which

sense in performing the ceremony, as well as in writing about it; we believe Christ never intended. The Lord of glory and of salvation does not expect us to act as idiots in obeying the command to immerse into the name of the Father, &c. We dare appeal to the Rev. Dr. Barnes, and the thousands who write or speak like him on baptism, respecting our accountability to God for the use of our rational faculties on this subject.

§ 20.-FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS TO IMMERSION IN HEB. VI. 2.

Bp. WATSON.-"What a blessing is it to beings with such limited capacities as ours confessedly are, to have God himself for our instructor in everything which it much concerns us to know."Apol., p. 139.

What

IN Heb. vi. 1, 2, we read, "Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, of the doctrine of baptisms, and of the laying on of hands," &c. ever other immersions are referred to by the apostle, Christian immersion appears to be amongst them: for though, under the Christian dispensation there is "one immersion," it does not follow that there was not an immersion by John the Baptist, under Divine direction; that there were not divers immersions under the law; and that in the world there were not also other immersions. Although the word is in the plural number, varied meanings as belonging to the word, or varied modes of the application of water, are no more proved from this, than they would be proved to belong to the English words-immersions, sprinklings, &c., because of these words being used in the plural number. The meaning of baptismos, as given by some of the most eminent lexicographers, has been already recorded. Whether we understand the apostle as referring to the existence of other baptisms, Jewish or heathen, or to John's baptism and Christian baptism, or exclusively to the initiatory ordinance of the Christian dispensation; whether with Grotius, we understand him as referring to an interior and an exterior baptism, or with Storr, we understand the plural to be used in a distributive sense, so that the doctrine taught is that every believer must be baptized, the meaning of baptism as immersion, which has been already proved, remains unaffected. Dr. A. Clarke and others admit that immersions were frequent under the law. Why then pervert the plain apostolic declaration? Why not conclude immersions alone to be meant, when immersions alone are mentioned ?

Dr. CLARKE says:-"Baptisms, or immersions of the body in water, sprinklings, and washings, were frequent as religious rites among the Hebrews, and were all emblematical of that purity which a holy God requires in His worshippers."(Com., on Heb. vi. 2.) The doctor's language correctly implies that baptisms are

immersions.

Dr. MACKNIGHT says:-"In the Levitical ritual many baptisms, or immersions of the body in water, were enjoined, as emblematical of that purity of mind which is necessary to the worshipping of God acceptably."-Com., on Heb. vi. 2.

Dr. BARNES here truthfully and cogently says of baptism:-"This was supposed to be so simple that young converts could understand it as one of the elements of the true religion, and the teaching on that subject now should be made so plain that the humblest disciple may comprehend it. If it was an element, or first principle of religion; if it was presented that any one who entered the church could understand it; can it be believed that it was then so perplexing and embarrassing as it is often made now?"-Com., on Heb. vi. 2.

§ 21.-FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS TO IMMERSION AS REFERRED TO IN HEB. X. 19-22; TITUS III. 5; JOHN III. 5; EPH. v. 26.

HON. AND REV. H. M. VILLIERS.-"You must aim at being mighty in the Scriptures. Keep to your Bibles, and raise the standard of man to the standard of God, and not lower the standard of God to the standard of man.-Ex. Hall Lec., p. 281. 1851.

C. T.-"We are unwavering advocates for a sound creed." "Let our theology be pure."-Pers. Piety, p. 15.

Dr. CARSON.-"Truth is my treasure" (p. 258).

Dr. W. H. STOWELL.-"Our sympathies are with all truth, and with all right doing."-Cong. Lec., p. 188.

THE reasoning against immersion is principally from the first of the above portions of Scripture. We shall therefore pass over the latter with few words. In Heb. x. 19-22, we read, “ Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; and having a high priest over the house of God; let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water." It does not here seem necessary to do more than inform the English reader that rhantizo is the verb used by the sacred writer for "sprinkled," and louo for "washed." But it is affirmed by our opponents that baptism is a washing, and it is believed that sprinkling is a washing; therefore baptism is sprinkling. What reasoning! What proof of the meaning of a word! Of the word baptizo; which is not even mentioned! If a person being immersed is washed, still immersion and washing are two different things. Immersion that takes place in pure water may be called a washing; although, if it took place in impure water, it might be called a defilement. But the sprinkling of water on the face or on the whole body, or the pouring of water on the face or on the head, is not a washing of the body. The sprinkling of water on some part of the body might be emblematic of purification, but could not be called a washing of the body. Why not infer that the sprinkling of the heart is in allusion to the application of the blood of sacrifices, and the washing of the body in allusion to the immersion enjoined by Christ, or the bathings enjoined by the ceremonial law? The idea conveyed by a washing of the body, no particular part being mentioned, is a washing of the whole body. Let any one decide whether immersion, pouring, or sprinkling, best answers to having our bodies washed with pure water. But here Dr. Halley's vision is confused whilst reading in the same verse of the heart being sprinkled and the body being washed; as if, because the heart is not said to be washed, the body might possibly be sprinkled. Filled with prejudice, he does not at once think that if the apostle had meant one and the same thing he would most likely have used one and the same word; but, contrary to all reason, he endeavours to find out if different words are not of the same meaning; and to find out the meaning of louo he ransacks the Old Testament to know how priests under Moses were consecrated, and what was the ordinary and proper ablution before entering the sanctuary; after this he refers to his pitiable dilemma, knowing this, but not knowing that and the other, and he describes his conclusion in the following

