niably proved them to be quite distinct ordinances. And as these were so distinct, no argument can be raised from John's baptism, with respect to either the subject or mode of christian baptism. Were it granted that John baptized none but adults; it can be no

that this fifth verse must be understood as the words of Luke, setting forth the effect which the apostle's preceding discourse had upon these disciples of John, for several rea

sons.

1. The sense of the discourse seems to plead for it, and is doubtless so understood by all such readers as are not influenced by the position of men, and de, to understand it the other way.

2. To understand this fifth verse as Paul's words, doth not seem well to agree with the subject of the apostle's discourse. Had the apostle been shewing that the baptism of John was a true and valid christian baptism, it would have been suitable to his design to tell them, that John's disci ples ought to look upon themselves as being baptized into Christ, because that John, by his baptism, brought his disciples under obligation to believe on him that should come after him, that is, on Jesus Christ. But this doth not seem to have been his aim. His inquiry respected the Holy Ghost. The apostle asked 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 39 It was their professed ignorance that there was a Holy Ghost, that led the apostle to inquire into their bap. tism. For if they had been baptized into the Trinity, they must certainly have heard that there was a Holy Ghost. And upon the Apostle's asking them," Unto what then were ye baptized!" they said "Unto John's baptism." And upon this, the apostle lays open the tenor and import of John's baptism, saying, "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 Jesus. But how does this explanation of John's baptism account for their ignorance about the Holy Ghost, if John's baptism was administered in the name of the Trinity, as well as christian baptism? The whole scope of the apostle's discourse therefore shows that these disciples of John had not received christian baptism, but were yet to be baptized: which makes it necessary to understand the apostle's dis course as finished with the fourth verse; and that the fifth verse is the words of the historian, setting forth the effect

objection against infant baptism and were it fully proved that he baptized by plunging; it will not af all prove that christian baptism must be so administered. Christ's baptism was not instituted till after his resurrection; nor was it once mentioned, till Christ gave this commandment to his apostles, Matth. xxviii. 19, 20. 'Tis here that Christ gave commission

which the foregoing discourse of the apostle had upon these converts, that when they heard the apostle declare this, then were they baptized into Christ.

3. Where the sentence is elliptical we often find the word men, used in the Greek language, without being followed with de as a redditive to it; although the de would naturally come in, if the ellipsis were filled up. Instances of this often occur. See Acts xxvii. 21. "Ye should have hearkened unto me, and not have loosed from Crete, and to have saved this narm and loss." If the ellipsis had been filled up, these words would have been added at the end of the verse, "But ye would not," in which the de would have stood in its prop. er place See also Rom. viii. 12. Rom x. 1. II Corin. xii. 12. Colos. ii. 23. Keb. xii. 9. And in the place under consideration, it is most natural to understand the apostle's discourse as elliptical, and that it ends with the fourth verse; which ellipsis if it were filled up, would be an explanation of the different tenor and import of christian baptism. For we cannot suppose that Luke has recorded the whole discourse which Paul had with these disciples of John. Doubtless when he found them so ignorant in the fundamental doctrines of christianity as not to know whether there be any Holy Ghost, he would instruct them in the way of the Lord more perfectly; although Luke, in his recording these things, has only given us a brief summary of the mat

ter.

It is objected, that when these disciples tell the apostle they had not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost; it cannot be supposed they were ignorant of the doctrine of the Trinity; but that which they were ignorant of, was the descent of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost and therefore John might baptize in the name of the Trinity, notwithstanding this ignorance of his disciples.

To this I answer. Although the doctrine of the Trinity is an article of the public faith and explicit profession of the gospel church; yet it was not so under the former dispen sation. By the clearer light of the New Testament we are plainly tauglit the doctrine of the Trinity, and are enabled

to his Apostles to make disciples of all nations. In this institution, we may observe, the word teach is twice used, according to our translation. "Go teach all

nations, baptizing 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.” But in the original, they are two different

to discover some references to it. and intimations of it, in the writings of Moses and the prophets. But were we to collect our knowledge of it only from the Old Testament, we should find that it is not there so plainly revealed as to suppose it to be the common faith of the Jewish church, held forth by an explicit profession; nor so plainly taught, but that these disciples of John may easily be supposed to be ignorant of it; yea, such strangers to it as honestly to tell the apostle, that they had not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

To say that what these disciples confess their ignorance of, was the descent of the Holy Ghost in his miraculous gifts on the day of pentecost, is not to the purpose; for our being baptized unto the Trinity, refers to the third person in the God-head, not so much with respect to his miraculous gifts, as to his sanctifying influences.

