monial of the law, was, though differently used by John, com pletely ended, with every other ceremony thereof, when Jesus rose triumphant from the grave, led captivity captive, and gave spiritual gifts unto men. And when he rises so in us, and completely puts all things under him, in our souls, we shall all find there are no signs or symbols in the gospel, as standing ordinances thereof. John's using water baptism a little differently from what had been usual before, made no difference as to its perpetuity, though that difference might have taught the Jews, had their ears been open enough to have heard it aright, that he who was coming after him would make great alterations, and remove those things that could be shaken, that those only which could not be shaken might remain. There is abundant evidence in scripture, that Christ never intended to incorporate any of the old rituals into his pure religion and worship. Thus he taught the woman of Samaria, at the well, that the true worship was inward," in spirit and in truth," and turned her mind from outward water to the inward. John iv. And when John's disciples came to him saying, "why do we and the Pharisees fast oft, but thy disciples fast not?" (Mat. ix. 14.) he first shows that the time of mourning is not while the bridegroom's comforting presence is enjoyed; but that, when he was taken from them, then they would fast: which shows the fast he meant was inward. And, in the next place, to show the impropriety of uniting the ceremonials of the law, as, outward fasts, washings, &c. with the gospel, the life, the substance; he tells them, "No man putteth a piece of new cloth into an old garment," &c. "neither do men put new wine into old bottles," &c. plainly inculcating, that his gospel was the new and living way; his new cloth, the robe of pure righteousness, the garment of salvation; his new wine, the wine he drinks new with his chosen, in his Father's inward and spiritual kingdom; and therefore is put only into the new bottles, the hearts of the sanctified; that so their hearts might be animated, and rejoice in his salvation, out of all formality and ritual observances; for that he was not come, with his new wine, to supply the old bottles of law ceremonies, or animate therewith the vanishing dispensation of types and shadows; nor with his new cloth, to patch up the old garment of those "car

nal ordinances," imposed on them until the time of reformation, (Heb. ix. 10.) which were only "a figure for the time then present." v. 9. Nay, verily, this was not his intention; not the design of the Father in sending him; he came to abolish all these, and so to bring in everlasting righteousness; and which, wherever it is completely brought in, entirely supersedes the necessity of all these outward ordinances, and abolishes them forever.

It is further observable, that Christ's directions about fasting, point plainly to that which is inward, and wherein those who fast according to them "appear not unto men to fast." Mat. vi. 18. Indeed, it being his peculiar office to fulfil and abolish the ceremonial observances, I believe we shall find, by a careful and illuminated perusal of all his parables and discourses, that he never on any occasion expressed any thing for the perpetuation of outward signs, but, on the contrary, very repeatedly, and on almost every occasion that furnished proper opportunity, pointed out, though often times very obscurely, at least to this world's wisdom, the unceremonious and purely spiritual nature of his kingdom. But these are things which "the vulture's eye," though very prying, "hath not seen." Job xxviii. 7. They are only "spiritually discerned." The natural man, with all his talk of Christ and gospel ordinances, cannot know them, See 1 Cor. ii. 14.

CHAPTER VI.

All baptized with Christ's baptism are members of his church, and none else. Six queries; which, rightly answered, will determine which is Christ's baptism. Divers other queries. Paul's care to avoid running in vain; hence he omits open proclamation against circumcision, at Jerusalem, though he had preached against it among Gentiles. Not strange, then, John's baptism was still in vogue. The TWELVE baptized only by John, in water. They could administer John's, without the power they were to wait for to administer Christ's. Putting on Christ in baptism, is putting on the armour of light. The word for teach in the commission, not the common word didasko, but matheteuo, to disciple, instruct into the kingdom of heaven. Sprinklers and dippers both greatly err about Israel's baptism in the cloud

and sea. It supports neither. "Plain account" corrected in this respect, The author of it allows the disciples' use of water baptism, during Christ's ministry on earth, was the same as John's. It is the soul needs purgation. Water cannot do it. Divers texts showing plainly the name is often used for the life, presence, power of the Lord.

THERE is a baptism by which every member is initiated into the body of Christ. As sure as any are thus baptized, they are members of Christ. If any are not thus baptized, they are not of Christ's church. Now, Query 1.

What is the baptism, without which none can be members of Christ's church; and which none can be baptized with, but they immediately become members?

Query 2. Are all sure to be members of Christ's true church, who are baptized in water?

Query 3. Has Christ two baptisms? See Eph. iv. 5, " One Lord, one faith, and one baptism." No more two gospel baptisms, than two Lords and two faiths.

