inftances, and for the reasons, I have already given. And I am the rather inclined to think, that this expreffion denotes the immediate defcent of the Holy Ghoft upon them, because St. Paul feems to have an eye to it in the beginning of his difcourfe in this chapter, ver. 14, 15. where he speaks of John's baptifm, and, as it seems to me, in contradiftinction to Chrift's baptizing with the Holy Ghost and with fire, though he does not quote the paffage quite out. This part of his discourse runs thus: "Of David's feed hath God-raif"ed a Saviour. When John had first preach

ed, before his coming, the baptifm of repen"tance unto all the people of Ifrael. And as John fulfilled his courfe he faid, Whom "think ye that I am? I am not he. But

66

behold there cometh One after me, whofe "fhoes of his feet I am not worthy to loose,' ver. 24, 25. And the words, "He fhall bap"tize you with the Holy Ghost and with

fire," though not exprefs, are, as I apprehend, to be understood. This, indeed, was the affembly that met in the fynagogue the first fabbath-day: and though it chiefly confifted of Jews and religious profelytes, or profelytes of the gate, as appears ver. 16, 42. vet there feem to have been fome idolatrous Gentiles among them, as one would be led to think, by their being diftinguished from the Jews and religious profelytes, ver. 42. compared

pared with ver. 43. They do not seem to be fully convinced this fabbath-day, but defire to hear farther from them on the next, when they, and great multitudes of other nations, Gentiles, believed; and then probably were filled with the Holy Ghoft.

If any fhould except to the proof I bring to the Holy Ghoft's defcending on the idolatrous Gentiles, from the expreffion ufed Acts xiii. 52. that “ they were filled with the

66

Holy Ghoft;" and fhould alledge, against the arguments deduced from that expreffion, that "Saul was filled with the Holy Ghoft"," who has been generally thought to have received the Holy Ghoft by the laying on of Ananias's hands: and if what may be collected to the contrary from what I have urged, or what I fhall further urge against it in the fecond Effay, fhall not fully fatisfy any one; I defire it may be confidered, that as this is the only inftance where it can poffibly be pretended that any one is filled with the Holy Ghoft by the intervention of man's hands; fo there are in this cafe many things that render it perfectly fingular. For, on the fuppofition that Ananias imparted the Holy Ghost to Saul,

1. Ananias, who was but a difciple, imparts it, and imparts it by laying on of his hands; though it is allowed, that none but 2 Acts ix. 17. xiii. 9.

apostles

apoftles had that privilege in any other cafe, as we shall see more fully by and by.

2. He imparts it to Saul, who is defigned to be an apostle; and the only one, on whom the Holy Ghost did not defcend without the intervention of hands. And on this fuppofition,

3. Ananias had a particular commiffion from Chrift to go and lay his hands on Saul (though, as I think, only to give him fight), and Saul had a vifion that Ananias was to come and lay his hands on him. This therefore is a cafe fo particular, that no conclufion can be justly drawn from it: nor can it be inferred, that becaufe Saul was filled with the Holy Ghoft by the laying on of the hands of Ananias (if that was the cafe, as I think it was not), that therefore, where others are faid to be filled with the Holy Ghoft, that that phrafe does not fignify the Holy Ghoft's falling on them without the laying on of hands.

But I do not only conclude, that the Holy Ghoft fell on the first harveft of heathen converts, as it did on the apoftles and their company, on Saul, and on Cornelius and his family, from the expreffion ufed concerning them, that they were filled with the Holy Ghoft;" but from the circumstance of their cafe, compared with that of the first

66

- Acts ix. 11.

fruits of the profelyted Gentiles converted to christianity. For let it be confidered, that Cornelius was a fincere worshiper of the true God, gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway; and it is by far the moft reasonable to fuppofe that his family, and fo the friends he called together, were devout Gentiles too: and that they were careful in abftaining from things offered to idols, from fornication, from things ftrangled, and from blood; abftinences which were very agreeable to the Jews. And yet, if God faw it neceffary to pour out the Holy Ghost on perfons fo`religious and devout, and fo compliant with the Jews in certain points thought to be of great confequence, in order perhaps to perfuade Peter himfelf that he ought to baptize them, though he had the vifion of the fheet to put him upon doing it; and had found Cornelius had had a vifion which correfponded with that of the fheet; nor does it feem as neceffary for the Holy Ghost to have defcended on the first heathen converts, who were idolaters, working all unrighteousness and lafcivioufnefs with greedinefs, to fatisfy Paul that he was to baptize them? efpecially fince there feems to have been fome marks of backwardness in Paul to go to the idolatrous Gentiles, as well as in Peter to go to the profelytes of the gate; as I have obferved in

Acts x. 2.

the

the preface. Farther, if the immediate defcent of the Holy Ghoft was necessary to bear witness to Cornelius and his family, holy and devout perfons, and not so offenfive to the Jews as idolaters were, that God had purified their hearts by faith;" was it not as neceflary to bear witnefs to thofe abominanable idolaters that he had purified theirs? And was it not as neceffary to justify Paul in converfing with these, and admitting them to all the privileges of the gospel, whilft he declared them free from any obedience to any one of the laws of Mofes; as it was to justify Peter for admitting the others (who were allowed to live in their country, and worship at their temple, and in their fynagogues) to the privileges of the gofpel, on continuing to fubmit to the obfervance of fome of them? And perhaps the giving the account of this immediate defcent of the Holy Ghoft, without any laying on of hands, on these firft converts at Antioch and Pifidia, is the reafon why St. Luke ufes that expreffion concerning Paul and Barnabas's relation, of what had paffed in their peregrination, to the church of Antioch in Syria, at their return to that church, that they rehearsed" all that God "had done with them," (uer auTwv). Whereas, otherwise it had been more natural to fay by them (di' aura).