will any say the apostles never received christian baptism themselves? If Christ's is water, and yet not John's, how could it possibly be dispensed with in the case of the apostles; in the case of Apollos, and the many which Paul taught, and begat unto God, but did not baptize in water? We read of none sent expressly to baptize in water, but John. If then, Christ's baptism had been with water, and yet not the same with John's, ought not Christ himself to have baptized his disciples with it, before he sent them to baptize others, seeing we have no account of any other but himself, that had any authority to administer his baptism, till first baptized with it by him? Who among the sons of men had a right to administer his baptism, before they were baptized with it themselves? If none had a right so to do, then if his was with water, and yet different from John's, is it not certain that his apostles never received it, seeing "Jesus himself baptized not" with water, and none else had any right to administer his baptism, till themselves were baptized with it? Does it not, therefore, plainly appear, that there is no other baptism with outward water but John's? And did not Jesus himself wholly avoid baptizing any in water, on purpose that it might plainly appear that there is another? Or if there is any other with water but John's, when, where, and by whom did it begin? Who first dared to administer it? Would it now be thought lawful among the Baptists for any to administer the baptism of water who had not received it? And would it not have been very arrogating for any one in that day to have intruded himself into the office of an administrator of Christ's baptism, who had never himself received it? Or, had any so done, how would that convey a right to those by such an one baptized, to baptize others? I think we have all the reason we have a right to desire to conclude, if Christ had ordained water baptism, he would have administered it to those he had sent to administer it to others. And I rest firmly persuaded he never did ordain it, but that all the water baptism now practised among Christians is derived from John, or else is altogether unauthorized in the New Testament. And why do those who now use it, use a form of words never once used by any of the apostles? If they say Christ commanded it, then why did not

his apostles obey his command? Is not this another strong evidence that they were not commanded any form of words at all, nor any use of water, but that the words, " into the name," &c. as plainly show into what they were to baptize, as water would have been plainly shown, had the commission been expressly to baptize into water?

It is urged by some that putting on Christ, which all do who are baptized into him, (Gal. iii. 27,) is giving up their names to Christ in water baptism: but of those baptized into Christ, in the apostle's sense, he here declares, "Ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise," (28, 29,) that is, real heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ. This certainty is not true of as many as are baptized into water, though it certainly is true of as many as are baptized into Christ. Putting on Christ is therefore plainly thus: "Put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof," (Rom. xiii. 14,) that is, "cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light." v. 12. This is directly baptism " into the name," for "God is light," and Christ is light; and putting on the whole armour of light, is truly putting on Christ in baptism. And it is very strikingly observable, that divers texts speak expressly of baptism into Christ; thus preserving the very intent and tenor of the commission; for as all the fulness of the God-head dwelleth in him, and as these texts express baptism positively as being into him, and verbally in his name, as was the case constantly when water was used, it is as evident as any thing can well be, that this baptism into him, is really putting on him, the life, the substance, the whole armour of light; and that this answers the commission exactly, being into the name, the life, the power, the eternal virtue itself; and not into water, or any thing else, merely and verbally in the name. I think this meaning of the words, "into the name," &c, is much confirmed by a passage in the forementioned Plain Account." The author pleads wholly for immersion of adults in water; and to maintain it against sprinkling of infants, he says, p. 43,44, “The word in Matthew, rendered teach, is not the word commonly rendered teach in the New Testament. The word commonly

used is DIDASKO, which occurs very often; but the other word, MATHETEUO, teach, in the baptismal commission of Matthew, is used only three times more in all the New Testament. Mat. xiii, 52, Every scribe WHICH IS INSTRUCTED into the kingdom of heaven.' Mat. xxvii. 57, Joseph, who also himself was JESUS' DISCIPLE.' Acts xiv. 21, When they had preached the gospel to that city, and HAD TAUGHT many.' They did not," says he, "barely preach the gospel, but taught so effectually, as to prevail on many to become disciples or believers. This is the plain import of the original."

Does not this make strongly in favour of the Quakers' doctrine? Does it not show the teaching, mentioned in this great commission, was to be with divine power, and to prevail effectually to discipleship? Was not this the reason they were commanded to wait to be endued with power from on high, because they were now far otherwise to baptize people than they had done before? They were now to disciple them; that is, teach them so livingly and effectually, as truly to baptize them "into the name," &c. Why else was this word MATHETEUO used here, to express this peculiar kind of powerful discipling, or baptismal teaching?--a word used but three times more, as this author himself says, in all the New Testament. He further says in the same page, that this word " implies teaching full as much as the more common word DIDASKO. The difference is, that the former has a more precise and determinate meaning, conveying to the apostles this idea, viz. so teach the people as to persuade them to become my disciples."

