ceremony, an immersion of the body in literal water, or was it the baptism of the Spirit, an inward unction of the Holy One? If it were the former, why repeat the ceremony? If the latter, why should we still cleave to the letter, which cannot profit, rather than to the Spirit which giveth life? If necessity existed for another water baptism to succeed that of John, how many repetitions of the ceremony are necessary to constitute one baptism of which Paul speaks, Eph. 4: 5. and which no person of sound mind will deny to be the baptism of the gospel dispensation?

I come now more directly to the proof of this position by a recurrence to the language of scripture. And let us first listen to the testimony of John, recorded in Matthew 3, Mark 1, Luke 3, and John 1.

"I indeed baptize you with WATER unto repentance; but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am unworthy to bear; he shall baptize you with the HOLY GHOST, [Spirit] and with FIRE.""I indeed have baptized you with water; but he [Jesus] shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost." I indeed baptize with water--he [alluding to Christ] shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire."" And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet? John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not.---And I knew him not; but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water. And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. And I knew him; but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Spirit."

I have quoted thus largely from the scriptures, that we may understand clearly the views of John as to his dispensation of water baptism, which he is careful to distinguish from that of Christ, which he denominates the baptism of the Holy Spirit. It is evident that the object of his mission was to point out Christ as the promised Messiah, the Shiloh, the Lamb of God who taketh away the sin of the world. That this was so considered by him, and that his dispensation was the close of the economy of shadows is obvious from his own confession---He must increase, but I must decrease. But the words of Christ relative to John and his mission are direct proof that John's mission was only pointing to the gospel dispensation, not IN it. "For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist; but he that is least in the kingdom of God, is greater than he." To the same point was the preaching of John---The kingdom of heaven is at hand. Should you object that the same is given in commission to our Lord's disciples, Matt. 10, the reply shall be given in the words of scripture. John 7, "He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given because that Jesus was not yet glorified.”--Hence, no follower of Christ, or believer on him, could properly be considered as then in the kingdom of God, or gospel dispensation.

3. I shall endeavour to show in the third place, that the passages which you have cited in maintenance of the tenet, that immersion in water is Christian baptism, fall utterly short of your design. The first in order is Matthew 28: 19. "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

Should the translation, in, from the Greek word, Eis, be admitted as correet, I see no reason for conceding, that baptizing in the name, &c. authorizes any one to reduce these words into a mere form by calling them over the recipient of water immersion. I think not a vestige of testimony can be exhibited, either that this was the intention of the speaker, or scripture usage. When John the Baptist, speaking of Christ, says, He shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit, is the most remote hint given, of his own, or water baptism? Certainly not: nor does it any way intimate, that to baptize with the Spirit, is to call the name over those who were immersed in water. You perceive that I object in a previous note, to the translation unto and in, as neither consistent each with the other, nor with the rendering in other places, where the same Greek word is rendered into. In the Greek of Greisbach, the question and answer, Acts 19: 3, stand thus : Εις τι ουν ε βαπτίσθητε Into what were ye baptized ?Eig To Iwavvs Barrida, into John's Baptism. And, 5: 5, it is said, they were baptized as To ovoμa into the name, &c. But to show, that the translators strove to put a false construction on these passages, relating to what they considered as a formulary, it may be sufficient to quote one or two of many passages, where they do thus render it, without any assignable reason for the variation, aside from their own prejudices, or the beck of a bigoted king, in the one case, and their regard to propriety in the other. 1 Cor, 1: 12, contains the word twice, and is rendered into in each.

The baptism of the Ethiopian is frequently quoted as indubitable proof that immersion was the baptism used by Philip in fact, and that the terms thus used make this certain. True, but the term into the water, receives its whole force from Eis, the very word under consideration. Now, render this unto, and where is your strength? But is the form on which you

place so much reliance found in the mouth of Philip? Certainly not. That design is manifested in the translators, is evident from the fact, that in nearly, if not all the places where the term baptize can be tortured so as to lead one to suppose that water baptism is intended, though the baptism is most evidently spiritual, the word is rendered in or unto, but in other places, the word is correctly rendered.

But now that I am on the subject, permit me just to remark, that much has been said by Baptists, relative to the word Baptizo, which they state, on good authority, as not being translated, but merely receiving an English termination. They correctly impute this to the rule laid down for the translators by king James. In proving that baptism is immersion, they allege its use in places unconnected with baptism in water, as Christ's being baptized, or immersed, or overwhelmed, in sufferings. Let their own acknowledgment prove to them, that the term baptize, has no more necessary connexion with water, than with fire, or the Spirit, or sufferings, all of which are thus connected with the scripture use of the word. It is inindeed hoped, that their prejudices may in future be so far tempered by modesty, as to prevent them from representing Christian baptism, which is that of the Spirit, as one with, or a part of John's baptism, which was administered several years prior to the day of Pentecost.

Direct Appeal. He shall save his people from their sins. How? By his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Spirit, which he shed on us abundantly, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Who hath saved us, and called us-Baptism doth now save us the answer of a good conscience, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved. He that believeth on the Son, hath eternal life. Is John's

baptism the washing of regeneration-does or can it save from sin-or cleanse the conscience-or give one spiritual blessing? No. Was John a recipient of christian baptism? No. Was he in the kingdom of Christ, or gospel dispensation? No. Does immersion in water then in any manner contribute to the baptism of the Spirit? No: For we read of those who were thus baptized without it. Is it enjoined by Christ? No. It is not then christian baptism, and those who thus consider it, are looking for the living among the dead; they follow the shadow, but the body is of Christ.

The above citation has so important a bearing on the subject, that it was deemed necessary in this place. I now proceed with the argument.

To attempt the refutation of an opinion, before that opinion is understood, is foolishly to darken counsel by words without knowledge. Your impression from the citation is clearly this; that the disciples were to teach all nations-to baptize with or in water, using this form of words: I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. If this be its import, and it can be made obvious, either by the foregoing, or any other passage of scripture, I shall submit to its authority, publicly confess my former error, and ask for myself the performance of this rite.

Let us carefully examine this commission. Are baptism in water, and baptism into the name, &c. synonymous terms? No judicious man will publicly assert it. We see no authority for inserting water after baptism, and are not justified by the context in supposing that the least intention existed to have it so understood: nay, the passage in Mark 16: 1620. which is evidently a parallel text, fully refutes the conjecture. Here again no element is mentioned, and it would be as correct to say that material