The

divers baptisms, or make some further application, is required by nothing he previously or subsequently asserts, nor by any reason. idea of the excellent Dr. Wardlaw, "that amongst the 'divers washings' of the old dispensation, referred to in Heb. ix. 10, must surely be included all the various modes of Jewish purification; and consequently, the rhantismata, or sprinklings, which were the most numerous," only shows how a good man, under the influence of prepossessions, can falsely reason from assumption. He assumes washings, which is a generic word, to be a correct rendering of baptismos. If the word has been proved to mean only immersions, it can include no modes of purification but by immersion. The very word adduced by Dr. W., rhantismata, is a word that speaks against him. No other words in the New Testament are used for sprinkle and sprinkling than rhantizo and rhantismos, excepting proschusis in one instance (Heb. xi. 28). These are never used for baptize and baptism. The words used for baptize and baptism are never rendered sprinkle or sprinkling; and are never used by any writer that we have observed, in relation to such an act, till more than two hundred years after the death of Christ, when a deviation from immersion in the Christian ordinance began, from a desire that persons on the bed of affliction should be baptized. It is an evidence that the apostle does not refer to sprinklings, because, instead of using the word rhantismata, he uses the word baptismous; and in this very chapter, thrice speaking of sprinkling, he uses in each instance another word—a word belonging to another family-ver. 13, rhantizousa; ver. 19, errantise; ver. 21, errantise. Proof is needed that baptismous can include sprinklings; and the attempt to educe it from the connection, from the word "divers," or from subsequent verses, we maintain to be a total failure. It would be as correct, we do not say as plausible, to maintain that circumcision is included in the divers baptisms. If the apostle had mentioned, in ver. 10 and in the preceding verses, every legal ceremony, every purifying rite, with the exception of sprinkling in certain cases, we might have judged as to his motive in the omission, but we should not have been justified in wresting the meaning of the apostolic words. Let the Pædobaptist reader suppose that the apostle had used rhantisma instead of baptismos, and that the Baptists had attempted to prove that various rhantismata proved that the Greek rhantisma meant, and from a connection in which baptismos occurred was confirmed as meaning immersion as well as sprinkling, and you have a specimen of some of the lucubrations of certain Pædobaptist philologists. Various immersions include sprinkling and pouring as much as various sprinklings include pouring and immersion.

We have now examined the connection even on the supposition that the conjunction "and" was expunged, and we regard ourselves as bound to receive the apostolic declaration, that among the carnal ordinances of the Mosaic economy there were divers immersions. On the right to regard the conjunction as the interpolation of transcribers we give no opinion. The confidence of our opponents, whilst perverting the meaning of baptismos, by maintaining on the most insufficient and worthless grounds that sprinkling is included in its meaning, we account for on a principle that ever disposes to leap to conclusions and to blind to what

alone is legitimate. To Dr. H.'s reasoning in favour of the Greek word having the meaning of merge, or immerse by any mode, and also of applying water by any mode,- -a meaning not possessed, that we know of, by a word in any language under heaven,- we know not how to do justice, except by exposing the nonentity of the difficulties that he adduces, and then repeating his words, "Let the difficulties have their full weight, but always with the reserved possibility of a solution, could we learn more of the particulars and minute incidents of the relation" (p. 344). Here we are at no loss, for in his own words, which every Pædobaptist writer, as we conceive, knows to be true, although every one will not make the assertion, "there were divers immersions . among the Jews" (p. 303). Dr. Ralston also says: "Some of these washings required the immersion of the whole body." All who maintain that baptismos is here used with a secondary or unusual meaning, are bound to prove that the apostle did not mean immersions.

In conclusion, we refer the reader to the meaning of the word used by the Spirit of inspiration, as given in lexicons, to its meaning as evinced from invariable use, and to the following from Pædobaptists, that he may judge whether every opponent does not, in the words of Dr. Chalmers, "frame a speculation from the gratuitous fancies of one's own spirit."