Query 4. Does not Paul plainly say, "By one spirit we are all baptized into one body, and have been all made to drink into one spirit?" 1 Cor. xii. 13.

Query 5. Can any other but this, which baptizeth into the one body of Christ, be the one initiatory and saving baptism of Christ?

Query 6. Can that be the one baptism of Christ, which thou sands may be baptized with, and yet not become members of his true church, but remain in the gall of bitterness, and bond of iniquity?

I think these six queries, rightly answered, will determine which is the one initiatory and saving baptism of Christ in the gospel. Is it not strange that men do not see it? Why do they stick in the practices of the apostles so rigidly, in regard to John's baptism and the supper, and so easily get over divers other of their practices? Would it not have been a strange and almost unheard-of thing, had those famous institutions dropped into disuse all of a sudden? Could it possibly have been borne? Do we not always find it much easier to bring people by degrees to reject old venerated laws and customs, and adopt new ones, than to rush on and enforce them all at

once? Is not God a God of condescension and tenderness? Did he not anciently lead his people Israel, after he brought them out of Egypt, purposely a different way from the nearest, lest they should meet with discouragements, and return back to Egypt? Exod. xiii. 17. Would he not at least allow his apostles to exercise condescension, and go in and out before the primitive believers, as they could bear it? Was not this evidently the case on divers other occasions? Did not Paul, in communicating to the brethren at Jerusalem how it was that he preached the gospel among the Gentiles, to wit, void of ceremonies, and without circumcision, do it privately, to such only as were grown in the truth, and able to see the propriety of it, and to understand that the gospel has no such outward observations? Gal. ii. 2. Does he not say, that this his care to avoid a general communication to all was, "lest he should run, or had run in vain?" Might it not have been wholly in vain for Paul to attempt benefiting the believers that were of the circumcision at Jerusalem, if he had bluntly at first declared off hand, that circumcision was abolished? And was not this about the year of our Lord fifty-two, and about the seventeenth year of Paul's apostleship?

Is it strange then that he had to circumcise Timothy, purify in the temple, &c. on account of the wrong zeal and attachments of the Jews, seeing so late in the day circumcision so far maintained its ground, that he had probably run in vain, if he had not avoided an open declaration of its being no gospel ordinance? And is it any stranger, that John's baptism should be in too high estimation to be easily laid aside at once? Is water baptism once called Christ's in all the Bible? Is it once called a gospel ordinance? Did Christ ever practise it? Was John's baptism Christ's? If not, were Christ's twelve disciples ever baptized with Christ's baptism or not? If Christ's is water, and yet not the same as John's, who baptized these apostles, seeing Jesus baptized none in water? And we never read of the apostles' being baptized therein by any but John. I have often mentioned that the design of water baptism was that Christ and his baptism might be made manifest to Israel and as this was fully done to the apostles, as to his outward coming,

they needed no more water baptism; and it seems pretty evident they had no more than was administered to them by John. But if the commission, (Mat. xxviii. 19,) was water, and different from John's, why were they not baptized with it themselves, before they went forth to baptize others? Is it not plain, that that commission, as then verbally delivered, did not qualify them with power to administer the baptism mentioned in it? Were they not to wait for "power from on high?" Were they ever able to administer that baptism, till they were first baptized with the holy ghost themselves? Is not this a confirmation that, as they had first received and then oft administered John's baptism before, without this more powerful enduement and qualification, but could not administer Christ's without it, that Christ's was quite a different thing from John's, and out of their reach or ability to communicate, but as it was poured upon them from on high, and flowed through them upon others?

"Behold how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity! it is like the precious ointment upon the head, that ran down upon the beard, even Aaron's beard, that went down to the skirts of his garments; as the dew of Hermon, and as the dew that descended upon the mountains of Zion; for there the Lord commanded the blessing, even life for evermore." Ps. cxxxiii. Is there nothing in the descending of this precious ointment, even down to the very skirts of the garment, in likeness of the living unity of the brethren, like dew on Mount Hermon, and like the Lord's blessing on Mount Zion, that they may give us some idea of the communication of the holy ghost, through the baptized apostles, to and upon the souls of the people? And is not this the one plain reason why they could not administer Christ's baptism till livingly baptized themselves, as the oil could not descend to the skirts till it was poured upon the head of Aaron? And let it be once for all seriously considered, ought we not to hold it as a certainty that if the baptism in the commission had been water, the apostles would have been first baptized with it themselves? Or can we sup pose their having been baptized with John's baptism, by John, before they became Christ's disciples, sufficient to authorize them to administer Christ's? But even though this were granted,