question; for none will contend that John immersed his disciples in the name of the Holy Trinity.

4. The baptism instituted by our Lord, is in scripture distinguished from that of the forerunner, by the superior effects with which it was accompanied; so that, instead of being confounded, they are contrasted, in the sacred historians. "I indeed," said John, "baptize you with water unto repentance, but there cometh one after me who is mightier than I; he shall baptize you in the Holy Ghost, and in fire." The rite administered by John was a mere immersion in water, unaccompanied with that effusion of the Spirit, that redundant supply of supernatural gifts and graces which distinguished the subjects of the christian institute. On the passage just quoted, St. Chrysostom has the following comment :-" Having agitated their minds with the fear of future judgement, and the expectation of punishment, and the mention of the axe, and the rejection of their ancestors, and the substitution of a new race, together with the double menace of excision and burning, and by all these means softened their obduracy, and disposed them to a desire of deliverance from these evils, he then introduces the mention of Christ, not in a simple manner, but with much elevation; in exhibiting his own disparity, lest he should appear to be using the language of compliment, he commences by stating a comparison betwixt the benefit bestowed by each. For he did not immediately say, I am not worthy

to unloose the latchet of his shoes; but having first stated the insignificance of his own baptism, and shewn that it had no effect beyond bringing them to repentance, (for he did not style it the water of remission, but of repentance,) he proceeds to the baptism ordained by Christ, which was replete with an ineffable gift."* This eminent father, we perceive, insists on the prodigious inferiority of the ceremony performed by John to the christian sacrament, from its being merely a symbol of repentance, without comprehending the remission of sins, or the donation of the Spirit. The evangelists, Mark and Luke, it is true, affirm that John preached the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, whence we are entitled to infer that the rite which he administered, when accompanied with suitable dispositions, was important in the order of preparation, not that it was accompanied with the immediate or actual collation of that benefit.

Such as repented at his call, stood fair candidates for the blessings of the approaching dispensation, among which, an assurance of pardon, the adoption of children, and the gift of the Spirit, held the most conspicuous place; blessings of which it was the office of John to excite the expectation, but of Christ to bestow. The effusion of the Spirit, indeed, in the multifarious forms of his miraculous and sanctifying operation, may be considered as * Homily xi. on Matthew. Mark i. 4. Luke iii. 3.

equivalent to them all; and this, we are distinctly told, was not given (save in a very scanty manner) during our Lord's abode upon earth, because he was not yet glorified. Reserved to adorn the triumph of the ascended Saviour, the apostles were commanded to wait at Jerusalem until it was bestowed, which was on the day of Pentecost, when "a sound from heaven as of a mighty wind, filled the place where they were assembled, and cloven tongues of fire sat upon each of them, and they were filled with the Holy Ghost." This was the first example of that baptism of the Spirit, as the author of which, John asserts the immense superiority of the Messiah, not to himself only, but to all preceding prophets. In the subsequent history, we perceive that this gift was, on all ordinary occasions, conferred in connexion with baptism. In this connexion, it is exhibited by St. Peter, in his address on the day of Pentecost; Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."

66

Thus it was also in the case of Saul of Tarsus. Agreeable to our Lord's prediction of the signs which should accompany them that believe, there is reason to suppose a greater or less measure of these supernatural endowments regularly accompanied the imposition of the hands of the apostles on primitive converts, immediately subsequent to their baptism; which affords an easy solution to the surprise Paul appears to have felt, in finding

certain disciples at Ephesus, who, though they had been baptized, were yet unacquainted with these communications. "Into what then," he asks, "were ye baptized?" and upon being informed "into John's baptism," the difficulty vanished.

Since the baptism of the Holy Ghost, or the copious effusion of spiritual influences, in which primitive christians were, so to speak, immersed, was appointed to follow the sacramental use of water, under the christian economy, while the same corporeal action performed by John was a naked ceremony, not accompanied by any such effects, this difference betwixt them is sufficient to account for their being contrasted in scripture, and ought ever to have prevented their being confounded as one and the same institute.

5. The case of the disciples at Ephesus, to which we have just adverted, affords a demonstrative proof of the position for which we are contending; for if John's baptism was the same with our Lord's, upon what principles could St. Paul proceed in administering the latter to such as had already received the former ? As I am aware that some have attempted to deny so plain a fact, I shall beg leave to quote the whole passage, which, I am persuaded, will leave no doubt on the mind of an impartial reader:-" It came to pass while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul, passing through the upper coasts, came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? but they replied,

We have not even heard that there is an Holy Ghost. He said unto them, Into what then were ye baptized? they said, Into John's baptism. Paul replied, John indeed baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him who was to come, that is, on Jesus Christ. And when they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus: and when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came upon them, and they spake with tongues and prophesied." I am conscious that there are not wanting some who contend that the fifth verse is to be interpreted as the language of St. Paul, affirming that at the command of John, the people were baptized in the name of Jesus. But, not to repeat what has already been advanced to shew that this is contrary to fact, (for who, I might ask, were the people, who at his instigation were baptized in that name, or what traces are there in the evangelical history of such a practice, during the period of his ministry?) not to insist further on this, it is obvious that this interpretation of the passage contradicts itself: for if John told the people that they were to believe on him who was to come, this was equivalent to declaring that he had not yet manifested himself; while the baptizing in his name as an existing individual, would have been to affirm the contrary. Besides, we must remark, that the persons on whom Paul is asserted

"When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." Acts xix. 5.