Dr. J. ALTING.-"Washings, the apostle calls diaphorous baptismous, divers baptisms; that is, various immersions, for baptismos is immersion, since the whole body is immerged; but the term is NEVER used concerning aspersion. The Seventy use bapto or baptizo for tabal, he dipped, he dipped into, he immerged; whence haptismos, with the Hebrews, is called tubelah. The word hazah, he sprinkled, they never translate baptizo, because it signifies more than is expressed by that Hebrew term; but instead of it they use rhaino, perirraino, prosraino, rhantizo, perirrantizo, to sprinkle. The verb rahhatz, he washed, is frequently used, either alone, or with the addition of the word flesh, and the whole flesh, which is baptism. It is often used in connection with the washing of the clothes; whence the Jews observe that, whenever a command occurs for washing the clothes, the washing of the whole body is either added or understood. Further, those Jewish baptisms were manifold; as of the high priest (Lev. xvi. 4); of the priests, at their consecration (Ex. xxix. 4; Lev. viii. 6); and of the Levites, when about to be appointed to their office (Num. viii. 7, 21); of all Israel, when the Covenant was to be promulgated (Ex. xix. 10, 14); especially of those that were defiled by the carcase of an unclean animal (Lev. xi.); by the leprosy (Lev. xiv.);" &c.-Opera, tom. iv., Com. in Epis. ad Heb., p. 260.

BEZA, with others, says: "Nor does baptizein signify to wash, except by consequence."-On Mark vii. 4.

Dr. KITTO. "The Mosaic law recognizes eleven species of uncleanness from positive defilement, the purification from which ceased at the end of a certain period, provided the unclean person then washed his body and his clothes; but in a few cases, such as leprosy, and the defilement contracted by touching a dead body, he remained unclean seven days after the physical cause of pollution had ceased. This kind of ablution for substantial uncleanness answers to the Moslem-ghash.' (In this the body is wholly immersed; not a single hair must be omitted.)

Dr. JAHN. "It was one of the civil laws of the Hebrews that the bath should be used. The object of the law, without doubt, was to secure a proper degree of cleanliness among them (Lev. xiv. 8; xv. 1-8; xvii. 15, 16; xxii. 6; Num. xix. 6). We may therefore consider it probable that public baths, soon after the enactment of this law, were erected in Palestine, of a construction similar to those which are so frequently seen at the present day in the East."-Bib. Antiq., sec. 180, chap. xi.

WEBSTER AND WILKINSON,-" Diaph. bapt. The various ablutions enjoined

on priests and people as purifications" (Gr. Tes., on Heb. ix. 6-10). "As the Jews were ceremonially purified, so Christians are emblematically washed by the purifying water of baptism."-Do., on Heb. x. 22.

E. BICKERSTETH." We have a further instruction in baptism in THE WASHINGS APPOINTED BY THE LAW OF MOSES. Aaron and his sons, on their being consecrated to the priesthood, were to be WHOLLY washed with water, as well as sprinkled with blood, at the door of the tabernacle (Ex. xxix. 4, 21). And whenever they went into the tabernacle, they were to wash their hands and their feet at the brazen laver (Ex. xxx. 18-21). For cleansing from various ceremonial uncleanness, also, the Israelites were directed to wash themselves (Lev. xiii. 54-58; xiv. 8, 9; xvi. 4, 24; xxii. 6). . . Christians are a royal priesthood; they have an initiatory washing, the ordinance of baptism, to consecrate them to their high and holy office."-On Bap., pp. 6, 7.

OLSHAUSEN having remarked, on Mark vii. 1-23, that “baptizesthai is different from niptesthai; the former is the dipping," &c., adds that "baptismos is here, as at Heb. ix. 10, ablution, washing generally."-Com.

Dr. MACKNIGHT properly inserts immersions, instead of washings, for baptismous, both in his translation and paraphrase.

STORR AND FLATT not only see in baptismous nothing else than immersions, but they venture to assert: "The reason why Christ prescribed immersion in baptism, from which the several figures found in the New Testament are taken, seems to have been that some of his first followers were already accustomed to religious washings of this kind; especially the Jews, who had been used to Levitical washings (Heb. ix. 10), and to the baptism of Jesus and John (John iii. 22, &c. ; iv. 1), and perhaps also to proselyte baptism."-Bib. Theo., p. 216, Ward's ed.

