of darkening, confounding, and perplexing the subject, and, at the same time, the minds of the auditors. We have again and again shown that in all institutes and ordinances, civil or religious, the words are to be taken literally, or in their commonly-received sense; and more especially in positive appointments.

"Mr. M.'s method of ascertaining the true meaning of the terms in dispute may be illustrated very clearly by a very slight reference to the most common occurrences in a figurative style. Catiline was called the head of the faction; Emmet, the keystone of the conspiracy; Talleyrand, the eye of France. Here the words head, keystone, and eye, are used figuratively. Suppose a thousand years hence a controversy should arise about the meaning of these terms. A scholar would say that head literally denoted the most important member of an animal; but a sophist would, on my opponent's principle, say, By no means, for instances can be produced, of great antiquity and respectability, which show that it signified a whole man; and then comes the argument, the sophistical argument, Catiline was called a head, but Catiline was a man; therefore the term head denoted a man. Just so of the terms eye and keystone, &c. A scholar affirms that the term melt signifies to liquefy, to dissolve, commonly by means of heat. No, says a sophist, for I once read of a whole congregation melting into tears; but they did not become liquid. Therefore the term to melt cannot signify to convert into a liquid state, by means of heat. A thousand instances might be adduced to expose the sophistry of Mr. M.'s criticisms. These suffice to show how easily the sophistry may be detected."Debate, pp. 276-278.

B. W. NOEL quotes the following from Robinson's Researches in Palestine:"There were several ways leading from Jerusalem to Gaza: one by Ramleh, one by Bethshemish, and the other through Eleutheropolis, and thence to Gaza through a more southern tract. The latter now actually passes through the desert, that is, through a tract of country without villages, inhabited only by nomadic Arabs. When we were at Tell-el-hasy, and saw the water standing along the bottom of the adjacent Waddy, we could not but remark the coincidence of several circumstances with the account of the eunuch's baptism. This water is on the most direct route from Beit-Jibrin to Gaza on the most southern road from Jerusalem, and in the midst of the country now 'desert,' that is, without villages or fixed habitations. There is at present no other similar water on this road; and the way to Gaza, the chariot, and the subsequent finding of Philip at Azotus, go to show that the transaction took place in or near this place" (vol. ii., p. 641). Mr. Noel, after opposing Pædobaptist suppositions respecting the baptism of the eunuch, mentions, "5. It is unlikely that the Ethiopian would allow Philip to take the trouble of descending to the water, when one of his attendants could so easily bring the water to the chariot. 6. It is utterly improbable that a man of wealth would cross the desert without having a supply of water for himself and his attendants more than sufficient for the required sprinkling; and, therefore, the eunuch would have asked for baptism before coming to the pond, if the rite had been performed by sprinkling. When Mr. Stephens set out for Mount Sinai from Cairo, one of his camels carried two of the largest skins containing filtered water of the Nile' (Stephens, vol. i., p. 232). When Dr. Wilson and his party were setting out on the same journey, their supply of water required four camels for its conveyance (Wilson, vol. i., p. 107). 'At Bethulie,' says Lamartine, there is a good spring. An Arab drew water for an hour to satisfy the horses and to fill the jars hung from the saddles of our mules. There is no more water as far as Jericho, a journey of ten or twelve hours' (De Lamartine, Voyage en Orient). We may be sure that in that hot climate a man of rank and wealth would not be without the comfort of water-skins on his journey, especially as he had before him the desert of Shur, which he must cross before he could reach the Nile. If it be objected that the eunuch would not sit in his wet clothes, I answer that Gaza, towards which they were travelling, lies in latitude 31°29', nearly ten degrees south of Naples; that if the eunuch was returning from Jerusalem after either of the three great festivals, he would find the sky cloudless, since the interval between the early and the latter rains is without clouds, and that beneath that burning sun he would be exposed to no danger, and to little inconvenience, if his under linen-garments, which alone would be immersed, dried upon his person, if he threw around him other dry clothing; and if he did suffer any inconvenience, it was a slight test of his sincerity, in which he would rejoice.

"But it is unnecessary to suppose that he submitted to this inconvenience.

