"after me is mightier than I,-hé shall baptize you "with the Holy Ghost and with fire." However the words may be interpreted, they mean something which John could not do, but which Jesus could and would do. Accordingly our Lord, just before his ascension, said to his apostles, "Wait "for the promise of the Father, which ye have "heard of me. For John truly baptized with "water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy "Ghost not many days hence."2 The promise made by our Lord was, that the apostles themselves should be "baptized with the Holy Ghost;" not that they should baptize others with the Holy Ghost. Our Lord's promise to the apostles related, indeed, principally to the miraculous powers imparted by the Holy Spirit; and, in general, these were communicated to others, through the laying on of their hands, but not always. This Peter marks distinctly: "The Holy Ghost fell on them, as on "us at the beginning. Then remembered I the "word of the Lord, how he said, John indeed "baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with "the Holy Ghost. Forasmuch, then, as God gave "them the same gift, as he did unto us who be"lieved on the Lord Jesus Christ, what was I that "I could withstand God?"3 Here the baptism of the Holy Ghost is called the gift of God, and independently of man. It is never said that the

'Matt. iii. 18. Mark i. 8. Luke iii. 16. John i. 33.

2 Acts i. 4, 5.-This may be considered as our Lord's own explanation of the prediction of John, quoted by the bishop: and here the "baptism with the Holy Ghost" had not even any connexion with baptism with water.-J. S.

Acts xi. 15-17.

66

apostles, or any other person except Jesus Christ, baptized with the Holy Ghost." Nor did any even of the apostles ever say to others, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost: none used these words except our Lord himself, and he but once, and that to his apostles.1 When Peter and John went to the believers at Samaria, they did not say, "Re"ceive ye the Holy Ghost;" but "they prayed

for them that they might receive the Holy "Ghost ;" and "laid their hands on them, that "they might receive the Holy Ghost."2 In one sense, all true Christians are "baptized with "the Holy Ghost." "By one Spirit we are "all baptized into one body.":

But then this

is what neither John the Baptist, nor the apostles, nor any man can do; it is the exclusive work of Him who is greater and mightier than they all.-John had no need to be baptized with water by the apostles of Christ; but he needed to be baptized by Christ himself: that is, " to be washed, "and sanctified, and justified in the name of the "Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God." 5

''This communication being made at baptism, ' at the time of admission into the gospel covenant, every Christian must possess the invaluable blessing of preventing grace, which, without extinguishing the evil propensities of our nature, inspires holy desires, suggests good counsels, ' and excites to just works.' 6

6

'tism,' seems to imply something distinct from the mere opus operatum, though not separable from it.

To all persons by the holy mystery of baptism 'duly initiated to Christianity, or admitted into <the communion of Christ's body, the grace of 'God's Holy Spirit certainly is bestowed, enabling 'them to perform the conditions of piety and 'virtue then undertaken by them; enlightening 'their minds, rectifying their wills, purifying their 'affections, directing and assisting them in their 'practice; the which holy gift (if not abused, illtreated, driven away, or quenched by their 'ill-behaviour,) will perpetually be continued, improved, and encreased to them.'1

What is here to be understood, by duly ini'tiated ?' Does it refer to the right administration of baptism, or the right reception of it?—If to the latter, as adults, the quotation may admit of a favourable construction. But, if it refer merely to the right administration of baptism; not to anticipate the case of those, who, when adult, receive baptism on a false and hypocritical profession of repentance and faith; were it indeed so as to infant baptism, surely we should witness some marked distinction between baptized children and unbaptized children. Yet what impartial person will say that this is at all discernible? Who does not observe, that baptized children, even in pious families, are in themselves as self-willed, passionate, and rebellious against authority; as envious, contentious, deceitful, and unteachable, as other children? "Foolishness," says Solomon,

"is

"bound up in the heart of a child; but the rod "of correction," prudently used, and attended with proper instruction, will do more to "drive it far away, " than either circumcision of old, or the water of baptism at present can do, as far as observation and experiment reach. Yet neither the one nor the other, without a new creation unto "holiness," will produce a real inward amelioration.

If we make a right use of baptismal grace, it is encreased; and by repeated additions, in consequence of right use, it carries forward the human soul from one degree of religious pro

ficiency to another, till it qualifies us to be “heirs ' of God, and joint heirs with Christ."' 2

So then after all, neither the outward and 'visible sign,' nor the inward and spiritual grace' of baptism; 3 nor both combined, make us, the 'children of grace,' that is, " children of God;" but the subsequent improvement of baptismal grace. This may aid the reader to discover in what sense, according to the Refutation, baptism is regeneration:' or rather to shew that no one precise meaning is adhered to.

6

'As we are not naturally men without birth, so 'neither are we Christian men, in the eye of the 'church of God, but by new birth; nor, according 'to the manifest ordinary course of divine dispen'sations, new born, but by that baptism which 'both declareth and maketh us Christians. In

1 Prov. xxii. 15.

2 Ref. 30.

3 Catechism..

'which respect we justly hold it to be the door of 'our actual entrance into God's house, the first apparent beginning of life.' 1

In this quotation from Hooker, the words, Neither are we Christian men in the eye of the 'church;' and, according to the manifest ordinary course of divine dispensations,' may obviate the objection to his views, as holding baptism to be regeneration.-It is added in Hooker,-A 'seal perhaps to the grace of election already re'ceived; but, to our sanctification here, a step 'that hath not any before, it.'-He distinguishes 'outward baptism from inward; and contends 'for the necessity of the former as well as the latter. 'And (because equity so teacheth,) it is on all parts gladly confessed, that there may be in 'divers cases life by virtue of inward baptism, "even where outward is not found.'2 We are not, however, required to subscribe all that Hooker wrote on this subject, or on any other.

'Christians have what Bishop Pearson calls a 'double birth; namely, a natural birth from Adam, ' and a spiritual birth from Christ. There cannot 'be two natural births, neither can there be two spiritual births. There cannot be two first en'trances into a natural life, neither can there be ' two first entrances into a spiritual life. There 'cannot be a second baptism, or a second re'generation.' 3

'Hooker, B. V. § 60.-The last sentence sufficiently declares that Hooker did not hold the inseparable connexion of the inward grace with the outward sign.—J. S.

Ref. 85.