WHITBY and GROTIUS give immersions for baptismous in accordance with the import of the word as explicitly acknowledged by lexicons of the language, already quoted, and abundantly proved from use.

These "divers baptisms" under the law, says Dr. Wall, "were upon new occasions of uncleanness, &c., many times repeated." True; there were baptisms for various reasons, or under various circumstances, which might involve its frequent repetition to the same person or thing. To us, however, there is but "one baptism," one immersion, as a practical declaration of faith in Christ Jesus, and devotedness to him.

§ 11.-FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS TO THE COMMISSION AS ENJOINING IMMERSION. PAUL, THE APOSTLE.-"Though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other Gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed."—Gal. i. 8.

TERTULLIAN.-"I adore the fulness of Scripture."

Dr. J. BENNETT." In the Divine writings alone we hear what the Spirit saith to the churches."" "If it be not written, let him fear that woe that is destined for those who add anything to the Word of God, or take anything away."-Cong. Lec., pp. 43, 62.

Dr. S. DAVIDSON.-"A church has no power to decree rites and ceremonies, though they be not contrary to the written Word of God. . . . To add any new ceremony must be unlawful, because men are incapable of discerning what is an acceptable part of Divine worship. To God alone it belongs to appoint whatever is to be done in the assemblies of Christians: for He alone knows what is worthy of himself and proper to be presented by His creatures.... All must be made known by Heaven itself. Imperfect and erring man cannot determine what things, indifferent in themselves, are fit to be made use of in religion. Hence the Deity has revealed, with sufficient fulness, all necessary parts of religious worship. To institute additional ceremonies,-still more to impose them on others" [or even to recommend and defend them, say we],"is totally unwarrantable on the part of man, whatever pretence of decency or solemnity may be offered in favour of them." "The introduction of new rites and ceremonies... is an insolent attempt to offer to the Divine Majesty, without His permission, things trifling and mean. . . . No pretext of solemnity or edification can justify it."-Cong. Lec., pp. 317, 318.

J. A. JAMES." Affect no false candour, no spurious charity, as if all sentiments were equally unimportant. This is treason against truth, and the God of truth. Let not all the various sects, denominations, and creeds appear in your eye only as so many beautiful colours in the rainbow. It is a false and bad figure, and is the very germ of infidelity. But, at the same time, guard against the opposite extreme of a want of charity toward those who differ from you."-Young Man's Guide, p. 131.

J. GILBERT. Few there are who need to be informed that, when the import of a phrase, or a customary form of expression, is the question, if there be undeniable evidence of the meaning con

veyed by such form, it is worse than trifling to go into all the senses in which a particle, a preposition, or some other individual word in that phrase may, under other circumstances, be employed." -Cong. Lec., p. 324.

Bp. BUTLER." There is ground for an attempt of showing men to themselves."-In Wordsworth's Chris. Ins., vol. i., p. 520.

