T is in the prophecy of Joel, quoted by Peter on the day of Pentecost, that the idea of a 'pouring out' of the Spirit was first expressed. It is employed twice in the prophecy, and once by Peter, ver. 33, where he says, "He hath shed forth this which ye now see and hear." It is also used by Luke, (Acts x: 45,) and once by Paul, (Titus iii: 6,) where he speaks of the Holy Spirit being "shed on us abundantly," the same verb being used in all these cases in the original. As a literal outpouring of the Spirit is, from the very nature of the case, impossible and inconceivable, the mind naturally seeks in the familiar fact of the pouring out of a fluid, some analogy or resemblance by which it may be enabled to apprehend, in some measure at least, the mysterious fact revealed. This is readily and naturally found in the descent of the Spirit from above, and in the distribution of his Divine influence among the disciples. The Holy Spirit was "sent down from heaven," and each believer was manifestly imbued or endowed by [101] Him with new powers and qualities, circumstances quite sufficient to justify the use, and exhaust the application, of the metaphor in question. It does not require, therefore, any of the concomitants, as the sound of a "mighty rushing wind," or "cloven tongues like as of fire," etc., to complete its signification. The very same expression, indeed, is used by Paul (Titus iii: 6,) to indicate the simple impartation of the Spirit to believers in general. Here, speaking of the common salvation, he says: "He saved us--by the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Spirit which he shed (poured out) on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour."

      Again, in an allusive sense differing from this, the Spirit is repeatedly compared to water, as in Christ's language to the woman of Samaria: "If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink, thou wouldst have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water.--Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again: but whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him, shall be in him a well of water springing up unto everlasting life." John iv: 10-14. On another occasion, on the great day of a Jewish passover, Jesus stood and cried, "If any man thirst, let him come to me and drink. He that believeth on me, as the Scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water." ("But this," adds John, "he spake of the Spirit which they that believe on him should receive.") [102] John vii: 37-39. The figure here is plainly designed to illustrate the blessings--the grateful and life-giving influences which were to be enjoyed by the believer, and to flow from him to others, through the possession of the Spirit; and there is no more propriety in supposing, in the former case, a literal outpouring of the Spirit, than to imagine in this, a literal drinking of the Spirit. Paul (1 Cor. xii: 13,) uses the same metaphor when he says "we have all been made to drink of¹ one Spirit."

      There is another metaphor used in reference to the giving of the Holy Spirit, viz., where this is called a baptizing. This is not derived, as some incorrectly suppose, from any peculiar circumstances connected specially with the giving of the Spirit on Pentecost. The expression was first employed by the Father himself in giving to John the Baptist a criterion by which he might recognize the Messiah. He sent John to baptize in water, and said to him, "Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Spirit." "And I saw and bare record," adds John, "that this is the Son of God." John i: 33, 34. It was thus made a distinguishing characteristic of the Messiah, that he should possess the power to baptize in the Holy Spirit, and the appropriateness of the metaphor is evidently to be found [103] in a resemblance between this figurative baptism and the literal baptism performed by John, with which it is contrasted, and from which the metaphor is taken. The baptism (immersion) practiced by John, involved as its chief idea, an overwhelming, a sudden and complete overpowering of the person submerged by water, and the entering into conditions and relations wholly new. In like manner, the baptism of the Spirit was to imply an equally entire subjugation and overmastery of the soul by the Spirit which pervaded it; an immediate and complete change and renovation. The Christian, accordingly, is to be "led by the Spirit," to "walk in the Spirit," to subject his entire nature to its control, and, in receiving it, he enters at once into relations and experiences before unknown. It is in these obvious analogies, that the propriety and appositeness of the figure may be seen, and its proper application understood. The same tropical use is made of the term baptism where Christ says of his sufferings and death, (Luke xii: 50,) "I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!" See also Matt. xx: 22, 23; Mark x: 38, etc. To carry out resemblances too far, or to mistake resemblances for identities, is to run into gross materialistic speculations unwarranted by the Word of God. It is sufficient to know that literally there is no such thing as a "pouring out" of the Spirit, or a "drinking" of the Spirit, or a "baptism" in the Spirit, but that these are all alike metaphors, designed, by the resemblances they suggest, to present to the mind, in various aspects [104] and from various points of view, the most lively and correct ideas possible of a fact, which, in whatever form or imagery it may be clothed, itself always remains the same, and is simply and unfiguratively the impartation or gift of the Holy Spirit to those who believe.