4 Admitting that Luke had finished his account of the apostle's discourse in the fourth verse; it was proper and agreeable to his common customs to introduce his own words, in his recording the discourses of others, with the word de, just in the manner he has done here. See Luke's Gospel, chap. xx. 16. And when they heard it, they said, God forbid." The words "akonsantes de cipon," cannot belong to the preceding discourse of Christ, nor yet to the reply of the Jews: but are manifestly the words of Luke, in his recording this discourse between Christ and the Jews; and introduced with the word de just in the manner as in the text under consideration" akonsantes de ebaptisthegan.” Compare also Acts ii. 37. Acts v 21 Acts vii. 54 and many other places. These reasons which I have now offered constrain me to believe this fifth verse contains, not the words of the apostle, but of Luke: and that these disciples who had before received John's baptism, were now baptized into Jesus Christ.

The critical remarks of many great and learned men on this text, giving it a contrary signification, will, I hope, be admitted as a sufficient excuse for this long note.

words; doubtless because different things were intended by them. These two words in the Greek language, although they have some agreement in their significations, yet they have also some difference.The first word, in strictness of speech, signifies to disciple; but the second word properly signifies to teach or instruct; as is commonly observed by Annotators. And therefore the most exact translation of the text would be, “Go disciple all nations, baptizing 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." Or without referring to the Greck; our English translation conveys the same distinction between these two words; as they are both explained, and have their precise meaning fixed by our Lord, in the words following each of them. "Go, teach all nations, bapti zing them." The word baptizing, which follows after, explains and fixes the meaning of the word teach, which goes before. And so in the latter word teaching, the meaning of it is fixed by what follows, "to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.” The thing commanded to be done in the first word teach, is performed by baptizing them : but the thing commanded to be done in the second word teaching, is performed by instructing them which have been baptized, to observe all things whatsoever Christ has commanded. The text therefore, as it now stands in our translation, if the sense of it is taken according to the rules of just construction, will give precisely the same meaning as it would have done, if it had been translated, go, disciple all nations, baptizing them, &c.

Upon the whole then, it appears from the institution itself, as well as from the examples of the apostles, that the way in which they were to make disciples of all nations was by baptizing them. There is no mention made, nor any direction given about requiring people to make any vérbal promise, or to bring themselves under any previous covenant-engagements, before they were to baptize them; but it

is baptism itself by which they are visibly made the disciples of Christ, the subjects of his kingdom, or members of his church. By that ordinance, a person is set apart from the rest of the world; and is federally sanctified, or consecrated, to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, whose name is thereby put upon them. Thus the import or signification of that ordinance is plainly fixed and determined, in its confirming a covenant relation between God and the person baptized. And herein lies the difference between baptism and the Lord's supper; baptism is an initiating ordinance, that is, an ordinance by which we enter into covenant with God, or have that relation publicly sealed upon us; and for this reason it is but once to be administered to the same person: whereas the Lord's supper is often to be received, because it is the design of that ordinance, to bring to remembrance. We thercin enter into no new covenant relation with God different from what we were in before; but rather call to mind, and renew our covenant engagements: But baptism is our first entrance into, or confirmation of our covenant with God; and it is an everlasting covenant that can never be made void. Indeed, this covenant may be broken, that is, we may carry ourselves so contrary to it as to forfeit all the privileges of it; and may be turned out of the church, as persons contemned by the covenant, and cut off from all the privileges and blessings of it: but the covenant can never be disannulled; but it remains as the rule by which the offender shall be finally judged and condemned. That the covenant which is confirmed upon us in baptism, is thus an everlasting covenant, appears from this, that although a person for his bad conduct, should be cut off from God's covenant people; yet there is room for repentance, and upen his repentance, the church will restore him: but there is no re-baptizing to be used in this case; which shows that the covenant relation still subsists, although a person by his bad conduct forfeits the privileges of it: instead of enjoying privileges by it, the obstinate of