Meroe, in Upper Nubia, over which Queen Candace reigned, was at this time 'one of the richest countries upon the earth' (Kitto, 'Candace'). She was, therefore, a wealthy sovereign, and the eunuch was her treasurer (ver. 27). From Jerusalem, which is at nearly the thirty-second degree, north latitude, to the city of Meroe, which lay about the eighteenth degree, north latitude, the distance was fourteen degrees of latitude; and part of the journey, from Gaza to the Delta of Egypt, he would have to cross the edge of the wilderness of Shur, of which we read (Exodus xv. 22). A rich man, with such a journey to accomplish, would certainly provide himself with tents. When Dr. Robinson describes his preparations for a journey from Suez to Sinai, he says: A tent was to be purchased and fitted up; waterskins were to be procured,' &c. (Rob., vol. i., p. 49.) Dr. Wilson, with reference to the same journey, says: Mr. Smith and I purchased a small tent for ourselves, and one for our servants' (Wilson, vol. i., p. 107). And Mr. Stephens thus describes his entrance on this desert: 'I rode on in silence and alone for nearly two hours; just as the sun was sinking behind the dark mountains of Mokattam, I halted to wait for my little caravan; and I pitched my tent for the first night in the desert, with the door opening to the distant land of Goshen' (Stephens, vol. i., p. 330). The treasurer of Candace was not without his tent. One such instance of

immersion is enough to prove the apostolic practice; for unless the apostles had generally immersed the converts, Philip would certainly not have felt himself at liberty to immerse the Ethiopian; if sprinkling had been the practice of baptism at Jerusalem, where there was every convenience of baths, Philip would certainly have preferred sprinkling where there were no conveniences for immersion. He immersed because the apostles immersed; and they immersed because Christ said, 'Go ye and teach all nations, immersing them'" (pp. 89-92).

I. T. HINTON.-"The mode of the administration of the ordinance is here clearly detailed. 'And they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him.' It might well be deemed impossible that any statement could be more specific than this. Does any Baptist require any other words to describe correctly the administration of the ordinance as practised by him? Suppose I were writing to a friend respecting the baptism of a young man: 'We both walked into the waters of our magnificent lake, and there I baptized (immersed) him in the name of the triune Jehovah; and when he came up out of the water, the smile of heaven was depicted on his countenance.' I ask, is it possible any human being capable of understanding the English language can misapprehend in any point the physical act performed? If perfectly intelligible in one case, how can the same language be obscure or doubtful in the other?

"It is urged that this was in the desert;' but, as already observed, the Hebrews mean by desert an uncultivated place. Some deserts were beautiful, and had good pastures' (Calmet. Art. Desert). I cannot see any propriety in reducing all the beautiful deserts to barren wastes, and their streams to a bowl of water, for the convenience of my Pædobaptist friends. Besides, if a few drops of water only were wanted, travellers through the deserts always had a good supply for men and beasts; and surely a few drops might have been spared without waiting till the eunuch should exclaim, 'Here is water; what hindereth?'

"But of all absurdities in defence of error, the assertion that there is the same evidence that both were immersed as that the eunuch was, is the most childish, not to say disgraceful. Who ever affirmed that persons were baptized (immersed) by simply going down into the water,' without any further action? They went down both into the water, and he baptized him.' Clearly, therefore, but one person was baptized, or immersed, and that person, the eunuch. It is ordinarily necessary (in rivers or pools, at least, whether essential to the validity of the ordinance or not) for the administrator, as well as the subject, to go into the water, in order that the latter may be immersed; but who can possibly imagine that it is necessary for two persons to go down into the water in order that the one may sprinkle the other?

"The last refuge is, that the Greek prepositions do not necessarily mean into and out of, but to and from. It is a hard case if Pedobaptists translate the Bible (thirty of them, with a royal pedant, a strenuous wrangler for sprinkling, as their overseer), and then deny the correctness of their own translation in a point where their translators would gladly have pleased them, if their consciences, already burdened with royal restrictions, could have endured it. All that need be said is,

that these prepositions are generally used to mean into and out of; and that if that meaning has not been expressed, the Greek language has no prepositions which will express it. I ask the Greek scholar who is an advocate for sprinkling, whether, if he were about to write a sentence in Greek describing his going into and coming out of the water, he would not use these very terms?" (pp. 85-87.)

