festival of the Romish church, which is called The Benediction of Horses." After quoting Dr. Middleton's description of this Popish ceremony, he adds: The priest of superstition in his white surplice, appears to act with more care and more solemnity than the servant of God in his hairy garment. The former, though paid for his labour at so much per head, cautiously sprinkles the cattle one by one: the latter, though mortified to secular gain, burning with zeal for God, and full of love to the souls of men, being all in a hurry to finish his business, casts water on half a dozen or half a score at a time. Of this haste it may be supposed, the consequence was, that the water was very unequally divided among the candidates. How many deep the ranks were, our authors, indeed, have not informed us; but according to them there must have been more than one rank, because they speak in the plural. It is plain, therefore, that the front rank must have had the most copious application of the liquid element: while many individuals, we may justly suppose, that were further distant from the administrator, had little or none at all. This presumed conduct of John, considered in one view, presents us with a mercenary drudge in the service of God, who cares not how slovenly the solemnities of holy worship are performed, provided they do but appear in full tale: in another, with a wanton boy, who makes himself sport by squirting water upon all that are near him in every view, not only with something quite inimical to the character of John, but also to the solemn and gracious import of that ordinance which he administered."—Vol. i., pp. 213–215.

We much prefer believing that our friends are blinded by prejudice to adopting and applying the words of the Pædobaptist, Mr. Alsop, who says: "When men are pressed with express Scripture, and yet are resolved (cost what it will) to adhere to their own conclusions, it is advisable to cast about, to turn their thoughts into all shapes imaginable, to hunt for the extremest possibilities" (Antisozzo, p. 549). It is, however, right that all take warning from the Pharisees and lawyers, who, not being baptized of John, rejected the counsel of God against themselves.

The idea that John's baptism could not be immersion because he baptized so many, cannot be the idea of the numerous Pædobaptists whom we have quoted as testifying that primitive baptism, in accordance with the meaning of the word, was immersion. Many, as to the action of baptism, speak like Olshausen: "John's baptism was most probably like the Christian, not only in this, that, in it the baptizing party performed the immersion on the baptized," &c. (Com., on Matt. iii. 1.) On Christ's baptism by John, he speaks, as do others, of "the submersion" and "the emersion" (On Matt. iii. 16, 17). Even Dr. Clarke, who did not believe in the possibility of John's immersing the multitudes that by him were baptized, can, however, quote with commendation the following from Dr. Lightfoot: "We suppose, therefore, that men, women, and children came to John's baptism, according to the manner of the nation in the reception of proselytes; namely, that they, standing in Jordan, were taught by John that they were baptized into the name of the Messiah, who was now immediately to come, and into the profession of the doctrine of the Gospel concerning faith and repentance; that they plunged themselves into the river, and so came out" (Conclu. of Mark's Gospel). On the striking agreement of the above with the sprinkling of infants we need say nothing!

Mr. R. Mimpriss teaches that the locality of John's ministry "appears to have been chosen as the fittest scene for the ministerial labours of John, because, when overflowed by the Jordan, and laid under water, it

AA

would afford the greatest facilities for baptism or immersion" (Treas. Har., p. 88). Our conception is that, independently of the overflowing of the river, the locality was well selected "for baptism or immersion."

The Rev. W. Trollope, not doubting that John's baptism was immersion, but perhaps not sufficiently considering the difference betwixt the climate of Palestine and England, says: "Now winter does not seem a very fit or natural season for beginning to baptize, and entirely immerse in water, so great a multitude of converts, as appear to have flocked to John; so that it is much more reasonable to suppose that the revelation was communicated to John in the summer or spring, or about six months before the baptism of Jesus, in November."-Anal. Theol., on Luke iii. 1.

Bp. Taylor teaches us, in Christ's baptism by John, to "behold an immersion, not an aspersion" (Duc. Dub., b. iii., c. iv.). Would that he had more strongly deprecated the breaking of laws human and Divine by the Anglican church, of which he says: "In the Church of England there is a law that when children are baptized they shall be dipped in the water; only if they be sick it shall be sufficient that it be sprinkled upon them; but yet the custom of sprinkling all does prevail" (Do.). Let the following have their merited consideration:

WITSIUS.- "It is certain that both John the Baptist, and the disciples of Christ, ordinarily practised immersion."-Econ. of the Cov., b. iv., c. xvi., § 13.