      None of the metaphors to which we have adverted, express the important nature and the striking results of the gift of the Spirit, so fully, as that one in which it is compared to a baptism. The thoroughness and completeness of the change effected, and the entire subordination of the human nature to a new supremacy, are here clearly pictured forth in a single descriptive term. We find it employed, accordingly, on several occasions in Scripture, and we may particularly notice that it is selected to set forth and emphasize the impartation of the Spirit as a special prerogative and characteristic of Christ, John might baptize in water. The disciples of Christ might baptize in water. Men were competent to fulfill such ministries as these; but it was Christ alone who could baptize in the Holy Spirit. He did not, hence, personally baptize any one in water. His own office was to impart a spiritual baptism,--to give to every believer the Spirit of God. This was something of a far different and more exalted nature, implying the possession of a power, dignity, and authority beyond all human conception, involving in itself the very attribute and essence of Deity; for the thought could not for a moment be entertained that a mere man could enter upon such a function as this. Yet it is [105] announced as the characteristic office of Christ to John the Baptist, who, accordingly, when Christ demanded a baptism in water, was surprised, and refused at first, saying, "I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?" "Suffer it to be so now," replied Jesus, "for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness."²

      This peculiar function, the impartation of the Holy Spirit, with great propriety appertains to Christ, since the Church to which it is communicated is his body, and he is himself represented as the head from which life and power proceed. Peter, therefore, said: "Having received of the Father the promise of the Spirit (i. e., the promised Spirit,) he hath shed forth this which you now see and hear." It was on the day [106] of Pentecost that Christ first imparted the Holy Spirit to the Church, according to his express declaration shortly before, where he himself employs the very same analogy with John's baptism formerly introduced. "John indeed," said he, "baptized in water, but ye shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit, not many days hence." This repetition of the expression, at different times, and by different persons, and that, too, with a constant and direct reference to the baptism of John, while it evinces the source and scope of the metaphor, shows also its appositeness to express, in a brief and striking manner, the sudden and marked change effected by the gift of the Spirit. It was not to be a mere affusion, but an immersion, an overwhelming, a complete and thorough overmastery and renovation of those subjected to it.

      The next occasion on which there seems to have been a renewed impartation of the Spirit, was when Peter and John were imprisoned, and brought before the priests and rulers for preaching "through Jesus, the resurrection of the dead." Being released, it is said they returned to their own company, and earnest prayer was then offered up that with all boldness they might speak the word of God, and that wonders and signs might be accomplished by the name of Jesus. "Immediately," we are informed, "the place was shaken where they were assembled, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit." Here there was no gift of languages conferred, no "tongues as of fire," since this charism they already possessed, and no sound as of a "rushing, mighty wind," but the place [107] where they were was shaken, as a similar sensible evidence of an answer to their prayers, and they were all filled with the Spirit. They had not prayed for the Spirit, but for those things which the Spirit alone could impart, and it is accordingly "the supply of the Spirit" which is given. This fact shows that the Spirit was given in various measures according to the circumstances, and that when persecution and imminent peril demanded a stronger degree of courage and fortitude, these qualities were imparted by bestowing a larger measure of the Spirit of God; it being one of the offices of the Spirit to strengthen with might the inner man, and fill the soul with a divine peace and calmness in the hour of trial. On this occasion, accordingly, we read that "they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and spoke the word of God with boldness." The same language was used of them on Pentecost, "they were all filled with the Holy Spirit," but we are not to suppose that the spiritual strength, then imparted, had been at all diminished, only that, on this second occasion, a larger measure was demanded by the urgency of the crisis, the powers of darkness now being fairly roused to opposition. Paul, in Phil. i: 19, 20, refers to the same things when he says: "I know that this shall turn to my salvation through your prayer, and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ, according to my earnest expectation, and my hope, that in nothing I shall be ashamed: but that with all boldness, as always, so now also Christ shall be magnified in my body, whether it be by life or by death." [108]

