We have now concluded our remarks. A few of the more prominent reasons have been given why the Wesleyan Reformation has thus far so gloriously succeeded. We have stated the truth as we understand it. Let others judge what allowances should be made for our partialities. We ask not for the generosity shown to the good patriarch on the occasion before mentioned. Let facts and philosophy stand on their own merits. If the preceding statements are not consistent with history and sound logic, the kiss of Esau could not save them. If they are so, let those interested profit by them. The banner under which we have so far prospered is the best ensign and pledge of future conquests. Let us never furl it, but only add new stars to adorn it. We began in weakness; we have been raised to power. A little more than a century ago, Wesley, poor and friendless, crossed the Atlantic in quest of labor. Let the heavens now open-let the sainted patriarch now look forth on his descendants. The very angels would rebuke the man who would silence his well-earned exultation-"With my staff I passed over this Jordan, and now I am become two bands!"

SERMON XXVIII.

The Double Baptism-Real Baptism.

BY REV. DANIEL D. WHEDON, D. D.,

PROFESSOR OF LOGIC IN THE MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY.

"I indeed baptize you with water, but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost."-Mark i, 8.

OUR text proves, if the thing needs any proof, that bap.. tism is of two kinds, the real and the symbolical. In the former, the administrator is God; the element is his Holy Spirit; and the subject is the human being. In the latter, the administrator is God's minister; the element is water; and the subject is the human person. Our purpose, at the present time, is, to discuss the mode in which both these baptisms (or this twofold baptism) are performed; and the question of mode involves two points, namely, the MOTION

and the AMOUNT. In regard to the motion, we have the question, Is the subject plunged into the element, or does the element descend upon the subject? In regard to the amount, the question is, Must the element be so abundant as that it shall come in contact with the entire surface of the person? We shall endeavor, as far as possible, in the fear of God, in submission to his word, and in the spirit of Christian candor toward our brethren, of our own or any other denomination, who differ from us, to ascertain the truth upon these points, both in regard to baptism real, and baptism symbolical.

I. REAL BAPTISM.

We fearlessly assume that when the Holy Spirit performs baptism, not only is the thing real, but the term is literal. Immersionists have as boldly assumed, and affusionists have as tamely granted, that because the term here was spiritual, it was therefore figurative. Few epithets are more frequently confounded in theology than these last two; yet few are more distinct, or more necessary to be distinguished. The term, spiritual, is opposed to corporeal; figurative to literal. A spiritual term is the literal designation of a spiritual or incorporeal object or operation. It is true, that a large amount of those terms are borrowed from the material world, and hence have a sort of figurative origin; but, the moment they become an ordinary technic, they are literal. Yet it is by no means certain, that the spiritual term, baptism, is borrowed from its first application to its water symbol. Xew, I pour, and BаTTI, I baptize, are the literal names of real, though spiritual, operations, not borrowed, probably, from any religious rite, but transferred from their general use to express an invisible, though real, performance. The application of ẞaаTTIS, both to the real and visible baptism in Christianity, so far as we know, commenced simultaneously; both taking their origin, under divine guidance, from John the Baptist. If either, the baptism of the Holy Spirit is literal, and that of water, both in name and thing, symbolical.

It is maintained, that the word ẞaπTI, of itself, has so positive and invariable a meaning in all Greek literature, that it settles the point, of itself, in every case. No

difficulties, no improbabilities, it seems, can obviate its single force; and we are required to surrender, unless we can produce a case of an impossibility of its meaning to plunge. Such controversialists are hard taskmasters; but without granting such a force in the word, we accept the challenge; we will demonstrate the impossibility. We take the case of real baptism; and, before we have done, we expect to show that it CANNOT be immersion. In motion it is the descent of the element; in amount, it is partial. I. THE QUESTION OF MOTION.

The evidence is conclusive from Scripture, that the renovating and sanctifying dispensation of God's Spirit, which ever is called baptism, is always expressed under the conception of its descent upon the subject. If other cases exist of spiritual operation, and for other purposes, those are never called baptism.

1. In the promises of the Old Testament, both the sanctifying descent, and its representation by the symbol of water affusion, are abundantly asserted: "I will POUR water upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground; I will POUR my Spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thine offspring." Isa. xliv, 3. "Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean; from all your filthiness and all your idols will I cleanse you. And I will put my Spirit within you." Ezek. xxxvi, 25, &c. "He saved us, by the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Ghost, which he shed on us abundantly." Titus iii, 5, 6. Passages like these teach us, that, in both dispensations, the sanctifying communication of God's Spirit existed, idiomatically expressed by descent, as indicating its origin from "God most high," and most appropriately represented to the eye under the symbol of water.