G. J. VOSSIUS.-"That the apostles immersed when they baptized there is no doubt."-Disp. on Bap., Dis. i., § 6.

Archb. SUMNER.—“John was baptizing, i.e., immersing in water, those who came to him for this purpose, confessing their sins'"-(Exp. Lec., on John i., 19-28). He admits that the ordinance "is not now commonly performed by immersion," but, like others, would have us believe that "this does not affect its nature," and that consequently an adoption of the human substitute, in lieu of the Divine appointment, is not sinful.

NEANDER. "John's followers were entirely immersed in the water.” — Life of Christ, p. 55.

FRITZSCHE."I baptize you unto repentance means: I immerse (immerga)," &c. -On Rom., vi. 3.

D. A. SCHOTT.—"Were immersed (immergebantur) by him in the Jordan." "I indeed immerse (immergo) you in water. he will immerse (immerget) you in the Holy Spirit and fire.' To be immersed (ut immergeretur) by him." "I have need to be immersed (ut immergar) by thee.” "And Jesus, when He had been immersed (immersus fuisset)" (Transla. of Matt., iii. 6, 11, 13, 14, 16. 1839). More quotations are given by Dr. Conant, whose rendering we have followed in the above, from Schott and Fritzsche.

J. SUTCLIFFE. -"The Jews... did baptize by dipping."-Com., on Matt. iii. 7. Dr. LANGE."John administered the rite of submersion.' "His idea of repentance exceeded the outward requirements of the Mosaic law as much as his rite of immersion that of sprinkling.' "And were baptized, immersed, in the Jordan, confessing their sins. Immersion was the symbol of repentance. According to Meyer, repentance was symbolized by immersion, because," &c.-Com, on Matt., vol. i., pp. 113, 115, 118. Clark's edi.

Contrast this honest statement of Dr. Lange with an apparent appeal to ignorance of the import of a Greek word, and of the difference between the climate and customs of Palestine and England in the following from the Rev. J. Burnet: "Were they all immersed without their garments? Were they immersed in the desert and left with their clothes wet?"-Lec., p. 88.

Dr. ALFORD. "The baptism of proselytes was administered" "by immersion of the whole person." "It is most probable that John's baptism in outward form resembled that of proselytes."-Gr. Tes., on Matt. iii. 6.

J. D. BURNS teaches that Christ and the Baptist "descended into the river, and the rite was performed. The pure waters have laved his sinless body, and the

Saviour straightway coming up from the stream stands on the bank in prayer.”— Fam. Treas., p. 242.

1861.

Bp. ELLICOTT and others do not appear to believe that John sprinkled. The learned Bishop says: "The Forerunner descends with his Redeemer into the rapid waters of the now sacred river."-His. Lec., p. 108.

HARVEY GOODWIN says: "When He went up out of the water, in which He had with such humility permitted Himself to be baptized."—Com., on Matt. iii. 16, 17.

We know the sentiments of Bp. Taylor, who said: "Christ, who is our life, went down into the waters of baptism." Nor need we doubt those of Ellicott and Goodwin on the baptism of Christ.

After Christ had been baptized, or washed with water," says Dr. G. Benson, "he was anointed with the sacred unction of the Holy Spirit."-His. of Christ's Life, p. 25.

DEAN STANLEY speaks of the "bathing of the pilgrims in the Jordan,” which also he designates "plunging" and "immersion," and as presenting a likeness " "to the multitudinous baptisms of John."-Sinai and Pal., pp. 312–316.

Bp. BROWNE.-"The language of the New Testament and of the primitive fathers sufficiently points to immersion as the common mode of baptism. John the Baptist baptized in the river Jordan (Matt. iii.). Jesus is represented as 'coming out of the water' after His baptism (Mark i. 10). Again, John is said to have baptized in Ænon because there was much water there (John iii. 23; see also Acts viii. 36).” -In Dr. W. Smith's Dic. of the Bible, Art. Bap.

§ 10.-FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS TO IMMERSION FROM MARK VII. 4, 8; LUKE XI. 38; AND HEB. IX. 10.

