jesus did not baptize, but his disciples."-iv. 1. Now this baptism, which was so performed by the apostles of Christ, that what they did was considered to be done by him, which began to be administered after all the people had been baptized by John, and which was deemed by John's disciples to be adverse to his claims, must be Christian baptism. It could not be the baptism of John, for it is distinguished from his; where the one began the other ended; it was considered to be in opposition to his; it was additional to his; and it is attributed not to John but to our Lord. It could not be the unauthorised institution of the apostles, for besides the improbability of their assuming such an authority, the statement twice introduced-that Jesus baptized, is not contradicted by the historian. In the first place, it is suffered to pass without comment as being substantially true; and in the second place it is merely qualified by the additional remark that Jesus did not baptize with his own hands; he did so only by the ministry of his disciples. And lastly, it could not be a prior Christian baptism to which the baptism often named in the Acts of the Apostles was supplementary. The notion that our Lord instituted two baptisms, one, which was administered during his life, and another, after his resurrection, has not the slightest scriptural foundation. There is no reason whatever for supposing, that any who were baptized by the apostles of Christ during his stay with them, were afterwards re-baptized; nor are there any circumstances, except such as resulted from the gradual development of the Christian system, by which the baptisms administered at a later period differ from those administered at an earlier. We have, therefore, in these passages irrefragable proofs of the existence and general observance of Christian baptism at the commencement of our Lord's ministry.

Now, that there are only two references to this rite in all the records of our Lord's ministry, tends to prove that it had no peculiar, or extraordinary nature, but that it so agreed with the common customs of the country, as to furnish no occasion either for narrative or comment. Had Christian baptism been designed to mark out the instructed, tried, and approved followers of Christ, to denote the change of mind which they had undergone, and thus to distinguish them from the multitudes among whom our Lord obtained but a transient popularity,-it is scarcely possible, that it should not give rise to many explanations, and admonitions. But there are none. The nature of these two references to Christian baptism, adds much strength to our argument. For when the baptism of John, and the baptism of Christ are presented together,