words. Of the contest among the Jews concerning Jesus, some maintaining that he was, others that he was not the Messiah, the sacred historian says-So there was a division, or schism, among the people because of him. Here, it is plain, the word is used in a sense perfectly indifferent; for it was neither in the true opinion, supported by one side, nor in the false opinion, supported by the other, that the schism or division lay, but in the opposition of these two opinions. In this sense of the word, there would have been no schism, if they had been all of one opinion, whether it had been the true or the false. The word is used precisely in the same signification by this apostle in two other places of his gospel; John ix. 16, x. 19.

"But it is not barely to a declared difference in judgment, that even the metaphorical use of the word is confined. As breach or rupture is the literal import of it in our language; wherever these words may be figuratively applied, the term schism seems likewise capable of an application. It invariably presupposes, that among those things, whereof it is affirmed, there subsisted an union formerly, and as invariably denotes that the union subsists no longer. In this manner the Apostle Paul uses the word, applying it to a particular church, or christian congregation. Thus he adjures the Corinthians by the name of the Lord Jesus, that there be no divisions, or schisms, among them. And in another place of the same epistle he tells them, I hear there are divisions, or schisms,

among you. In order to obtain a proper idea of what is meant by a breach or schism in this application, we must form a just notion of that, which constituted the union, whereof the schism was a violation. Now the great and powerful cement, which united the souls of christians, was their mutual love. Their hearts, in the emphatical language of holy writ, were knit together in love. This had been declared by their Master to be the distinguishing badge of their profession. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. Their partaking of the same baptism, their professing the same faith, their enjoying the same promises, and their joining in the same religious service, formed a connexion merely external, and of little significance, unless, agreeably to the apostle's expression, it was rooted and grounded in love. As this therefore is the great criterion of the christian character, and the foundation of the christian unity, whatever alienates the affections of christians from one another, is manifestly subversive of both, and may consequently, with the greatest truth and energy, be denominated schism. It is not so much what makes an outward distinction or separation, as what produces an alienation of heart, which constitutes schism in the sense of the apostle; for this strikes directly at the vitals of christianity. Indeed, both the evil and the danger of the former, that is, an external separation, is principally to be estimated from its influence upon the latter, in producing an alienation of the

heart; for it is in the union of affection among christians, that the spirit, the life, and the power of religion are principally placed. "It may be said, Does it not rather appear, from the passage first quoted, to denote such a breach of that visible unity in the outward order in their assemblies, as results from some jarring in their religious opinions, and by consequence in the expressions they adopted? This I own is what the words in immediate connexion, considered by themselves, would naturally suggest. I beseech you, brethren, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions [schisms] among you, and that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. It cannot be denied, that a certain unanimity, or a declared assent to the great articles of the christian profession, was necessary in every one, in order to his being admitted to and kept in the communion of the church. But then ́it must be allowed, that those articles were at that time few, simple, and perspicuous. It is one of the many unhappy consequences of the disputes that have arisen in the church, and of the manner in which these have been managed, that such terms of communion have since been multiplied in every part of the christian world, and not a little perplexed with metaphysical subtleties and scholastic quibbles. Whether this evil consequence was in its nature avoidable, or if it was, in what manner it might have been avoided, are questions foreign to the present purpose. Certain it is, however, that several phrases,

used by the apostles in relation to this subject, commonly understood to mean unanimous in opin ion, denote more properly, coineiding in affection, concurring in love, desire, hatred, and aversion.

"Further, let it be observed, that in matters whereby the essentials of the faith are not affected, much greater indulgence to diversity of opinion was given, in those pure and primitive times, than has been allowed since, when the externals, or the form of religion came to be raised on the ruins of the essentials, or the power; and a supposed correctness of judgment made of greater account than purity of heart. In the apostolic age, which may be styled the reign of charity, their mutual forbearance, in regard to such differences, was at once an evidence and an exercise of this divine principle. Him that is weak in the faith, says our apostle, receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. For one believ eth that he may eat all things: another that is weak eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth dispise him that eateth not, and let not him that eateth not, despise him that eateth.

