in which the mission of John is ascribed to any other person than the Father.

But to ascribe any operation whatever to the Father in distinction from the Son, this writer contends, is inconsistent with the belief of the ineffable union which subsists betwixt those

divine personages." * "Will those," he asks,

"who believe the ineffable union of the Father and the Son, be disposed to conclude from this text that John derived his authority from the Father, to the exclusion of the Son?" To which I reply, that, believing firmly as himself, that there is such a union subsisting betwixt the personages in the blessed Godhead as constitutes them one living and true God, instead of inferring from thence, the impropriety of distinguishing their operations, it has always appeared to me, that the chief advantage resulting from the doctrine of the Trinity is, that it facilitates our conception of the plan of redemption, in which each of these glorious persons is represented as assuming distinct, though harmonious, offices and functions; the Father originating, so to speak, the Son executing, and the Spirit applying the several parts of that stupendous scheme. The Father, accordingly, is uniformly asserted to have sent the Son, the Son to have assumed the office of Mediator, and the Spirit to be imparted by both, to enlighten and sanctify the elect people of God. If we suffer ourselves to lose sight of * Plea for Primitive Communion, p. 21.

VOL. II.

such an application of the doctrine, it subsides into barren and useless speculation. And are we to be told that such is the ineffable union betwixt the Father and the Son, that the distinct exercise of these functions is an impossibility? We should have supposed that the act of sending, at least, might be safely ascribed to the Father, in distinction from the Son; unless, perhaps, this author, in the plenitude of his subtlety, has discovered a method by which a person may send himself. In spite of attempts to bewilder the plain reader by unmeaning abstractions, it will remain a palpable fact, that John's commission is ascribed to the Father, and to him alone; and that having originated before our Saviour assumed the legislative function, it is in no respect entitled to be considered as a christian institute. In addition to which we have only to remark, that to insist upon deriving John's mission from our Lord, is to implicate him in the charge of employing a collusive mode of reasoning. In reproving the unbelief of the Jews, he observes that "he did not bear witness of himself;" for had he done so, "his witness had not been true," in other words, not entitled to credit: but he adds, "there is another that beareth witness of me, and I know that which he witnesseth of me, is true. Ye sent unto John, and he bore witness to the truth."* But if the person to whose testimony he appeals in proof of his mission, was sent by himself, where is the

*John v. 31-33.

force of this reasoning, or what difference in point of credibility is there, betwixt his bearing witness of himself, and his prompting another to do it for him?

II. The author of the Plea next endeavours to shew the identity of the qualifications demanded by the forerunner of our Lord, with those which were demanded by his apostles after the day of Pentecost. After objecting to the After objecting to the accuracy of my statement on that article, without attempting to point out in what its incorrectness consists, he proceeds to remark, that, allowing it to be unexceptionably just, it will prove that the requisitions which were supposed to be different, coalesce into one and the same thing. The reason he adduces is the following: "As both John and the apostles are described as demanding faith, so that faith is to have the same object, and to be connected with the same facts in relation to that object, only some of these facts, John's disciples were to view as approaching; while the faith of those baptized by the apostles, embraced them as having actually occurred; for the great events respecting the Messiah, as boldly appealed to faith, when only occupying the prophetic page, as they do now they are become interesting details in the evangelical history."*

It will be freely admitted that the Saviour of the world is, in every period, and under every

* Plea for Primitive Communion, p. 23.

economy, the sole object of saving faith; but to infer from hence, that the profession which John demanded was an appendage of the dispensation introduced on the day of Pentecost, would equally demonstrate the Levitical ceremonies to belong to it, and would thus carry back the christian dispensation to the time of Moses. The next assertion, "that the belief of the same facts was required in the former instance as in the latter," is palpably absurd, as well as the reason assigned, which is, that they were foretold by the ancient prophets, and "that prophecy as boldly appealed to faith as the narrative of the evangelist." Every one must perceive, that if there is any force in this argument, it will prove that whatever was predicted of the Messiah must have been distinctly understood and firmly embraced by the disciples of the forerunner, as an essential prerequisite to the reception of baptism; since whatever was thus predicted was unquestionably presented as the object of faith; the place of his birth, his vicarious suffering, his resurrection, the spiritual nature of his kingdom, his rejection by the Jews, and the triumphant progress of the gospel amongst the Gentiles, with an infinite number of other particulars, were attested by the prophets. But will this author contend that all these circumstances were understood by John's converts, at a time when the immediate disciples of our Lord were intoxicated with the hopes of an earthly kingdom, and totally unapprised of their Master's death?

Or will he condescend to inform us on what principle so much more was requisite to constitute a disciple of John than an apostle of the Lord? Had it been a question of duty, instead of an inquiry into matter of fact, no difficulty would have been felt in acknowledging the justice of the rebuke which the apostles received for their hardness of heart, in not opening their minds more freely to the true interpretation of scripture. A cloud of carnal prejudices undoubtedly eclipsed a considerable portion of revealed truth; though, with the best dispositions, much must have remained obscure till the ancient prophecies were fulfilled. Previous to that period, if we listen to the inspired writers, instead of the author of the Plea, neither the prophets understood their own predictions, nor the apostles their true interpretation. To apply revelation in its utmost extent, without the smallest allowance for the inevitable involutions of prophecy, as a criterion of the portion of knowledge actually possessed by the successive generations of the faithful, is a mode of reasoning peculiar to this writer. We possess in the Apocalypse, a series of prophecies extending to the consummation of all things, a large portion of which is confessedly involved in obscurity; but what opinion should we entertain of the sagacity of him, who, at a period subsequent to their accomplishment, should contend that we of this age must necessarily have been apprised of the events which they foretold, solely on the ground