      The next occasion recorded on which there was a direct impartation of the Holy Spirit, was at the calling of the Gentiles. Here Peter had no sooner announced the gospel to Cornelius and his household, than "the Holy Spirit fell on all them which heard the word," and the believing Jews present, we are told, were astonished because "on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit, for they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God." Whether or not there appeared on this occasion, as at Pentecost, "cloven tongues like as of fire," is not stated, but it is most probable that the same symbolic appearances attended, as the same gift was imparted, and this seems to be even implied in what Peter says when rehearsing the matter to the other apostles. "The Holy Spirit fell on them as on us at the beginning." This reference to the beginning, indicates like visible and audible manifestations accompanying the giving of the Spirit, for as to the giving of the Spirit apart from these, this had repeatedly taken place since "the beginning" referred to.

      In this account, we find the usual terms and metaphors employed--"The Holy Spirit fell on all"--"On the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit;" and Peter in relating the fact adds: "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 Spirit." Here we have the same figurative and allusive expressions already considered. The Spirit "fell," was sent down from heaven. It is, therefore, compared to a "pouring [109] out." The effect of its reception was a sudden and complete revolution in regard to the recipients. It is, therefore, compared to an immersion or an overwhelming. But by all these is meant substantially nothing more than the literal fact that the Holy Spirit was given and received, the manner of giving and the effect of the gift merely, being embodied in these expressive metaphors. Hence adds Peter in plain and literal language, "Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us,--what was I, that I could withstand God?" All these metaphorical expressions are then thus reduced to the simple statement, "God gave them the like gift." It was, in all the cases, the impartation of the Holy Spirit, no more, no less. Literally, there was no "falling of the Spirit," no "outpouring," no "baptism," these metaphors being used merely to give a more lively or vivid idea of the simple fact--the gift of the Holy Spirit.