Bp. TAIT.-"Unless controversy be carried on in the spirit of love, it is essentially un-Christian." "To oppose error, except from a love to Christ and His truth, and the souls of our brethren, is only to be proudly bent on spreading our own opinions."-Dang, and Safeg. of Mod. Theol., pp. 34,

35.

C. STOVEL."This Greek word baptizo, now called a 'faint and fading letter,' is found in the midst of a revelation whose bright and glorious characters he that runs may read, and the wayfaring man cannot mistake.'. If a Greek word be so contemptible as a means of communication in one case, how shall a Greek word become respected in another? or, rather, how shall we respect the Spirit who hath chosen to express His Divine command by a word which even those who understand the Greek language cannot explain? This plea of obscurity in the Word of God is the ground on which the Papal church has ever based her claim to official interpretation; it is not confined to this one word baptizo, but extended to others, as occasion may serve. It implicates the character of the Lord himself, by supposing that He taught our duty in words which none of His servants could understand."-On Disci., p. 485.

T. POWELL."It is a supreme rule of interpretation that what is obscure must be interpreted by what is clear."-Apos. Suc., p. 22.

Dr. CARSON.-"Truth is my riches: to contend for it in the sight of God is my highest glory. Men of sincerity and men of God may be in error as to the meaning of Scripture, yet in no instance is error either innocent or harmless." "This is self-evident. I state it, therefore, as a canon, or first principle of criticism, THAT IN CONTROVERSY A WORD OCCURRING FREQUENTLY

IN THE LANGUAGE IS NEVER TO BE TAKEN ARBITRARILY IN A SENSE WHICH IT CANNOT BE

SHOWN INCONTESTABLY TO HAVE IN SOME OTHER PASSAGE. An acknowledged sense is necessary as a foundation on which to rest the supposition, that in the contested passage it may have the signification assigned" pp. 364, 89).

Dr. WARDLAW.-"I think you wrong, far wrong. You think the same of me. It is an imperative duty that we try to set each other right; and even if we should not, on either side, succeed in the attempt, to prevent, as far as lieth in us, the adoption of our respective errors by others, and their injurious influence on the church and on the world. Even errors which may seem merely speculative are never harmless; much less can these be harmless."-Let. to M'Neile.

Baptizo or baptismos occurs in the following places where the New Testament institution is not referred to:-" For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except (nipsontai) they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders. And when they come from the market, except (baptisontai) they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be which they have received to hold, as (baptismous) the washing of cups and pots, brazen vessels, and of tables" (Mark vii. 3, 4). "For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as

(baptismous) the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do" (ver. 8). "And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that (ou proton ebaptisthe) he had not first washed before dinner" (Luke xi. 38). "Which stood only in meats and drinks and divers (baptismois) washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation."-Heb. ix. 10.

It will be perceived that by our translators the term "wash" is given in Mark vii. 3, 4, to two distinct Greek words: first, to nipto in ver. 3, and then to baptizo in ver. 4. This Scripture is sometimes incorrectly quoted, or referred to; that is, as if baptizo occurred in the third verse, where the hands are mentioned. So Mr. Hall, Mr. Bayley, &c. Mr. Hall asserts: "The fault of the Lord Jesus and of the disciples, in the eyes of the Jews, was that they had not first been baptized before eating; that is, they had eaten with unwashed hands." We say that the facts of the case, however they may be explained, are not as stated by Mr. Hall, but that the disciples are charged as eating with unwashed hands, and that the Lord is charged as eating, unbaptized. Mr. Hall, having (though, we believe, unintentionally) falsified the declarations of inspired truth, can complacently say: "To my mind, here is, so far, demonstration,proof which puts it beyond my power to doubt, that sprinkling and pouring are scriptural modes of baptism." Mr. R. S. Bayley says: "We find that except they wash their hands, they eat not. The Greek has baptize." This is not a true statement. Dr. L. Woods, a transatlantic brother, teaches that the supposition of immersion "would be unreasonable, especially since one of the prescribed modes of ceremonial purification, and, indeed, the most common mode, was the sprinkling of consecrated water" (Works, vol. iii., p. 446). And from such assumptions as these he can proceed in the next words to say: "Since, then, it appears that baptismos, baptism, when used to denote ceremonial purification, did not by any means signify immersion exclusively, and generally signified some other modes of purification." What is there that might not be proved after this fashion? Prof. Wilson, on Mark vii. 3, 4, says: "And here the record of Jewish customs, it must be acknowledged, supplies no satisfactory information" relating "to the mode of this baptism" (p. 225).