We now refer the reader to some of the Pædobaptists whose prejudices against immersion have not led to such discreditable quibbles, and who, in accordance with our translation by Pædobaptists, have not dared to deny that the proper rendering of eis to hudor is into the water, and of ek tou hudatos, out of the water, and who have thus confirmed the sentiment which we maintain, that Philip and the eunuch entered the water in order that the eunuch might receive immersion in obedience to the command of Christ. We shall not, however, reproduce the admissions already cited, but refer the reader to them. They say, in substance, that "the various passages" of Holy Writ to which the Baptists "appeal, will lead every candid mind to a different conclusion" (Edin. Cy.) from that to which some of our opponents have come. They speak of them as "undeniable proofs that the baptized person went ordinarily into the water," &c. (Dr. Wall.) See Venema (p. 156), Storr and Flatt (p. 150), Dr. Towerson (p. 143), Dr. Lightfoot (p. 142), Calvin (p. 141), H. Alting (p. 140), Ravanellus (p. 140), Vossius (p. 139), Dutch Anno. (p. 270), &c. Hence, says Quenstedius, "It is written (Acts viii. 38, 39) that Philip went down with the eunuch into the water, and there baptized him; and it is added that, the ordinance being administered, they both came up out of the water." He had previously said: "When Jesus was baptized, He immediately came up (or, as Grotius renders it, He had scarcely ascended) 'out of the water.' Our Saviour, therefore, when He was baptized, first went down into the river, was plunged into the water, and afterwards came up out of it."—Antiq. Bib., par. i., c. iv., sec. ii.

Dr. Doddridge translates Matt. iii. 16: "And after Jesus was baptized, as soon as He ascended out of the water," &c. He renders Acts viii. 38, 39: "And he ordered the chariot to stop: and they both went down to the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water," &c. He says, amongst other things, in a note on the passage: "It would be very unnatural to suppose that they went down to the water merely that Philip might take up a little water in his hand to pour on the eunuch. A person of his dignity had, no doubt, many vessels in his baggage on such a journey through so desert a country; a precaution absolutely necessary for travellers in those parts, and never omitted by them. (See Dr. Shaw's Travels, Pref., p. 4.)"

Although we disapprove of the rendering, "to the water," by Dr. Doddridge, his candour and logic are a striking contrast to those of Dr. A. Clarke, who, indeed, gives into as the translation of eis, but feeling the preponderating evidence in favour of immersion, again introduces his favourite chimera of self-plunging: "While Philip was instructing him, and he professed his faith in Christ, he probably plunged himself under the water" (Com., on Acts viii. 38). This the doctor can believe and teach; and can also recommend the practice of sprinkling. Would that more had the candour of Drs. Doddridge, G. Campbell, and some others,

manifested in the rejection of despicable subterfuges, and of hypotheses opposed to express fact or destitute of all foundation.

Finally, Dr. Halley says: "On the subject of Greek prepositions, I have, on account of the length of these lectures, suppressed the remarks which I had prepared. I do this the more willingly, as I do not observe in regard to them any difference from Dr. Carson in more than one particular. That particular relates to the peculiar use of the preposition eis in such phrases as 'he died in (eis) Ecbatanah.' . . . Dr. Carson contends that in these instances the preposition retains its usual signification into.'. . . The solution suggested proceeds upon the principle of the grammarians, that the preposition eis implies motion in some verbs which in any other construction they would not possess, that is, having gone into Azotus, he was found in it; having gone into Jerusalem, he died in it, &c. That this construction, however admissible in certain instances, will fairly solve these passages, I do not believe" (p. 386). Since Dr. Halley so far agrees with Dr. Carson, he admits that the Greek ek invariably means out of, and that the primary and general meaning of eis is into, and of en, in; and he must necessarily unite with us, as we think, in deprecating the fallacy and mistranslation that by unnecessarily using to for eis, and more unjustifiably rejecting out of and adopting from for ek, hides or perverts the plain facts of inspiration respecting the baptism of Christ and of the eunuch. We think also that Dr. H. is self-condemned in his advocacy of with water as the translation of en hudati, instead of in water. The minuteness and explicitness characterizing the record of the eunuch's baptism are such as might have been expected to render quibbling or doubting impossible, did we not know the power of prepossessions to render unintelligible the plainest utterances of the Divine Spirit.