Now, serious reader, seeing this passage does mean teaching, but at the same time is so very precise and determinate in its meaning, as to convey a clear idea of great difference from the simple common meaning of the word teach, plainly signifying to make disciples by teaching, that is, to teach or disciple all nations, baptizing them; let us see how the three other passages, where it is used, will concur with the doctrine of baptism "into the name," &c. The first is Mat. xiii. 52, "Every scribe which is instructed into the kingdom of heaven." This is the same word that is rendered "teach" in the commission: and here the scribe is instructed, taught, or discipled into the kingdom of heaven. I think VOL. II.-67

this is the very baptism enjoined in that commission: it is into the very life and substance intended by the name, to wit, the life, strength, and virtue of the kingdom; the strong tower of safety, which the name of the Lord is ever to the righteous, the well instructed or truly discipled scribe. And we see this scribe is initiated into the kingdom by teaching, and that the very teaching, discipling, or instructing, which is enjoined in the commission, and which therefore required power from on high to perform, because it was very different and much more effectual teaching, (as this author maintains,) than that expressed by the common word DIDASKO, teach. The second passage is Mat. xxvii. 57, "Joseph, who also himself was Jesus' disciple." It seems plainly this: he had been taught, instructed, discipled, in this more powerful way of teaching than that meant by the other word DIDASKO; that is, he was a scribe well instructed into the kingdom of heaven; or baptized into the eternal holy name, which is the same thing; for none can be a disciple of Christ without his saving baptism.

The third passage is Acts xiv. 21, " When they had preached the gospel to that city, and had taught many," that is, according to this author's own words, " taught so effectually as to prevail on many to become disciples." This, he adds, is the plain import of the original. Then, it seems, they taught them just according to the commission; and by which teaching they must have been baptized into the name; or, which is the same thing, instructed or discipled into the kingdom. But this sensible author adds further, "The common appellation of christian believers occurring in very numerous passages of the New Testament, is MATHETAI, disciples. As this," says he, " is the usual name of believers in Christ, we have the verb of it in our Lord's commission, where he bids his followers to go and make converts to him throughout the world ;" and, p. 45, he quotes Whitby's note on Mat. xxviii. 19, that is, on the very com mission itself; saying, "I desire any one to tell me how the apostles could matheteuin, make a disciple of an heathen, or unbelieving Jew, without being mathetai, or teachers of them." By all which it is clear, that both the learned Whitby, and this learned author, were sensible that this extraordinary kind of

teaching was making disciples of Christ, believers in and real living converts to him; and it is certain none are such without baptism into him. His disciples, all true believers, all his sincere converts, throughout the world, are baptized by the one spirit into one body; they drink all into one spirit, and are thus initiated, as well instructed scribes, into the kingdom of heaven. Is it not marvellous that this writer was not, by the time he had seen and written thus much, so far instructed into it himself as to have seen with equal clearness, that no part of all this had any thing to do with the elementary water? He maintains that the word baptizo always means immersion or bathing all over in water, and rejects the sprinklers' notions respecting 1 Cor. x. 2, "and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud, and in the sea." The sprinklers' idea on this passage he represents thus, p. 28, "The cloud which hung over the children of Israel is a watery substance, sprinkling its water in drops. The sea, which was as a wall unto them on the right hand and on the left, by force of the strong wind which blew, sent forth a great spray or sprinkling. So they were plentifully sprinkled by the cloud above, and by the waters on each side." This he cannot agree to. Let us see how he understands it, and whether he mends the matter. He thinks "a man of plain sense, not thinking of this cloud or pillar of fire, dropping down water, but of opinion that the baptism of scripture is immersion, would be apt to carry his thoughts no further than to apprehend here is an allusion to the custom of immersion; the Israelites being, as it were, covered with the cloud over, and the waters on each side of them." Thus they stumble on every hand, who are vainly contending for the figures. His remark is very just, that a man of plain sense would not think of drops of water from a pillar of fire and methinks it requires a little more than plain sense to understand immersion all over in water from this passage. But though a man" of opinion that the baptism of scripture is immersion," might be very likely to stop short of the substance, and apprehend nothing further than an "allusion to the custom of immersion," yet I do not see why a man of real plain sense may not query how a pillar of fire can represent immersion in water? Or how going through the sea on dry land, as a firm foundation,