      This will appear still more clearly when we consider those cases in which the Spirit was given indirectly through the laying on of hands. As the Father had sent Jesus, so Jesus sent the apostles and others as his special embassadors, and, along with other credentials, conferred upon them the power of obtaining the gift of the holy Spirit through prayer and the imposition of hands. This became to them accordingly a very important function and a most expressive mark of the high position which they occupied as the immediate vicegerents of Christ himself. It was, indeed, still the Lord himself, who, in [110] these, as in other cases, gave the Holy Spirit; but the apostles were allowed to designate, through prayer and the laying on of hands, the individuals upon whom the gift might properly be bestowed. This, in order to throw around the apostolic office its proper sanctions, seems to have been the general rule in all places where the apostles labored, and this power seems to have been restricted to them and to a few others specially commissioned for the purpose. Thus, when the people of Samaria received the gospel from Philip the evangelist, they were baptized, but remained for a time without the Holy Spirit, as we are expressly informed "he had fallen on none of them, only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." When the apostles at Jerusalem learned "that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John, who, when they were come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit--Then laid they their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit." That this impartation of the Spirit was accompanied by visible tokens, is evident from what is said of Simon Magus, that "when he saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands, the Holy Spirit was given." There must have been, therefore, sensible miraculous attestations of the fact here, as in other cases, and the ambition of the sorcerer was roused so that he sought to purchase from the apostles a similar power. Peter, therefore, said to him, "Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money." It was still "the gift of God," [111] though given through the apostles, and its ministration was evidently chiefly confined to them during their ministry. Thus Paul, finding at Ephesus twelve disciples of John, inquired of them, "Have you received the Holy Spirit since you believed?" Upon their answering in the negative, we further read that when, after their baptism, Paul laid his hands upon them, "the Holy Spirit came on them and they spake with tongues and prophesied." Again in Galatians iii: 5, Paul asks: "He that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?" To minister or supply the Spirit was thus a characteristic and important part of the apostolic office in all the regions to which their ministry extended. It does not appear, however, that in regions to which scattered members may have carried the gospel, and where it was believed and obeyed, the Holy Spirit was not imparted directly, without apostolic intermediation. It was one of the promises of the gospel itself, and to be sought and received through prayer, and seems to have been connected with the apostolic office for the reasons assigned, only in the places to which their immediate labors extended. Thus, the church at Rome was evidently in possession of the Spirit before any apostle had visited that city; and the Ethiopian eunuch, who went on his way rejoicing, doubtless enjoyed the same blessing, without which he could not have become a member of the body of Christ. Nor was the power of imparting the Spirit wholly restricted to the apostles. Paul himself [112] received this gift through the laying on of the hands of a disciple specially deputed for the purpose: "Brother Saul," said Ananias, "the Lord, (even Jesus that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest,) hath sent me unto thee, that thou mightest receive thy sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit." Acts ix: 17. There was then no invincible necessity that the impartation of the Spirit should be restricted to the apostles alone, though this function was evidently attached to their mission in general for the reasons just given.

      Some, in reference to this point, distinguishing between what they call the ordinary gift of the Spirit and the miraculous powers, assert that the former in all cases immediately attended obedience to the gospel, and that it was the latter alone that was confided to the apostles. That the apostles possessed the power of imparting special charisms is evident from Rom. i: 11; 2 Tim. i: 6, etc., but there seems to be no authority for restricting their agency to the impartation of mere miraculous powers. The language used in reference to their exercise of the power committed to them is extremely definite. They communicated the Holy Spirit, (the dwrean,) the gift of God, and not a charism only, and, in the case of the Samaritans, it is expressly stated that the Holy Spirit had previously fallen upon none of them. They had been merely baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, and remained, for a season, without the indwelling presence of the Spirit.

      The reason of this delay, has been variously [113] understood. The most probable one is, that it was purposely designed to secure, among the Samaritans, a proper respect for the apostolic office. Astonished at the signs and wonders wrought by Philip the Evangelist, and rejoicing in the knowledge of the gospel which he had preached to them, they would be very naturally disposed to magnify unduly his office and position. This people, who from the paucity of their religious knowledge and their ardent expectation of a Messiah, had already been carried away by the false pretensions of Simon, were doubtless at this time easily impressed by the marvelous, and probably disposed to exalt beyond measure the personal claims and character of Philip. The withholding from them, for a time, the Holy Spirit, the proper seal of the ministry of the gospel, and the need thence arising for the presence of some of the apostles, would tend at once to correct such erroneous conceptions and give to the apostles their proper position and authority before the people.

