him as a divine Saviour. Now, there was a peculiar propriety in mentioning their reception in this manner. For the most of those referred to were either Jews or profelytes: and the doctrine of falvation through that Jefts who was crucified, was their great ftumbling block. Nor was it otherwise with the Gentiles.

Although this language does not express the form, it expreffes the spirit and defign of the ordinance. For as our Saviour is referred to in his mediatory character, there is a virtual reference to the whole Trinity, as engaged in our falvation, and as adored in this folemn act. For we know him as our Lord Jefus Chrift, only as the Son, fent by the Father, to procure that spiritual baptism fignified by the external rite; and as fending the Holy Ghoft for this end. Therefore, when perfons are faid to be baptized in his name, he is never defigned by his effential character, as the Son, but always by one derived from his mediatory function.

Indeed, independently of other evidence, we have a ftrong prefumption with respect to the use of this form from the language of Paul to thofe difciples at Ephefus, who, when asked if they had received the Holy Ghoft, informed him that they had not fo much as beard whether there was any Holy Ghoft, that is, any effufion; for John himself had affured them of the baptifm of the Spirit. Paul replied; Unto, or rather, Into what then were ye bap · tixed? Acts xix. 3... The There feems plainly to refer to the words of inftitution, EIS. TO OVOMA—te Aya

ПIVεupiaros. It is just as if he had faid, "Were ye not bap Πνεύματος.

"tized in the name of the Holy Ghost ; and

"be ignorant of his effufion."

But although it were certain that

tized in the name of Christ on

· purpose of Socinians. For

*

nance, as including a folemn act of worship, the object of which was Jefus. Therefore faid Ananias to Saul; Arife, and be baptized, and wash away thy fins, calling on the name of the Lord, Acts xxii. 16. Now, the Lord, thus folemnly invoked as the object of worship, can be no other than he in whose name the convert was baptized: and this, it is granted, was the Lord Jefus.

Thus, our author, in his zeal against the Trinity, has evidently overshot the mark. For: baptifm being an act of worship, implying, not merely invocation, as expressed in the counsel of Ananias, but a folemn profeffion of faith in him who is called upon, and a dedication of the whole per fon to him; if the mode of expreffion ufed in the Acts, could afford any argument in favour of the worship of one perfon only, it would go wholly to prove that this perfor was our Lord Jefus. Dr P. therefore, in his pretended proof, has mistaken the perfon. For, if he has done any thing, he has proved that, in this inftance, the apoftles wor fbipped Chrift only. However, all that can be justly inferred from the language of Luke is, that he confidered the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghoft as one.

Our author's prefumption must be aftonishing to those who tremble at the word of God, when he adds; "It is to "be hoped that the Unitarians of the prefent age will imi"tate their predeceffors, by baptizing, as the apostles did, "in the name of Chrift only without the invocation of Hol

"the Fathe
"appreher

For here
Ipect

or expreffing what they

that phrafeology." has not proved, with es others, either enby the King of Zion, ere dangerous to use pication, He m the words of

him as a divine Saviour. Now, there was a peculiar propriety in mentioning their reception in this manner. For the most of those referred to were either Jews or profelytes: and the doctrine of falvation through that Jefus who was crucified, was their great ftumbling block. Nor was it otherwife with the Gentiles.

Although this language does not exprefs the form, it expreffes the spirit and design of the ordinance. For as our Saviour is referred to in his mediatory character, there is a virtual reference to the whole Trinity, as engaged in our falvation, and as adored in this folemn act. For we know him as our Lord Jefus Chrift, only as the Son, fent by the Father, to procure that spiritual baptism fignified by the external rite; and as fending the Holy Ghoft for this end. Therefore, when perfons are faid to be baptized in his name, he is never defigned by his effential character, as the Son, but always by one derived from his mediatory function.

Indeed, independently of other evidence, we have a ftrong prefumption with refpect to the use of this form from the language of Paul to those disciples at Ephefus, who, when asked if they had received the Holy Ghoft, informed him that they had not fo much as beard whether there was any Holy Ghoft, that is, any effufion; for John himself had affured them of the baptifm of the Spirit. Paul replied; Unto, or rather, Into what then were ye baptized? Acts xix. 3. The There seems plainly to refer to the words of inftitution, S. To avoua-18 Ayis IIVεuparos. It is just as if he had said, “Were ye not bap"tized in the name of the Holy Ghost; and how can ye "be ignorant of his effufion."

But although it were certain that the firft difciples baptized in the name of Christ only, it could not ferve the - purpose of Socinians. For they adminiftered this ordi

nance, as including a folemn act of worship, the object of which was Jefus. Therefore faid Ananias to Saul; Arife, and be baptized, and wash away thy fins, calling on the name of the Lord, Acts xxii. 16. Now, the Lord, thus folemnly invoked as the object of worship, can be no other than he in whose name the convert was baptized: and this, it is granted, was the Lord Fefus.

Thus, our author, in his zeal against the Trinity, has evidently overfhot the mark. For baptifm being an act of worship, implying, not merely invocation, as expressed in the counsel of Ananias, but a folemn profeffion of faith in him who is called upon, and a dedication of the whole per fon to him; if the mode of expreffion used in the Acts, could afford any argument in favour of the worship of one perfon only, it would go wholly to prove that this perfon was our Lord Jefus. Dr P. therefore, in his pretended proof, has mistaken the perfon. For, if he has done any thing, he has proved that, in this inftance, the apostles wor Shipped Chrift only. However, all that can be justly inferred from the language of Luke is, that he confidered the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost as one.

Our author's presumption must be aftonishing to those who tremble at the word of God, when he adds ; "It is to "be hoped that the Unitarians of the prefent age will imi"tate their predeceffors, by baptizing, as the apoftles did, "in the name of Christ only, without the invocation of "the Father, Son and Holy Ghoft, or expreffing what they "apprehend to be the real meaning of that phrafeology*." For here he not only affumes what he has not proved, with refpect to the apostles; but encourages others, either entirely to renounce the form prescribed by the King of Zion, or to make additions to it: as if it were dangerous to use our Saviour's words without our own explication, He avows his refolution either to take away from the words of

Ibid. p. 444.

the

the book, or to add unto the things contained in it: and he can be no stranger to the threatened confequence of either. What fhall we think of his confiftency in admitting that there is an act of invocation, that is, of worship, in baptifm; even while propofing to make Jefus the only object of it?

On the whole, what estimate can we form of a Socinian faith, when we find that its fubjects avowedly reject that very language of our Lord, which, according to their own acknowledgment," contributes very much to the "establishment of the doctrine of the Trinity,"-upon the flender ground of a pretended doubt, whether it was intended as the prefcription of a form; while they cannot prove the contrary; and while the proof of the doctrine, arifing from the words, is the fame, whether it was thus intended, or not?

10. Our Lord declares that he is the only-begotten Son of God, John iii. 16. 18. This can bear no other meaning, than that he is a Son of the fame nature with the Father, Other fons of God are faid to be begotten of him improperly and metaphorically. But when Chrift is called onlybegotten, it implies that he is the Son of God exclufively, and therefore in the proper fenfe of the term, as denoting an eternal and incomprehenfible generation in the divine effence. The connexion of our Lord's difcourfe fhews that identity of nature is meant. He affures us that he is given in this character; God-gave his only begotten Son, ver. 16. How ridiculous, then, to fay, that he derives the defignation from fomething posterior to this gift? In fo important a light does he exhibit his filiation, that the rejection of him in this character appears as if it were the only caufe of the condemnation of those who enjoy the Gospel: He that believeth not is condemned already; because he hath not believed in the name of the only-begotten Son of God, ver. 18.