the opinion that they were formed out of preexistent matter, which universally prevailed in pagan philosophy. He also enumerates, among its legitimate objects, the belief that God is, and that he is the rewarder of such as diligently seek him;" and whoever examines with attention the various examples which he adduces of the operation of that principle, must be convinced that the idea of a vicarious propitiation is not absolutely essential to its nature, however necessary to salvation it has become, in consequence of the clear revelation of that doctrine.

Here, then, in all probability, consists the peculiar glory of the gospel, in contradistinction from the economy of Moses, that it deciphers the figures of the law, accomplishes and absorbs every purpose of its sacrifices, and dispels the obscurity which concealed eternal realities, by placing in a refulgent light that great mystery, hid from ages and generations, "by which God can be just, and yet the justifier of him who believeth in Jesus." Thus the rigour and reserve which, under the ancient economy, generated a spirit of bondage, is exchanged for the glorious liberty of the sons of God. But it is time to return from this digression, which, though not totally irrelevant to the subject, has diverted the author's attention longer than he intended from the writer of the Plea.

III. In my former treatise, the omission of the name of Christ in the baptism of John was urged in proof of its being distinct from the christian

ordinance; on the contrary, in the total absence of scriptural evidence, my opponent contends that he not only baptized in the name of Jesus, but also in that of the Holy Trinity. Supposing such to have been the fact, upon what principle can we account for the silence of the sacred writer on so important a particular? for that it was important, and would have contributed more to elucidate the nature and extent of his mission than all the circumstances combined which they have thought fit to record, will scarcely be denied. What similar example occurs in the whole series of scripture history, of a minute and detailed account of a religious ceremony, in which the mention of its most essential feature is suppressed; or who will believe, that while the minutest particulars respecting John were deemed worthy of being recorded, one so remarkable and unprecedented as that of his baptizing in the name of the Trinity was too trivial to be mentioned? a circumstance of much greater moment, surely, than his subsisting on locusts, or his being clothed with a girdle. But beside the silence of scripture, which might of itself be deemed sufficiently decisive, the inconsistency of such a proceeding, with the known reserve our Lord uniformly maintained respecting his Messiahship, and his repeated charges to his disciples not to publish that fact, demonstrate the extreme improbability of his suffering himself to become the avowed object of a religious rite. The employment of his name for such a

purpose, it is obvious, was equivalent to a public declaration of his being the Messiah, and must have defeated his known intention. In the publication On Terms of Communion, this argument was repeatedly insisted on, and pursued to such an extent of illustration, that we should have supposed it impossible it could either be misunderstood or misrepresented. What is the reply of the author of the Plea to this argument? One of the most extraordinary in the annals of controversy: it is neither more nor less than this, that though our Lord frequently enjoined secrecy as to the dignity of his divine character, and the immediate object of his mission, there is not a single instance in which he manifested any delicacy as to his name.* He afterwards proceeds to tell us, with great gravity, that his name Jesus was as well known as that of Peter and John, and that he was addressed under that name equally by friends, enemies, and strangers. My reluctance to inflame this controversy with the language of exacerbation, reduces me, on this occasion, to a perplexity how to express myself. Is it possible, let me ask, he could so far mistake the scope and bearing of the reasoning, as to confound the use of the term Jesus, as the proper name, by which he was addressed in the ordinary intercourse of life, with the employment of it with that of the Father and the Holy Ghost, in a holy sacrament? Or will he contend that to call a person by the name of * Plea for Primitive Communion, p. 27.

Jesus, or by any other appellation whatever, is precisely the same thing as to baptize in his name? He who is capable of confounding things so essentially distinct, is beyond the reach of reasoning : and if he did not confound them, but wished to put the change upon his readers, from a despair of being able to answer the argument, he has evinced a want of candour and good faith that merits the severest animadversion. Had his publication been a tissue of nonsense and stupidity throughout, we should have been strongly inclined to the former supposition; but when we reflect on the shrewdness which it occasionally displays, joined to his care not to glance, in the slightest manner, at the true hinge of the controversy, it is difficult not to suspect the latter. It may be questioned whether another person could have been found, acquainted with the English language, but would have instantly perceived that it was not the author's intention to insinuate a reluctance in our Lord to divulge his name, but the fact of his being the Messiah; and that it was the inseparable connexion of that fact with the practice of baptizing in his name, which was the ground of my objection. As he has not made the slightest attempt to solve the difficulty, it would be trifling with the patience of the reader to attempt to re-enforce it.

IV. The different effects which accompanied baptism, when performed by the apostles, and by John, were urged as a decisive proof that the two

baptisms were essentially distinct, and characteristic of separate economies. To such a distinction our attention is invited by the forerunner, who affirmed himself to baptize in water only, but that "he that came after him should baptize in the Holy Ghost, and in fire." To this the author of the Plea replies, by remarking, "that the argument proceeds on incorrect data: it appears to assume that water baptism, and the baptism of the Holy Ghost, are the same; or that the latter invariably followed the former. It will no doubt be regarded as a remarkable incident, that, in the midst of a zealous effort to separate between what is substantially the same, an attempt should be made to identify what is essentially different."*

After describing the baptism of the Holy Ghost as an effect which ordinarily accompanied immersion in the name of Christ, it will be deemed much more remarkable that the author should be accused of confounding them, or that he should be affirmed to have identified two things which stand to each other in the relation of cause and effect. If it be a fact that the communication of the Spirit usually accompanied the administration of baptism in the apostolic age, while no such communication was annexed to the ceremony of John, the author's position is correct. In proof of this fact, we have only to consult the Acts of the Apostles, which record the history of the first promulgation of the gospel. We there perceive that St. Peter held * Plea for Primitive Communion, p. 29.