"has nothing corresponding to it in the original Hebrew." It so happens, however, that it has all that corresponds to it in the original Hebrew, in every instance, so far as I have observed,in which the phrase 66 my mouth" occurs. It is the common form of the phrase in that language. And Mr. Yates, as one of "those who have learned Hebrew," ought to have known this, and known the reason of it.-With respect to Isa. lxviii. 16. let the reader consult the passage with its context. He will find a greater than the prophet evidently the speaker: and yet He speaks of himself as sent by JEHOVAH, and by the SPIRIT of Jehovah. And although Mr. Yates alleges that "the expression God hath sent me' cannot, without an al"most profane violation of common sense, be considered as "the speech of God himself," the reader will be at no loss for a solution of this difficulty,-at no loss to account for a Divine person being sent, when he recollects, that Jesus, though in the form of God, took upon him the form of a servant; and that in the prophecies, in innumerable instances, he both speaks, and is spoken of, in this capacity.

Matth. xxviii. 19.-I am disposed to admit, that my language, in affirming that this passage necessarily implies an act of worship, was too strong and unqualified. That it does, I still have no doubt. But I am satisfied that this arises, in a considerable degree, from my views of the nature of the ordinance of baptism, along with my previous conviction of the doctrine of the Trinity.

my

Mr. Yates, however, reasons as if the whole strength of argument from the passage arose from this consideration alone:-"Does the expression to be baptized into a person "or thing, or into the name of a person or thing,' signify " that that object or thing is made an object of worship, or "only that it is made a subject of faith? The former inter

"pretation is advanced by Mr. Wardlaw, and rests upon his "unsupported assertion,-&c." (Page 150);-as if I excluded from my interpretation of the passage all idea of profession of faith; which does not seem very necessarily to follow, from my saying that the initiatory rite of baptism, prescribed in these words, " involves in it" an act of solemn worship. Indeed, so far is my argument from resting either solely or chiefly upon this circumstance, that when the passage is introduced by me the first time (which is in my first Discourse amongst the proofs of the Trinity in general) I have not so much as alluded to this view of it.

In his comments on the text, Mr. Yates has failed just in the point which it was most essential to his argument that he should prove. He produces no instance of the name of a thing being used as a phrase for the thing itself. "The name of a 66 person," he "he says, "is an expression often used to signify the person himself;" and he produces one example from the 20th Psalm; along with instances, in which "baptized into Christ," and "baptized into the name of Christ," are used as parallels.

-But no example, alas! of the name of an influence, or energy, or operation, used for the influence, energy, or operation itself. And, failing in this, he fails entirely. The question stands unanswered," What are we to make of the phrase,' the name

66

of the Holy Spirit,' if the Holy Spirit means an attribute, or "a power, or influence?" Or, if it signify miracles and spiritual gifts, what parallel shall we find to such phraseology as the name of miracles and spiritual gifts, for the miracles and spiritual gifts themselves?-May I request the reader, after perusing Mr. Yates's strictures, to read again pages 16—18, and 276—279, of my former volume, and judge for himself, how far, after allowing the slight deduction which I have myself made above, the reasoning is at all invalidated.

Mr. Yates makes the meaning of the appointed formula

to be, "go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them "as a testimony of their belief in the Father, and the Son, and "the Holy Spirit:" (P. 151.) and afterwards he approves the view given from the baptismal service of the English Church, which he thus sums up :-"The Catechumen, before being immersed in water, avowed his faith in the doctrines "of the Christian religion, first, concerning the Father, "secondly, concerning the Son, and thirdly, concerning the

