.

"but by the holy ghost that is in them." It is the spirit that first quickeneth; and as these quickenings are attended to, an increasing with the increase of God is happily experienced; even "grace, for" the faithful improvement of "grace." And after all improvements and communications of grace, or the holy ghost, it is still this alone that can enable us to keep this precious treasure, which we have thus graciously received from God; being given to us of him, in our earthen vessels. It is neither speaking, nor laying on of hands, in a formal manner, that can convey divine influence to the soul, or qualify for divine service. The power is only of God; and he that is not immediately impowered of God, has nothing more to do, either with preaching or laying on hands, than Simon the sorcerer, who would have bought with money the privilege of communicating the holy ghost, that he might trade with it, as I conclude, and make money by the business.

It is probable the sign of laying on of hands was, in that weak and early state of the church, or of many young converts, made use of as a confirmation, thereby strengthening their faith in the truth of the gospel, and in the power attending the apostles; but is neither needful where the gospel is generally established, nor, out of the life, any more availing than the brazen serpent was to Israel, after its real use was ceased, and they were become ensnared by an idolatrous attachment to it, and dependance on it. The minds of men, not single to divine light, are ever liable to mistake the real use and design of such things; to continue them out of all proper season, and rely too much upon them. Hence the continuation of water baptism, bread and wine, laying on of hands, &c. among Christians, even to this day, as of Israel's lifeless looking to that mere piece of brass, for several hundred years, formerly, and long after its real use was over, and when no good was derived from their formal looking to it.

Ananias was sent to Paul expressly, (Acts ix. 17,) that he might "be filled with the holy ghost." Then surely he instrumentally dispensed or ministered it to him, or, which is the same thing, baptized him with it.

Some contend against baptizing spiritually, by teaching in the

power of the gospel, and urge that the gift of tongues always attended the baptism of the holy ghost. If so, who have this baptism in our day? Will it be granted that none are now baptized with the baptism of Christ? Then the saints now receive none but John's. But there are divers instances in the New Testament of persons baptized with the holy ghost, where not a word is said of their speaking with tongues, as the attentive reader may see for himself.

Peter, in relating his visit to Cornelius, mentions the angel's saying to him, to wit, that he (Peter) should tell him words whereby he and his house should be saved. This shows his words would be with baptizing efficacy; that he would, as he certainly did, baptize them with the holy ghost. He taught baptizingly, according to commission; and he himself evidently considers that baptism with the holy ghost, which they received through his teaching, as an exact accomplishment both of this saying of the angel, and of our Lord's promise in regard to the baptism of the holy ghost. Do, kind reader, examine the passage for thyself, Acts xi. where the angel, speaking of Peter, says to Cornelius, verse14, "who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved." In the very next sentence, to show how exactly this was verified, Peter says, verse 15, " And as I began to speak, the holy ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning." Here he plainly connects their reception of the holy ghost, through his ministry, with the saying of the angel, that he should tell them words, by which they should be saved. Indeed, how could he possibly tell them words by which they should be saved, unless baptizing influence attended his words? Nothing ever saves the soul without the baptism of the holy ghost. Had I heard the angel tell Cornelius that Peter would tell him words by which he should be saved, I think it would to me have been sufficient evidence that Peter's words should be with baptizing power. And this I think might be depended on, seeing nothing saves short of "the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the holy ghost." And on this ground we might take it for certain, from this saying of the angel, that Peter's powerful teaching was to prove baptizing to Cornelius and his household, whether Christ had ever verbally

commissioned him and the other apostles to teach baptizingly or not; and whether Peter had ever related that he did so or not. But seeing Christ did so commission them; and seeing the angel did declare that Peter should deliver words by which men should be saved; and seeing none can be saved without the one only saving and spiritual baptism; and seeing they received "this as Peter began to speak, the holy ghost then falling on them; and seeing Peter himself evidently considered its so falling on them as the baptism of the holy ghost, and immediately, in the very next words, applied our Lord's promise to what then took place, through his ministry, saying, verse 16, "Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the holy ghost:" I think all these facts and considerations, taken together, amount to a very full and strong confirmation, that the ministry of the gospel is a baptizing ministry, and that men did instrumentally baptize with the holy ghost. And this will assuredly be the case, as long as Christ continues to be with his ministers, and they thereby continue to preach the gospel, as it was preached in the primitive times, "with the holy ghost sent down from heaven." And this, (it is the unshaken faith of some,) will be the case unto the end of the world. Amen."

