the administrator of a baptism that has no proper place in Christ's spiritual kingdom, to the least, in the purity of which, "all old things are passed away." This state is evidently greater, as has been observed already, than that of John, as the baptizer in outward water, in which capacity he is here spoken of; and as such he was to decrease, and his baptism to give place to Christ's.

As a saint and servant of God, he was never to decrease, but to" increase with the increase of God;" but his dispensation, his baptism, was ever designed to decrease, and be fulfilled. And I think it will be granted, that the least in the pure kingdom of life and substance, is, and must be, in the nature of things, greater than any ever could be in the mere administration of a decreasing and terminating institution.

John was doubtless, as a christian, (and such there have been in all ages, Abraham was eminently one,) great in the kingdom of heaven, but this was not as John the Baptist; as such, he came to, but did not enter the kingdom, nor belong to it. He saw it with his eyes, and knew, and pointed to the Lord of it; but as Moses went not over Jordan, though he did much towards leading Israel to their inheritance, but gave place to Joshua, whose name, like that of Jesus, signifies a saviour, and who conducted them after Moses into the good land; so John the Baptist, as such, could not belong to the purely spiritual kingdom of our Lord; but gave place to him, the anointed saviour, who baptizeth every member and subject of his church and kingdom, into the very life and power of the kingdom, which is not meat and drink, but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the holy ghost." Rom. xiv. 17. And seeing John's baptism was no part of the second covenant, but was under the first, and its proper use was only whilst the first tabernacle was standing, it is equally disannulled by the abolishing of the first covenant, and removal of the first tabernacle, with the other figurative observations; and for the same reason was this disannulled, as were the others, viz. its insufficiency, weakness, and utter inability to make perfect the comers thereunto. "For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before, for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. For the law

made nothing perfect; but the bringing in of a better hope did, by the which we draw nigh unto God." Heb vii. 18, 19. Here we see that which went before the new covenant state, was, for its weakness and unprofitableness of making perfect, disannulled; and surely John's ministration and baptism went before that state, and were designed expressly to prepare for it. I marvel that Christians do not see it, and press on beyond it. It is idle to suppose one set of signs and ceremonies disanulled for their weakness, and another set introduced as perpetual ordinances in the gospel state: we do not read, that, " finding fault" with the rites, figures, and ordinances of the first covenant, God ordained water-washing, and eating and drinking bread and wine, as more permanent and perpetual institutions of the new or second covenant. Nay, verily, he finds fault equally with all things in their own nature equally partaking of the same weakness; both were of divine institution for a time, and equally weak, and liable to a necessary abrogation; and being both typical, there was no more perpetual permanency in the one than the other; neither in themselves, nor in their institution; and of the Mosaic institutions, it is expressly said, "Finding fault with them, he saith, behold the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah.” Heb. viii, 8. Now what was this new covenant? It was intended to supersede and supply the defects of the old; but there is not one word of any of those outward ordinances in it. They are all old things; and however extolled by many good men, belong to the old covenant forever. So that the ceremonials of the law are as much gospel ordinances as water baptism, or bread and wine.

The new covenant is altogether inward and spiritual. "For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel, after those days, saith the Lord: I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts, and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people," &c. verse 10. "Christ has not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true." Heb. ix. 24. Nor ought we, if we would become completely his followers, to continue in the figurative washings, any more than in the figurative offerings and

old ceremonious worship of that temple, which was but a figure of the true. "The priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law." vii. 12. It behoved that the baptisms accompanying the first priesthood, the worldly tabernacle, and holy places made with hands, should, like them, be outward: but now, the law being changed, and the covenant written in the heart, a spiritual baptism alone can be proper, and accordingly is the one only baptism of the gospel. For if it was necessary" that the patterns of the heavenly things," these being outward, should be figuratively purified with outward sprinklings, washings, &c. surely it is as necessary that the heavenly things themselves be purified with better sacrifices and washings than these." See Heb. ix. 23. I think if the vail were done away in the experience of Christians, they might in this one text, Heb. x. 5, "when he cometh into the world, he saith, sacrifice and offering thou wouldst not, but a body hast thou prepared me," read clearly the dismission of all figurative atonements and purifications. All the sacrifices and offerings “he taketh away," as the first things, "that he may establish the second;" that is, "Lo I come to do thy will, O God." This must be done in all the seed; and this is the thing that remaineth forever established under the gospel.