66

Holy Spirit." (P. 153.)-He then concludes his remarks on the passage in these words:-" If therefore, Mr. Ward"law would have taken the trouble to inquire into the "application of the phraseology in the other parts of scrip❝ture, and into the sense attributed to the words by all "the primitive Christians, he might have spared his ridi"cule of Dr. Lardner's most excellent paraphrase of this "passage." (Pages 153, 154.) Dr. Lardner's paraphrase is repeated in a note:-" Go ye, therefore, into all the "world, and teach or disciple all nations, baptizing them "into the profession of faith in, and an obligation to obey, "the doctrine taught by Christ, with authority from God "the Father, and confirmed by the Holy Ghost."-Now it is a little curious to observe, that, while Mr. Yates in his own paraphrase, makes the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, in the text, the subjects of the faith professed in baptism, and expresses his agreement in this with Whitby, and Tillotson, and the English Catechism; the most excellent paraphrase of Dr. Lardner does no such thing, but is constructed on a totally different principle. There is nothing in it about being baptized into the faith of the doctrine concerning the Father, and concerning the Son, and concerning the Holy Spirit; but of the doctrine taught by the Son (whatever the subjects of it might be) with authority

from the Father, and confirmed by the Holy Spirit. The Son here is not at all introduced as the subject of the faith himself, but as the teacher of the doctrine which is the subject of faith;-the Father, in like manner, is not a subject of faith, but the source of authority; nor is the Holy Spirit a subject of faith, but the witness (or rather the evidence) of the doctrine taught. These two paraphrases, therefore, are far from being alike. Yet Mr. Yates takes it for granted, that if I had well considered the former, I could not but have admitted the excellence of the latter.

The truth is, the instances adduced by Mr. Yates, to show the sense in which the words were understood by Trinitarian commentators, and by primitive Christians, viz. as meaning a profession of faith in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Spirit, are perfectly consistent with their holding this faith in the Father, Son, and Spirit, as faith in one God, subsisting in three persons. And Dr. Lardner's paraphrase, is a paraphrase which no one of those to whom Mr. Yates makes reference-neither Whitby, nor Tillotson, nor the Church of England, nor the primitive Christians, would have at all admitted:-the interpretations quoted from them by Mr. Yates are entirely different.

In a note, page 149, Mr. Yates refers to Schleusner, and says, "This immensely learned critic, though a Trinitarian, "adopts the interpretation of Matth. xxviii. 19. which I have "defended."-The words of the critic, under Barrie, areσε βαπτίζειν εις το όνομα του πατρος, &c. h. e. baptismi ritu ob"stringere aliquem, doctrinæ de Deo, Messia, et Spiritu "Sancto, a Christo ipso et per apostolos traditæ, ut legitur "Math. xxviii. 19."-and, under ivoua," BUTTIZEN EIS TO Overa "Tou Targos &c. pro as tov Taτega &c."-But it is mere trifling to bring the authority of this " immensely learned critic"

against me, when the explanation which he "adopts" is one which I have never denied. Schleusner believed the Holy Spirit to be a person in the Godhead, and therefore, when he speaks of being baptized into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, as equivalent to being baptized into the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, he speaks correctly. But this "im"mensely learned critic" had, as Mr. Yates says of Calvin, too much learning, and too much sense, to speak of being baptized into the name of influence, or energy, or miracles. -Besides, who ever denied that the form of baptism included, and chiefly included, the idea of initiation into the Christian faith-into the faith of the doctrine concerning the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit? I certainly never thought of denying this. Nor do I yet see the inconsistency of holding this view, and considering the form, at the same time, as involving an act of solemn worship. But I complain of Mr. Yates, that he has expended the whole of his reasoning against this latter idea, as if the argument from the passage depended upon it alone. He saw, no doubt, that this was the weakest point of attack, and, like a skilful general, he brought his troops to bear upon it. But unfortunately, it is a point of attack, which, even when it has been gained, affords no entrance into the citadel.

On 2 Cor. xiii. 14. Mr. Yates says, (p. 155.) "Paul on"ly expresses, in one sentence, three devout wishes for his "fellow Christians, one relating to the favour of Christ, the "other to the love of God, and the third to their partici66 pation in spiritual blessings."

On this passage, I must take the liberty of transcribing a paragraph, or two from my eleventh Discourse, which Mr. Yates has overlooked:

"Two inquiries, then, present themselves on this part of

P