      Neander, indeed, thinks that it was entirely within the province of Philip to have obtained, through the gospel and prayer, the gift of the Holy Spirit for these converts. If so, it was singular that this was not done, and that the history confines exclusively here to Peter and to John the imparting of the Holy Spirit. It is, doubtless, true, however, as before remarked that, in regions remote from the scene of apostolic labors, the simple ministration and obedience of the gospel was attended with the fulfillment of all the Divine promises connected with it, and that [114] religious communities could be founded in which the Spirit of God dwelt, and to which it imparted all the charisms needed for edification, without any special ministry on the part of apostles. The reason for the delay, in the case of the Samaritans, supposed by Neander, is briefly this, that their minds, as yet imperfectly enlightened, and much bewildered by the sorceries of Simon, were not in a proper condition to receive the Spirit of God; and that his presence was therefore delayed until, by means of further instruction and prayer, they were suitably prepared. He contrasts this case, furthermore, with that of the house of Cornelius where, in consequence of their hearts having been purified by faith, the Spirit was given in advance of baptism, or any public profession of the gospel. That a proper state of the heart has much to do with the enjoyment of the Holy Spirit, is undoubtedly true, but the condition of the Samaritans, who are represented as having believed Philip "preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ," and as having been "baptized, both men and women," can scarcely be supposed to have been unfit for either the remission of sins or the presence of the Spirit. Nor does it seem proper to assign, in the case of Cornelius, any other reason for the gift of the Spirit prior to formal obedience, than the one which is plainly implied in the narrative itself, viz., to convince the Jews, by irresistible evidence, that God had "granted to the Gentiles also repentance unto life." Neither prophecies nor special visions were sufficient to overcome [115] the intensity of Jewish prejudices. It was the simple fact of the impartation to the Gentiles of the Holy Spirit, by which unity was to be established in the body of Christ, which at once removed every lingering doubt. Unless this had been first done, they would not have been received to baptism or admitted to fellowship with the church. The fact undoubtedly shows, furthermore, that God did not formerly forbear to give his Holy Spirit to those whose hearts were purified by faith, even without baptism, and that a want of faith, therefore, is the only insuperable obstacle to the reception of the Spirit. It is, then, a just conclusion, that he does not now withhold this precious gift from any true believer, even though he may, from ignorance of his duty, have remained unbaptized, in this age of religious error and confusion. This is a corollary indeed which necessarily follows from the concession that God has a people scattered among all religious parties.

      It has now been seen, by an induction of the various cases, that the Holy Spirit was sometimes bestowed directly, and, at other times, by the laying on of the hands of apostles, or of some special agent chosen for the purpose. It remains to be shown, that the metaphors which we have been considering are applied alike in these different cases, and that the distinctions which some have attempted to make in regard to them, are absolutely without foundation. It is asserted, for instance, that the metaphor of a "baptism" is applicable only to the cases of Pentecost and the house of Cornelius. Yet, it must be [116] admitted that, in the case of the Samaritans, the gift of the Spirit through the laying on of hands was attended with visible demonstrations of power, such as were given at Jerusalem and in other cases. Again, when Paul laid hands on the twelve disciples at Ephesus, we are told that the "Holy Spirit came on them, and they spake with tongues and prophesied." Here the Spirit is represented as "coming" or falling on them (hence an outpouring), and we have briefly, but in substance, precisely what occurred on Pentecost. There was also a complete change effected in the state and relations of these disciples of John, and there is hence equal propriety here in the use of the figure of a baptism. All difficulty, indeed, in regard to these expressions vanishes at once, when it is understood that they are simply metaphors, designed to give, by similitude, a lively idea of a momentous literal fact which is, itself, constantly the same, and remains unaffected by the particular term or phrase used to designate it. In no subject, perhaps, except that of religion, would men depart so far from common sense and common usage, as to mistake a figure for a fact, or endeavor to make a fact subordinate and subservient to the figures under which it is presented.

      It should be remembered that the whole discussion which has been carried on in relation to these terms is a debate about words, and not about things. The thing remains the same, it matters not by what term it is designated, and it is differently designated because it may be looked at from different points of view, and presents itself in different aspects. It would be [117] an absurdity to suppose that baptism in the Spirit was one thing, and an outpouring of the Spirit another, and the drinking of the Spirit a still different matter. It can not be too often repeated, that these are all alike figures designed to present, in various lights, the simple fact of the gift of the Spirit to believers.

