It is well to observe here, that this baptism is said to be unto repentance. Herein it is distinguished from Christian baptism, which is said to be for the remission of sins. It is indeed said, that John preached the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. Yet it is no where said that this baptism was for the remission of sins. It was the distinguishing characteristic of John's baptism, that it was unto repentance, or a turning from their wickedness to meet the Lord. It was a particular ordinance, appointed of God, for the express purpose of preparing the people for the coming of Christ. For thus he was used to have them prepared, when he was about to manifest himself to them, as we have seen above. And if this repentance had been sincere, it would have resulted in the remission of their sins.

Third, The duration of this. baptism: It continued but a short time after Christ entered upon his ministry in the world. This is evident from its design and nature. We have seen that it was expressly designed to prepare a people for the coming of the Lord. Why then should it continue after he was come? It must of necessity cease when the object for which it was designed was obtained. The reason why some affirm that it continued under the Christian dispensation, is, that they do not attend particularly to its design and nature. They identify

a Acts ii, 38. b Mark i, 4.

it with christian baptism. That they err in this, is manifest: 1. From its distinctive character, it is invariably termed John's baptism. 2. From its design, it was only to prepare, or make ready, a people for the coming of Christ: and, 3. From its nature, it was unto repentance. That John's baptism ought not to be identified with christian baptism, will appear still more evident from a few questions, with their answers. 1. Unto what was John's baptism? Ans. Unto repentance. 2. For what is

christian baptism? Ans. For the remission of sins. 3. What is the faith required in John's baptism? Ans. It was a faith in the Messiah to come, or a faith that he was about to come; as Robert Hall,' an eminent baptist writer in England, says, 4. What is the faith required in christian baptism? is a faith in the Messiah who has been. appears that they are different ordinances. prove that John's baptism, was not christian baptism.

First, from its institutor.

Ans. It

Thus it

We

It was not the Lord Jesus Christ, but the Father, the first person in the adorable Trinity, who instituted this ordinance. This is evident from John's own words: "And I knew him not, but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me,

« Luke vii. 29. Acts xviii. 25, & xix. 3.

b Robert Hall has labored successfully to prove that John's baptism was not christian baptism.

upon whom thou shalt see the spirit descending and remaining upon him, the same is He which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. Here John not only speaks of him, by whom he was sent to baptize, as a different person from him who was to come, namely, Christ; but says, that he did not know him; "And I knew him not:" this he affirms twice. He knew who sent him to baptize, but who the son of God was, he knew not: consequently the son of God, that is, the Lord Jesus, did not institute John's baptism; therefore it was no christian baptism.

d

If any assert that John was sent of Christ to baptize, because it is written, "Behold I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me," I reply that the speaker, in this place, was not the person of the son of God, but the Lord, or JEHOVAH of Hosts. Because, 1. He immediately after speaks of the Lord Jesus Christ in the third person. "And the Lord whom ye seek shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant whom ye delight in ; Behold he shall come, saith the Lord of Hosts." 2. It is manifest that these words were addressed by the Father to the son, from the manner in which our Saviour himself "Behold I send MY messenger bequotes them. fore THY face, who shall prepare the way before THEE. 3. John says positively that he did not

e John i. 31, 33.

e Matth. xi. 10.

d Mal. iii. 1.

Luke vii. 27. See also Mark i. 2.

know Christ, yet he knew who sent him; and it is to be hoped that the reader will allow that John spake the truth; especially since he twice affirmed it. For, I have known some, when hardly pressed with this argument, endeavor to question the truth of John's assertion. And it must also be allowed that Christ knew who it was that spake in the above cited passage, and to whom those words were addressed, and he informs us that they were addressed to him as the Messiah or messenger of the covenant, by the Lord or JEHOVAH of Hosts. He was to send his messenger to prepare the way for his son, our Saviour. Hence it is evident that John did not receive his commission from Christ, but from the Father, the Lord of Hosts.

Second, That John's baptism was not christian baptism, appears from the order of time in which it was instituted. It was under the law, previous to the commencement of the christian dispensation. To this an objection is urged from Luke xvi. 16. "The law and the prophets were until John." I reply, that christians ought to beware how they urge objections, and that by way of inference from some parts of scripture, to refute or contradict what is expressly asserted in other parts. The scriptures contain no contradictions; for, the Holy Spirit, by whom they were given, cannot contradict himself. We must, therefore, compare spiritual things with spiritual, and illustrate one part of the scripture by

another, in order to discover the truth without any regard to our prepossessed opinions.

When it is said, that the law and the prophets were until John, we are not to understand thereby that the law ceased with him, and continued no longer; for, no such thing is declared. Neither are we to understand by it that there were prophets continually in the church until John; for, that is contrary to fact: because the Jews had been nearly or quite four hundred years without a prophet. Neither would a christian assert that the prophecies were of no force after John appeared. We are, therefore, to understand by that passage, that John was the last prophet under the Old Testament dispensation. He was the greatest prophet that ever had appeared among men." And began to preach the gospel more clearly than his predecessors-in him the gospel day began to dawn. But he did not introduce the gospel dispensation; for, he neither abolished the old ordinances, nor established the

new.

That the law was not set aside at the coming of John, is evident from what the Apostle affirms concerning it. He says, "it was our school-master to bring us to Christ." Consequently the law could not have been annulled at the coming of John. It must have passed by, or beyond him, in order to bring its pupils to Christ. Hence we see how im

Luke xvi. 28. 6 Mark i. 1. e Gal. iii. 24.