We will also, in conclusion, remind our opponents that in every instance where they maintain that en should have another rendering than in, that eis should have another rendering than into, and that ek should have another rendering than out of, it devolves on them to PROVE that in these instances these prepositions have not the meanings, in, into, out of; and to prove that instead of these meanings they have such meanings as they assign to them. The rule that any one, pleading for a secondary meaning, is bound to the proof of it, is asserted by Dr. Carson and admitted by Dr. Halley and others. (See also, on the import of en and ek, pp. 122-124.)

§ 8.-FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS TO THE IMMERSING AT ÆNON.

R. BAXTER.-"A new and forced exposition which no reader dreameth of till it be put into his head, is usually to be suspected."

Dr. ANGUS." The words of Scripture must be taken in their common meaning, unless such meaning is shown to be inconsistent with other words of the sentence, with the argument, or context, or with other parts of Scripture."-Bi. Hand Book, p. 178.

Archb. WHATELY.-"We are not to be satisfied with any figurative sense, or any sense whatever, that words can be brought to bear; but to seek for that in which they were originally designed and believed to be understood. It is evidently of the first importance to look to the meaning which the expression appears to have conveyed, at the time, to the persons addressed; for we cannot suppose that the sacred writers were not aware in what sense they would be understood by those they addressed, or that they would knowingly leave them in error on any point of practical importance."-In Macallan, on Bap., p. 129.

WEBSTER AND WILKINSON.-"Dr. Pye Smith has well remarked (ii., p. 546), 'The attempt

to set aside the decisions of impartial and honest criticism is painfully discreditable. Nothing is so injurious to a good cause as the calling of fallacious allies to its support.'"-Gr. Tes., on 1 John v. 7-11.

Bp. HORSLEY.-"It is a principle with me, that the true sense of any phrase in the New Testament is what may be called its standing sense; that which will be the first to occur to common people of every country, and in every age."-In Tes. of Em. Pœ., p. 3.

Dr. WARDLAW.-"The question is, not how often it has been produced, but how often it has been refuted. If it has not been fairly met and set aside, it is not frequency of repetition that will deprive it of its force."—Inf. Bap., p. 153.

It is also objected to the phrase, "Because there was much water there," as being confirmatory of the sentiment that baptism is immersion. It is maintained by us as confirmatory of immersion, that immersion always suits the connection in which baptizo occurs; whilst either sprinkle or pour, cleanse or wash, will frequently involve the most manifest absurdity. One of the passages whereiu, as we maintain, this is apparent, is John iii. 23: "And John also was baptizing in Ænon, near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized." Having left the examination of three Greek prepositions with a conviction that the Pædobaptist cause, instead of deriving aid from them, stands in need of such violence being done to universally-acknowledged principles of interpretation as, if universally applied, would make every book written in another language to mean almost anything, otherwise to be utterly unintelligible, we come now to notice a conjunction, which, along with other words, determines the design of John in fixing on a certain place for baptizing. We cannot conceive of a reason that could be assigned, more inconsistent with the idea of sprinkling, or more appropriate to the fact of immersion. This is not an exceptional passage, and, compared with others, a discordant one: it perfectly agrees with everything before recorded or subsequently related concerning baptism, and with every circumstance with which the word is elsewhere in the sacred writings associated.

But the "much water" is by some apparently imagined to be small rivulets; whilst others, unable to resist the evidence of much water, imagine, nevertheless, that it would be needed for other purposes than that of immersion, and that the spot was selected for other reasons than the convenience of baptizing. It is no easy task to convince a man against his will. Although John's baptism was now decreasing, and Christ's was increasing, an opponent sees "the dromedaries and camels of Arabia carrying the people to John's tent, and that these thirsty animals" and their thirsty drivers might have something to drink, he sees the humane John pitching his tent near to non, not for the sake of immersing all the professedly penitent, but that needful water might be supplied to all these caravans. The Scripture says as much about the water being necessary for swimming or sailing, as about its being required for asses, camels, or dromedaries.

Dr. L. Woods says: "A large supply of water was indispensable to such a concourse of people." "This he knew to be necessary for their accommodation, and even their comfortable subsistence." "Who can suppose the waters of Enon were resorted to for the simple purpose of baptizing?" (Works, vol. iii., pp. 447, 448.) Dr. M'Crie thinks John's reason for choosing non was not because it was "more suited for baptizing." If Scripture had said that John was located in Enon because