      Finally, however, we have in what Paul says, 1 Cor. xii: 13,³ a very full and positive illustration [118] of the Scripture use of these expressions. He says, when treating of the gifts of the Spirit and the unity of the body of Christ, "by one Spirit are we all [119] baptized into one body, whether we be Jew or Gentile, whether we be bond or free, and have all been made to drink of one Spirit." We have here two of the metaphors in question--that of a baptism and a "drinking" of the Spirit. He expressly and positively affirms that all had received this baptism; that all had been made to drink of one Spirit. It mattered not how or through what instrumentality the Holy Spirit was given, it remained true of all that they had received this spiritual baptism, and had been made partakers of the same Spirit. The [120] apostle is here speaking, not of the spiritually gifted in the church of Corinth, but of the entire church or body of Christ (v. 28), in which God had set apostles, prophets, and all the various ministries appertaining to it, as having had all its members thus baptized into one body. The language is remarkable for its universality, "all, whether Jews or Gentiles, bond or free"--Peter and Cornelius, Onesimus and Philemon, all in every place who called on the name of the Lord and enjoyed the salvation of the gospel. And let it be distinctly noted that Paul includes himself among the number. "We," says he, "have all been baptized by one Spirit into one body." Now, Paul, as we have seen, simply received the Holy Spirit through the laying on of the hands of Ananias. The simple communication of the Spirit then involved a baptism and an outpouring. Its reception was, in all cases, a "drinking" of the Spirit, "for this spake Jesus of the Spirit which they that believe on him should receive." Like the other metaphors, this was equally applicable to all who believed, just as were also the other expressions intended to denote the same literal fact from a point of view somewhat different. None of them, nor all of them together, could possibly imply or amount to more than the simple fact they were designed to express, the communication and reception of the Holy Spirit. The metaphor of pouring out exhibits the act of the Giver. The figure of a baptism represents the effect upon the receiver. The drinking of the Spirit expresses the eager and voluntary [121] participation of the believer in the spiritual blessings vouchsafed. The pouring out did not constitute the baptism. This figurative baptism was a result or consequence of the pouring out of the Spirit, which, with the utmost propriety, is made to precede it, and without which there could have been no baptism. And let it be noted, that it was not a sprinkling, but a pouring out, and this so copious and abundant that an immersion or overwhelming was a natural and necessary result as it respected the recipients. It is, therefore, in entire congruity with the circumstances, and with the fact itself, that the figure of a baptism is used An overwhelming is the very first conception which naturally arises when a fluid is copiously poured out from above upon those beneath, and all the accompanying incidents recorded are such as to give precisely the idea of such a pouring out. The sound of "a mighty rushing wind filling the place where they were sitting," the recorded fact that they were "all filled with the Holy Spirit," and all the glowing prophetic imagery employed to describe the event, show, unequivocally, that the figure of a baptism or overwhelming was the most appropriate that could be selected to convey a lively idea of the effect resulting in respect to those who received the Spirit.

      It is not to be supposed, however, that these extraordinary concomitants were at all essentially connected with the giving of the Spirit. There was great propriety that the first communication of the Spirit should be thus specially signalized, just as the advent of Christ was marked in an especial manner [122] by various angelic visitations and miraculous appearances. Nor is there the slightest reason to suppose that the Holy Spirit was not just as fully and as freely imparted to every single individual subsequently, without any of these extraneous manifestations, as it was on the day of Pentecost. It so happens, indeed, that amidst the wonderful previsions and provisions of revelation, we are furnished with direct and express testimony in regard to this point. For Paul, in speaking to Titus of the common salvation says, he saved us by the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Spirit, which he shed [poured out] on us ABUNDANTLY (plousiwV, richly) through Jesus Christ our Saviour, etc.