Mr. Jerram says: "Do you suppose that every individual in a family, who had been in the market, immersed his whole body in water, before he sat down to dinner? The fact is, as we read in St. John's Gospel, that waterpots were placed at the entrance of their houses for the purposes of purification; and these purifications were performed by the guests as they approached the room for dining, and could consist in nothing more than the mere dipping of the fingers or hands into the water (p. 128).

Mr. Stacey is as oracular and illogical on these passages as most writers. He quotes Mark vii. 2-5, and Luke xi. 37, 38, and tells us that "the cases are perfectly analogous in all but the terms used for the purifying process" (p. 193). His premise being, as we maintain, an unwarrantable assumption, what must his inferences necessarily be? That Mark vii. 3 speaks of the washing of hands is undeniable; that the former part of ver. 4 refers to the baptizing of the person, and the latter part to the baptisms of cups, &c., and that Luke xi. 38 is a case

parallel to what is mentioned in the former part of Mark vii. 4, as it regards the action described, we regard as obvious to any one acquainted with the original, and as confirmed by the rendering which Mr. S. has given. He himself thus records the former part of Mark vii. 4: "And when they come from the market, except they wash (baptize themselves), they eat not." This properly represents the original, except that baptize, as an Anglicised word, does not convey so clearly and promptly to an English ear the original idea as the word immerse would. Also, in Luke xi. 38, we have the passive form of baptizo, which, although literally rendered, would be, was immersed, conveys the same idea as the middle voice in Mark vii. 4, which literally is, baptize themselves. Yet Mr. S. here, as we believe, through the influence of prepossessions,-does not distinguish things that differ, but deceptively confounds them. Is a washing of the hands "perfectly analogous" to a baptizing of themselves? He adds: "In the one case wash is given, in the other, baptize." Is this a just or a partial and incorrect representation? He then says: "Does not this suggest their complete identity of meaning in these instances?" By no means. The use of two different words by the inspired writer suggests the idea of two different actions. The first case, in which we have the verb nipto, not baptizo, speaks of the constant practice of the Pharisees and the Jews, namely, to wash their hands before eating: the second (Mark vii. 4) speaks of their conduct when they come from the market, namely, to immerse themselves before eating. The record in Luke xi. 38 describes the marvel of the Pharisee that Jesus was not immersed before He "sat down to meat" with him. Yet Mr. S. can ask: "Who, free from the trammels of a theory, could doubt that the omitted baptism in the case of our Lord was the neglected washing of their hands in that of His disciples?" We believe that when Mr. S. is emancipated "from the trammels of a theory," if we may use such an expression, or, as we much prefer it, is delivered from those prepossessions which at present exert so potent and blinding an influence, he will be deeply abased before God and men that he has, to so great an extent, misrepresented and perverted Divine truch, and will desire to make all possible reparation. Dr. Stier, on John xiii. 10, says: "The evidently antithetic leloumenos, which does not refer to the hands and face (for of these nipsasthai and niptein are used), but as the olos distinctly shows, to a proper bath."-Words, &c., vol. viii., p. 343.

Instead of con

We will not follow Mr. S. sentence after sentence. ceiving that immersion in the promised land was a frequent, salutary, and pleasant operation, often required by the Divine law, and more frequently demanded by human traditions, he describes it, and seems invariably to conceive of it, as "an irksome service," and "a yoke of bondage;" involving "immense labour and time," and "expensive preparations of baths, &c.;" we had almost said, as if because this Pharisee expected that Christ would immerse, so, if the word has such a meaning, all the houses of the Jews are necessarily to be supposed as fitted up like the house of that Pharisee; and he concludes, with others of like prepossessions, that the waterpots mentioned in John ii. 6, in connection with which nothing is said about baptizing, prove that the baptizing mentioned in Mark vii. 4, and Luke xi. 38, "must come very much within the