3. The phrase,—“which proceedeth from the Father,”—is explanatory of the language immediately preceding. “When the Comforter is come whom I will send unto you _from the Father_.” But why “from the Father,” since it is Christ that sends Him? Why not “from the Father and the Son?” Jesus gives the reason,—“Which _proceedeth_ from the Father.” Either this indicates something peculiar and exclusive, or words are without meaning. 4. There is undoubtedly a voluntary and temporal bestowal of the Spirit by the Father upon the incarnate Son, a bestowal in virtue of which, he, as the Spirit of the Son, is by the Mediator breathed or shed upon his people. But if the doctrine in question is true, the Spirit, proceeding from the Father and the Son, sustains essentially and eternally the very same identical relation to each, and it would be just as impossible that he should be given by the Father to the Son, as on the contrary, by the Son to the Father. The fact that he is given to the Son shows conclusively that his relation to the Father is not only primary, but peculiar, a fact which is the express contradictory of the theory in question. In fact, by that theory the voluntary, temporal, and mediatorial mission of the Spirit, by the Son as incarnate, is necessarily and inextricably confounded with the eternal procession, which is essential and involuntary, the Scripture testimony on the subject is distorted and set at naught, and the whole subject involved in perplexity and confusion. These considerations, and especially the fact that there is not even a plausible pretense of Scriptural authority for the doctrine, lead me to its rejection. SECTION LXIV.—_The Baptism of Fire._ Christ’s baptizing office is not all of grace. “He shall baptize you,” says John, “with the Holy Ghost and _with fire_.” John thus, in harmony with the Old Testament writers, from Moses to Malachi, sets forth two distinct functions to be exercised by the coming One; the one, of grace, the baptism of the Holy Ghost, and the other, of justice and wrath, the baptism of fire. As this interpretation of John’s language is denied, and the two baptisms interpreted as signifying essentially one and the same thing, it is necessary to consider with some care the evidence on the subject.