      Here the fact of an abundant pouring out on all the saved is distinctly asserted. We have already seen how Paul, 1 Cor. xii: 13, makes a universal application to all believers of the metaphors baptism of the Spirit, and drinking of the Spirit. We now see that, in the letter to Titus, he makes a similar universal application of the figure of a pouring out of the Spirit, employing the very same term (ekcew) which is used on the occasion of Pentecost. And it is worthy of special notice, that here again, as in 1 Cor. xii: 13, in his application of the term he includes himself, so that the Holy Spirit was "poured out" upon Paul equally as upon others; he received the "baptism" of the Spirit equally with all other members of the one body of Christ; he was made to drink of one Spirit alike with all other believers, yet when we turn to the record of the fact, we find, as formerly [123] remarked, no extraordinary manifestations such as occurred on Pentecost, but are simply informed that Ananias was sent to lay his hands on him that he might "be filled with the Holy Spirit."

      Christianity has no theatricals, either public or private. It does nothing merely for display, and when it employs "signs and wonders," it is for just and sufficient reasons, and for a definite purpose. The concomitants of the giving of the Spirit on Pentecost, in Samaria, and elsewhere, were appropriate to the circumstances, and served to confirm the Word of the apostles and evangelists who preached to the people. In Paul's case, there was no necessity for such demonstrations, and they were not given. Yet Paul received "the gift of the Spirit" as fully as any one on Pentecost. No "cloven tongues like as of fire" were seen, but he received most richly the gift of tongues, as he says to the Corinthians, who, we are told, came behind the other churches in no gift, that he spoke with tongues more than all of them; and he enjoyed likewise, in the highest degree, all the miraculous powers, Divine visions, and inspirations. It is only by thus separating the accessories and accidents from the impartation of the Spirit himself, and contemplating this, in its reality and its simplicity, as the fulfillment of the Divine promise, that any just or consistent or enlarged views of this most important subject can be attained, and, it may be added, that it is a subject which, more than any other, involves, in its correct understanding, the right interpretation of the New Testament. [124]

      I have thus dwelt, somewhat at length, upon these figures, because they have been the occasion of much confusion of thought and religious error, especially as it relates to the question of the nature of the act indicated by the term baptism,⁴ and also continue to be grossly misapplied by theorists on the subject of "spiritual operations." Men's imaginations are inflamed with glowing pictures of the supernatural accompaniments of the first descent of the Spirit, [125] and they are taught to look still for "Pentecostal seasons;" for stupendous miraculous displays; for "blood and fire and vapor of smoke," and for sights and sounds and visions of Christ, and whatever else of the marvelous may be gathered from the Oriental imagery of the prophets, while at the same time, and as an inevitable consequence, they are led to disparage the word of salvation which is nigh them, and to neglect the institutions and means of grace through which God bestows the blessings of the gospel.

      Sufficient evidence, I trust, has now been adduced to show that such phrases as "outpouring of the Spirit," "baptism in the Spirit," etc., are just as applicable to believers now as they were in apostolic days, since these expressions are mere metaphors designed to express the simple literal fact of the gift of the Spirit--the Comforter or Paraclete who was to abide with the church forever. It is in this view alone, that a peculiar appropriateness appears in the particular designation of Christ as "he that baptiseth in the Holy Spirit." This was, and is, and will continue to be his special office. It is he who received of the Father the promised Spirit. The Spirit of God is the Spirit of Christ. And it is Christ who bestows this gift upon the believer as the efficient agent in his sanctification, and the earnest of his eternal inheritance. From the very necessity of the case, and in entire harmony with the most explicit declarations of Scripture, this gift must continue to be bestowed to the end of the world, and "He that baptizeth in the Holy Spirit" shall not have [126] completed this important function until he shall be recognized as "He that cometh." The vain reasoning of those who, confounding miraculous powers which existed under all dispensations, with that gift of the Spirit which is the peculiar characteristic of the economy of the gospel, suppose this gift to have ceased because these powers have disappeared, scarcely merit attention, opposed as they are to the plainest teachings of the Word of God already adduced, and to the experience of every true believer. To profess a religion devoid of the Spirit of Christ, is to have "a form of godliness without the power thereof," and to substitute sheer rationalism, or its religious equivalent, Socinianism, for the Christianity of the Bible. [127]

[OHS 101-127]