We are baptized, as I have always understood, for _the remission of sins_. Say then, that a person desired baptism at your hands, but that on examination you thought you had found him wanting in the necessary qualifications, that he had not faith. Would you baptize him? But if part of the grace of Baptism be the _remission of sins past_, by withholding from him the sacramental means whereby they are remitted, do you not _retain_ them? And under such circumstances, would not the virtue of your commission—the “power of the keys,” be brought home to you? And considering the life-giving effect of Baptism, if you are tempted to measure God’s ways by our ways, must it not strike you as the very height of presumption, to say as you do—_I baptize thee_? But as the remission of sins is a result of Baptism, and as we have not according to the old puritanical objection, any “scripture warrant” for the words with which we administer that mystery, would it argue greater presumption to say in words that _mean no more_, “_I absolve_ thee of all thy past offences?” The Greek Church seems to have viewed the matter in this light, for as we learn from _Bingham_, they perform the rite in the _optative form_. “_Baptizetur servus Christi in nomine Patris_, _&c._—let the servant of Christ be baptized, &c.” {56} But say, that you had mistaken the thoughts of the heart of the would be convert, would not “the tremendous responsibility” of which his Lordship speaks be neutralized as it respected both the convert and yourself, by the comforting consideration that there is an after appeal to One that judgeth righteously, at whose tribunal the act or sentence of His official on earth will be reversed, if pronounced in error, but everlastingly confirmed if otherwise? Is absolution therefore a matter of indifference? Why then was the Christian ministry ordained, and its authority sealed by the assurance of its divine Founder,—“he that despiseth you despiseth me, and he that despiseth me despiseth Him that sent me?” Your third objection lies against the words, “Receive ye the Holy Ghost,” as they are used in our Ordination Service. The old cavil, as it is mentioned by _Hooker_, was “The Holy Ghost we cannot give, and therefore we foolishly bid men receive it.” {57a} Your objection to the use of these words would seem to be, that in their literal sense they imply a power of commanding his gifts. But surely there is a wide distinction between the _dispenser_ of a spiritual gift, and the _giver_ of it. “God,” says _Jeremy Taylor_, “is the fountain of the power, man conveys it by an external rite . . . God is the consecrator, man is the minister; the separation is _mysterious_ and wonderful, the power great and secret.” {57b}