On this we shall be more brief than from its importance we should have been, had we not, in connection with prepositions, previously dwelt on it. (See pp. 302-315.) In designating Matt. xxviii. 19 the commission, we do not forget that John's baptism was from heaven, and that Christ, during His ministry, had baptized, that is, by means of His disciples. But here the mouth of Christ solemnly enjoined it; and His language, as we think, implies that it should be observed by His disciples "unto the end of the world." We enter into no controversy with Prof. Godwin and others who regard Matt. xxviii. 19 as not recording the institution of Christian baptism. But we accept not the professor's translation: "Go forth, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them for the Father," &c. (Chr. Bap., p.151.) We wholly repudiate his attempted vindication of for as the rendering of eis. We differ as strongly from his assertion that the words of our Lord mean, Purifying them for the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit" (p. 154). We oppose as decidedly his assumption that this baptism was "the moral purification of their souls by the Gospel of Christ" (p. 154). Nor do we see the consistency of this with the following: "The apostles had before this purified by water the persons of Jews; and now they were to extend this purification to all nations. They had made disciples, and baptized them by water; and they were to continue the observance of this initiatory service" (p. 156). He says, on Matt. xxviii. 19: "In no other place are the apostles said to baptize the minds of men" (p. 159). Again: "The real parallelisms to this passage confirm the conclusion that it applies to the purification of the minds of men by the ministry of the Gospel" (p. 160). And yet, "after the general commission given by our Lord to His apostles, to make disciples of all nations, two directions are expressed: they were to baptize the converts, and to teach them to observe whatever He had enjoined" (p. 153). The reader may ask, If the apostles had before, in baptizing, purified by water, and now this purification was to be extended to all nations, had they thus baptized (purified) the body or the mind? Do we in God's Word, or in any human production (Prof. G.'s excepted), read of the soul being purified by water? Is not such an idea worthy of a place among Popish miracles? And yet from the words, "make disciples of all nations, baptizing them," to infer "the purification here mentioned is ritual and corporeal, and not real and spiritual," is an assumption, is not just, and is contrary to truth! (p. 256). Indeed, "there are eight texts in which the word baptize and baptism occur, with obvious reference to what is of great importance: Matt. xxviii. 19; Mark xvi. 16; Rom. vi. 3; 1 Cor. xii. 13; Gal. iii. 27; Eph. iv. 5; Col. ii. 12; 1 Peter iii. 21. The importance attributed to some baptism in these passages is considered to support the opinion that the administration of the rite is the means of regenerating the soul. To this it may be replied that there is no proof that these statements refer to the Christian rite at all" (p. 342). He mentions that "various considerations have been stated, which tend to prove that

they relate, not to the purification by water, in the introductory ceremony of the Christian religion, but to the moral purification of the mind." Yea, he unqualifiedly asserts: "In none of these passages is there any reference to water, to the body, or to anything belonging to an external service" (p. 342). This is the extension to all nations of purification by water which the apostles had previously practised! He has before said: "It should be observed, that in all his [John's] declarations respecting the baptism of the Spirit, Jesus Christ is spoken of as the agent" (p. 127). Thus reasons the living advocate of purification in opposition to immersion as the import of baptism in Christ's commission and in all God's Word, the Rev. Prof. J. H. Godwin.

66

The language of Dr. Halley is explicit that baptizein eis is to immerse into (p. 324). This seems to be admitted by Mr. Stacey. But because eis hudor is not expressed, the immersion enjoined is carried away, and there is left in its place sprinkling, or pouring, or any application of water which you please. With such a licence he must be dull indeed, who cannot make the sacred writers support just what he wishes" (J. Gilbert's Cong. Lec., p. 321). When we can immerse a person into God's name by sprinkling a few drops of water on the face, we shall believe that prejudice cannot make good and learned men sometimes unconsciously violate grammar, repudiate lexicons and use, and dishonour common sense. We fearlessly ask, Would any "Greek scholar, having to translate" into English Matt. xxviii. 19,-not to Anglicise the Greek words, but faithfully to translate them,-could he, "according to the laws of the Greek tongue established by the highest authority," render baptizontes autous eis otherwise than immersing them into? If the words were so rendered, which of us could profess discipleship to Jesus, and practise or defend sprinkling as baptism?

Mr. R. A. Lancaster, on the Nature and Design of Baptism, says: "When our Lord commissioned His disciples to Go, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost' (Matt. xxviii. 19), they could not understand Him to say that they must go, dipping all nations, because all the necessary arrangements would have to be made for that purpose; whereas they had previously been told to 'provide neither two coats nor shoes' (Matt. x. 10); therefore it is not to be expected that they would provide a dipping coat, or high boots, for the use of the baptistery," &c. (p. 83). Mr. L. might think that the climate and habits in Palestine were the same as in England, and that immersion is and was, and ever and everywhere will be, impracticable or unadvisable without the things he specifies. Our present object is not to attack or defend modes or incidentals of baptism. We plead for the reality of baptism, and remember the direction, Let all things be done decently and in order; and we think that Mr. L. and some others might as well have informed us that the word cannot mean immersing, because there is no mention of bathing-machines in which to dress and undress, and to be taken into the water. The command of immersion no more required directions concerning the mode, than its observance, whether in the torrid zone, the polar regions, or any other part of God's earth, required the abandonment of common sense.

Mr. Thorn gives a considerable number of meanings to the Greek