2. This symbolism between the Spirit and the water is more definitely developed in the new covenant, under the form and title of the double baptism. Our text is but one of several reiterations by John of the same great announcement given by the different evangelists, not as different narrations of the same utterance, but as different utterances of the same great truth: "I, indeed, baptize you with water, but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost . . He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire." Matt. iii, 11; Luke iii, 16. The same de

claration is ascribed to our Lord himself. There seem abundant proofs that baptism by water is the visible type of baptism by the Holy Spirit. The former baptism is the best possible sensible realization of the true conception of the latter.

66

3. In every case which we have been able to find, either from our own researches or the quotations of immersionists, of baptism with the spiritual element, it is represented not as the descent of the subject into the element, but a descent of the element upon the subject. Thus, when Peter was addressing the company of Cornelius, "the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard ;" and even on the Gentiles also was POURED OUT THE GIFT of the Holy Ghost. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost, as well as we ?" Acts x, 44–47. The holy, spiritual baptism, is here, indeed, said to be received; but it has just been called "a gift poured." To be the recipient was, therefore, to be the subject of affusion. To "receive" "the poured-out gift," and to be baptized with water, are made necessary parallels. If they had "received" one, nobody could "forbid" the other. This implication, Peter, in his subsequent recital, explicitly affirms: "The Holy Ghost FELL on them as on us at the beginning. Then remembered I the word [not of John, but] of the Lord, John, indeed, baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost." Acts xi, 16. Thus Peter expressly pronounces the outpouring and the falling of the Holy Spirit to be baptism.

The most signal fulfillment of our text was at the day of Pentecost, when they were baptized "with the Holy Ghost and with fire." The question, whether the amount of these elements was sufficient to be an immersion, we postpone. But that they were affused, Peter expressly declares: "This is that spoken by the prophet Joel, I will POUR OUT my Spirit upon all flesh." Acts ii, 17. The outpourings of the Spirit, then named even in the Old Testament, were baptisms. And he adds, "Be baptized every one of you, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Did mortal man ever talk of receiving an element in which he was submerged? Besides, as we have already noticed, "the gift of the Holy Ghost was poured out."

Twice has God made spiritual baptism really or em blematically visible; and both times it was by descent. The baptism of fire (being to the Spirit what lightning is to electricity, its visible manifestation) was certainly by descent: "There appeared unto them cloven tongues, like as of fire; and it sat upon each of them." The tongues were above them; for a sitting object is necessarily above the object sat upon. Otherwise it would be said, that the tongues hung to, not sat upon, them. Immersion, or not, this was a descent. Visible spiritual baptism again took place at the river to Jesus, when "the heavens were opened unto him, and he SAW THE SPIRIT DESCENDING like a dove, and lighting upon him." Here, then, the Spirit itself, not its emblem, was seen, visibly moving in space, baptismally descending upon the Saviour. When God shows us how he baptizes, the element descends upon the subject.

These are our passages in proof of our proposition. The cleansing or sanctifying operations of God upon man are alone called baptism; and when represented as baptism, are presented under the conception of descent. We now refute the objections to this argument.

1. Irrelevant it is, to quote-against us texts expressing other operations of the Spirit than his cleansing process, and which are, therefore, presented under other conceptions and images than affusion, or of water, in any mode. With these, baptism has nothing to do. Such images as these, "to drink into one Spirit," (1 Cor. xii, 13,) breathing, (John xx, 22,) blowing, (Acts ii, 2, 4,) anointing, (2 Cor. ii, 21,) voice, (1 Kings xix, 1,) express no operation of which baptism is the symbol, and have, therefore, nothing to do with this discussion. Never are these modes or operations called the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which affusion alone is. Yet all these (except "blowing," which we shall subsequently dispose of) express a partial recipiency upon the person, and would all be properly emblemed by the partial affusion of a common symbolical element upon the subject.

2. This opinion," we are told, "teaches that God is material;" whereas, " we cannot have him poured on us. Baptism, whatever be the mode, cannot represent either the manner of conveying the Spirit, or his operations on