The scope of the apostle's reasoning in this chapter, against the continuation of the "shadows of the good things to come," is from their weakness, their impropriety, and uselessness, where the substance is known, and thus he argues, that where remission of sins is obtained, there is no more offering for sin. See verse 18. Why then continue a baptism that was expressly unto repentance for the remission of sins, if we have obtained remission? Paul brings in the new covenant written in the heart, and the remission of sins attending it, "their sins and iniquities will I remember no more," and in the very next words forms the above conclusion: "Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin." And after he gets through with the argument, instead of urging any outward baptisms, or figurative observations, he pressingly enjoins love, good works, holding fast, not drawing back, not neglecting assembling, not to cast away confidence, patience, &c. Can any thing be VOL. II.-62

plainer, than that such care and constancy in faith, patience, and godly walking, according to the writing of the new covenant, are the weighty matters of the gospel dispensation in Paul's estimation? that as he was not sent to baptize with water, so he never in all his writing enjoins it, nor reproves for its omission. He speaks of the believers, not as being then exercised in the terrible things at Sinai, but as come to the excellent things of Mount Sion," the heavenly Jerusalem; to the spirits of just men made perfect; and to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant; to the blood of sprinkling," &c. This is all sufficient without the figures; and so he shows the removal of all else, "yet once more I shake not the earth only; but also heaven." This is the removal of things that are shaken," that those things which cannot be shaken may remain." "Wherefore," says he, 66 we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably, with reverence and godly fear." See about the latter half of chapter xii. and xiii. 9. He subjoins, "Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines; for it is a good thing that the heart be established with grace; not with meats which have not profited them that have been occupied therein." Did he not mean these elementary things, by the strange doctrines? If not, why does he so immediately propose grace as the means of establishment, and discountenance meats as unprofitable? and what means the altar, in the next verse," whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle?" Is not this altar and that which is eaten, by the "we," who have it, and have a right to eat of it, something belonging to the kingdom they have received which cannot be shaken? and are not the meats, drinkings, and washings, that are unprofitable, the things that are shaken? And why is the shaking and removal of these, called shaking heaven? is it not plainly because these are things that had pertained to devotion and religious services, and were yet urged as such by too many? And can any thing remain of a ceremonial nature, where this heaven is thoroughly shaken, where all old things are done away, and all things become new, according to the new and living way of the gospel? This epistle is supposed to have been written in the year sixty-four; so that there had been

a pretty full time of trial what was and what was not profitable to those who had been occupied in them; and we find here many good things inculcated and enjoined, but ceremonials are rejected, as pertaining to the first covenant, and as now shaken and removed. And is it not truly worthy of remark, that John, the beloved disciple of our Lord, who is supposed to have written his history of Christ's life and doctrines many years after his ascension, makes no mention at all of our saviour's conduct at the eating of the passover, in regard to the disciples eating and drinking in remembrance of him; but relates very circumstantially his other conduct of washing the disciples' feet, and the instructive lesson couched in it?

May we not fairly conclude, that as the only proper time of the disciples' eating and drinking in remembrance of Christ, was but until his coming again, the comforter, to take up his abode with them, and lead and guide them into all truth; and as this season was long elapsed when John wrote, that therefore, he thinking it of no use to mention it, passed it in total silence, as one of the many things which Jesus truly did, but which are not noticed in his history? We find him very careful in correcting a hearsay report, which might, if believed, tend to lead people into outward observances, which he appears not to have relied on, nor inculcated in all his writings. The report 1 allude to is that, by the spreading whereof " the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John" the Baptist. This mistake the beloved disciple, who leaned on Jesus' bosom, and having near access to his heart, knew much of his mind and will, takes special care to rectify, by a full declaration that " Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples." Observing this general omission of things not essential, and his great care to transmit down to posterity many heavenly and truly evangelical and deeply interesting sayings, exhortations, and divine imitations of the blessed Jesus; I have been ready to suppose, his whole aim in mentioning water baptism at all, was, just to do John the Baptist and the Pharisees justice; properly introduce Jesus as increasing, and John as decreasing; carefully record John's repeated mention of water, as peculiar to his baptism, in direct contradistinction to Christ's; and point