66 even

This account of Peter's, respecting the baptism of Cornelius and his family with the holy ghost, through his ministry, is so connected and expressed by him, as to confirm his meaning, where, afterwards, he speaks of the " baptism which now saves us," to be, that this saving baptism is the same with that by which Cornelius and his house were baptized, while he was delivering those words, by which the angel had said they should be saved. Peter knew no figure could save, any more than the "blood of bulls and of goats" could "take away sins ;" and therefore, in telling what is the baptism which saves, (which is several times already remarked,) he also carefully shows us what it is not, lest his mention of the word water should draw such as were too outward in their views to trust in or continue the use of that which only puts away the outward filth of the flesh, or of the body. And his commanding Cornelius and his house to be baptized, no more proves he had a commission to baptize with wa

ter, than Paul's baptizing Crispus and Gaius proves he had a commission for it, which he declares he had not; nor yet a whit more than his circumcising Timothy, and purifying in the temple, and James' directing the sick to be anointed with oil in the name of the Lord, proves a divine commission for all these things. Had Paul given a circumstantial relation of his baptizing the few he did baptize in water, without mentioning that he was not sent to do it, or thanking God that he did it in so few instances, it had been as strong in favour of the practice, as any instances of its administration by the rest of the apostles. This he might have done, as well as others, though he was not sent to administer that baptism. And do not all see it would in reality have been no true support of the practice? Yet how eagerly would it have been claimed, as a support thereof, just as are the instances where others used it.

Now let us suppose they had all testified, (and I can see no reason why they might not, as truly as Paul,) that Christ sent them not so to baptize; that they did it in condescension, and thanked God that they did it no more; what then would become of all those instances, now so confidently urged as proof that a mere figurative immersion is the saving baptism of Jesus? They did divers things without commission, and yet do not expressly declare they were not sent to do them: does their omission of . such a declaration infer they had a commission? By no means. Neither does their not declaring they were not sent to administer elementary baptism, infer they had a commission for that. But, say many, Christ gave them a commission to baptize. Very true: and the minds of men looking outward for the meaning and accomplishment of many things that are inward and spiritual, has induced them mistakenly, among other instances, to understand a commission expressly to baptize into the eternal name, as meaning into water; and thus to retain as a gospel ordinance, a mere figurative, preparatory, decreasing, and terminating institution. Some think it must have been by divine commission that the apostles baptized in water, because it was in the name of the Lord. But we see the anointing of the sick with oil, was also in the name of the Lord. And yet I know of none who now hold to a divine commission for this

practice. But we may take notice, that neither this, nor water baptism, "was into the name of the Father, and of the son, and of the holy ghost." No, there is not one instance of this form of words in all the Bible, in the use of water, which surely we may conclude would have been the case, had the commission designed an outward dipping; for, in that case, that must have been the ordained form of words. But as water was not meant, the commission contains no form of words at all to be used in baptism; but the words "into the name," &c. express the very nature, power, and divine efficacy of the baptism they were to administer. It was not their own, it was not John's, it was not water, it was not any thing that they could administer at any other time, than when specially "endued with power from on high;" and therefore this they were to wait for, and were promised to receive, as their qualification, from him who has all power.

Now he who had all power, was "Lord even of the sabbath day," (Mat. xii. 8.) and just as much Lord of every other sign, and has equally fulfilled them all, and redeemed his people from every yoke of mere ceremonial observations:. for he was made of a woman, "made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law." Gal. iv. 4. And if Christ was made under the law, surely John was also under it, as I have before advanced; nor was it ever totally abolished, even as a law of carnal or outward ordinances, till Christ rose from the dead. And this holds good inwardly with the true christian traveller in his own experience. "He that hath an ear, let him hear."

But as John was under the law, (though advanced near to the kingdom,) Christ has, in redeeming his people from all ceremonials of the law, also redeemed them from water baptism, which indeed was frequently in some sort practised under the law, long before John; as appears by the very precepts of the law; and which is allowed by the author of the "Plain Account" before mentioned. For, speaking of baptism in the days of the apostles, he says, "The principal scene of baptism lay in a country where immersion was quite familiar, and must, by the very laws of their religion, come into daily use through all parts of the land," p. 29. Baptism in water being therefore a cere VOL. II.-66