One man esteemeth one day above another; another esteemeth every day alike. As to these disputable points, let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind, and as far as he himself is concerned, act according to his persuasion. But he does not permit even him who is in the right to disturb his brother's peace by such unimportant inquiries. Hast thou faith? says he; the knowledge and conviction of the truth on the point in question? Have it to thyself before God. Happy is

he, who condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. And in another place, Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded; and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you. Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing.

We are to remember, that as the kingdom of God is not meat and drink, so neither is it logical acuteness in distinction, nor grammatical accuracy of expression; but it is righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. For he, that in these things serveth Christ, is acceptable to God and approved of men.

"ICONFESS, that the majesty of the seriptures astonishes me; that the sanctity of the gospel speaks to my heart. View the books of the philosophers with all their pomp: what a littleness have they when compared with this! Is it possible, that a book, at once so sublime and simple, should be the work of men? Is it possible, that he, whose history it records, should be himself a mere man? Is this the style of an enthusiast, or of an ambitious sectary? What sweetness, what purity in his manners! what affecting grace in his instructions! what elevation in his maxims! what profound wisdom in his discourses! what presence of mind, what delicacy, and what justness in his replies! what empire over his passions! Where is the man, where is the philosopher, who knows how to act, to suffer, and to die, without weakness and without ostentation? When Plato paints his imaginary just man, covered with all the ignominy of guilt, and deserving all the honors of virtue, he paints Jesus Christ in every stroke of his pencil: the resemblance is so strong, that all the

fathers have perceived it, and that it is not possible to mistake it. What prejudices, what blindness must they have, who dare to draw a comparison between the son of Sophroniscus and the Son of Mary! What distance is there between the one and the other! As Socrates died, without pain and without disgrace, he found no difficulty in supporting his character to the end; and, if this easy death had not shed a lustre on his life, we might have doubted, whether Socrates, with all his genius, was any thing but a sophist. They say, that he invented morality. Others before him had practised it: he only said what they had done; he only read lessons on their examples. Aristides had been just, before Socrates explained the nature of justice. Leonidas had died for his country, before Socrates made it the duty of men to love their country. Sparta had been temperate, before Socrates praised temperance. Greece had abounded in virtuous men, before he defined virtue, But where could Jesus have taken among his countrymen that elevated and pure morality, of

was

which he alone furnished both the precepts and the example? The most lofty wisdom heard from the bosom of the most furious fanaticism; and the simplicity of the most heroic virtues honored the vilest of all people. The death of Socrates, serenely philosophising with his friends, is the most gentle that one can desire; that of Jesus, expiring in torments, injured, derided, reviled by a whole people, is the most horrible that one can fear. When Socrates takes the poisoned cup, he blesses him, who presents it, and who at the same time weeps; Jesus, in the midst of a horrid punishment, prays for his enraged executioners. Yes: if the life and death of Socrates are those of a philoso

pher, the life and death of Jesus Christ are those of a God. Shall we say, that the history of the gospel is invented at pleasure? My friend, it is not thus that men invent; and the actions of Socrates, concerning which no one doubts, are less attested than those of Jesus Christ. After all, this is shifting the difficulty, instead of solving it; for it would be more inconceivable, that a number of men should forge this book in concert, than that one should furnish the subject of it. Jewish authors would never have devised such a manner, and such morality; and the gospel has characters of truth so great, so striking, so perfectly inimitable, that its inventor would be still more astonishing than its hero."

20.

Matthew iii. 5, 6. "Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, and were BAPTIZED of him in Jordan, confessing their sins."

THE inquiry, which was proposed to John, by the priests and Levites, whom the Jews sent to him from Jerusalem, "why baptizest thou, IF thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?" (Johni. 25.) very plainly intimates, that the Jews would not have been surprised, if"Christ, or Elias, or that prophet," had baptized. Their question implies, that the rite of baptism was fa

miliar to them; but they would know, by what authority John exercised his baptism, and what was the purpose, for which he used it. How far then are these intimations confirmed by facts?

There is no doubt, that baptism had been used as a religious rite by the Jews, several centuries before the era of the gospel; and that it was applied, with circumcision and sacrifice, in admitting proselytes, or converts from paganism, into the Jewish church. It was a common saying of the Jews, "no one is a proselyte, until he has been circumcised and baptized." This practice, the Jews say, continued to the reign