Page:Tracts for the Times Vol 2.djvu/419



does not, probably, mean to say that the "Baptizing with the and with fire" was limited to this one act, in which the fire was visibly displayed; but to show that even here, where it would appear that a mere metaphor was intended, there was also a real fact: much more then in the words "born of water and of the Spirit." Add to this, (as Vazquez remarks, in Part III. t. 2. Disp. 131. c. 3.) there is a difference in the very construction of the words, "water and the Spirit," "Holy Ghost and fire;" for it might be said, (as in the application of the words of the Baptist to later times,) that the word "fire" was added to denote the energy of the in consuming our corruption in Baptism: whereas, in the words "water and the ," their very position shows that the word "water" was not added to explain "the ," the mention whereof follows it. But neither can it be said, that the mention of the "" so explains what is meant by "water" that it should be altogether superfluous; otherwise there had been no occasion why it should be mentioned at all. Rather it limits it indeed, so as to show that no mere "outward washing" is here intended; that any "washing" without the power of the Spirit was nothing; but does not so supersede it, as to hold out any hope that we should be born again of the Spirit without the water. Add to this, that in the Baptist's words, there is an evident contrast between the material element, the water, wherewith he himself baptized, and the fire, as the more vehement, to describe the more powerful baptism of our ; whereas, in our own words, there is nothing illustrated or explained by the word "water," unless it mean the water of Baptism; so that the very language would imply a certain metaphorical application in the one case, and the absence of it in the other. Again, it cannot be said, that the words "Baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire," exclude altogether a water-baptism; for, although baptizing may be used in the sense of consecration only, when there is no reference to any holy rite, (as in the words "are ye able to be baptized with the Baptism with which I am baptized?") it does not hence follow that such a sense is admissible, when (as in these words of St. John the Baptist) such a rite is directly referred to. St. Cyril of Jerusalem, just as Hooker, looks to the visible miracle (Acts ii. 2.) as the first