words:"How far it may relieve the difficulty to say, as the passage in Exodus seems to imply, that the washing of the hands and feet was for convenience appointed instead of the ablution of the whole person, and therefore considered as equivalent, I must leave the reader to decide. To which of these washings, or whether to any of them, the apostle specifically alludes, it may not be possible to ascertain with certainty. All I assert is, we know not any immersion practised by the priests on entering the sanctuary, and we have no right to assume that anything of the kind took place. If the reference be to the ablution of the Levites on being initiated into the holy service; or of the unclean, that they might not defile the sanctuary of the Lord; we are expressly told they were sprinkled with the water of purifying" (p. 307). If it is possible, as in the days of Job, to darken counsel by words, we will leave the reader of Dr. H.'s work to decide whether, under the influence of prepossessions, it does not appear in what Dr. H. has written on Heb. x. 19-22. We know not how, to the English reader, better to illustrate this passage and Titus iii. 5, as far as baptism is concerned, than by quoting from three or four lexicons the meanings given to lowo, rendered by the term wash in Heb. x. 22, and to loutron, rendered "washing" in Titus iii. 5, where we read, "According to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost."

LIDDELL AND SCOTT.- "Louo.--To wash; properly, to wash the body; also to pour [water for washing]. Med. To bathe.' "Loutron.-1. A bath, bathing place. 2. Water for bathing or washing. 3. Drink offerings, libations. 4. Bathing.

DONNEGAN."Louo.-To wash; to bathe." "Loutron.-Water for washing or bathing—a washing place, a bath."

PARKHURST.-" Louo.-To wash." "Loutron. -A laver, a vessel to wash in." ROBINSON. -"Louo.-To bathe, to wash." "Loutron.-A bath; water for bathing, washing. In New Testament, the act of bathing, washing, ablution. (Spoken of baptism, Eph. v. 26; Titus iii. 5.)"

Does this meaning of lous, a word generally used in application to the whole body, favour the idea that sprinkling or pouring is baptism? Does the meaning of loutron (a word derived from louo) accord with such a supposition? Is not baptism, if meant in Titus iii. 5, called the bath or laver of regeneration?

CONYBEARE AND HOWSON, in accordance with many others, say, on Titus iii. 5, that "loutron does not mean washing,' but laver, i.e., a vessel in which washing takes place."--Life and Epis. of St. Paul, vol. ii., p. 570.

ANNOTA. PAR. BIBLE."The washing of regeneration,' rather, 'laver of regeneration.'"-On Titus iii. 5.

Dr. C. J. VAUGHAN.-"The word translated washing should unquestionably be rendered by the term laver. By the laver, or bath, of regeneration."-Rev. of Lit., p. 28.

WEBSTER AND WILKINSON. "By means of the laver of regeneration; referring to baptism as an emblem of the purification of the soul from sin" (Gr. Tes., on Titus iii. 4-7). "Christians are emblematically washed by the purifying water of baptism, Acts xxii. 16."-Do., on Heb. x. 22.

In John iii. 5 we believe baptism to be referred to in the expression "born of water," although Baptists and Pædobaptists, respecting this application of the words, differ among themselves. "The initiations

were called new births, especially among the Jews." "To be born again is to pass through another event, from which a new age may be reckoned, and of which a new register may be taken" (Stovel's Dis., pp. 68, 358). "A person's coming out of the water of baptism may have been called by our Lord his being born again of water.' night, on 1 Peter iii. 21.

-Mack

Also Dr. Hodge gives the sentiments of many Pædobaptists when he says, on Eph. v. 26, "There can be no doubt, therefore, that by 'the washing with water,' the apostle meant baptism." Instead of denying this, we inquire, Was a sprinkling of the face ever designated a "washing with water"?

§ 22.-FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS TO IMMERSION FROM OLD TESTAMENT PROPHECIES.

W. THORN." Prejudgment closes its eyes and ears as long as possible against doctrines adverse to its own former settled convictions and practices."-Inf. Bap., p. 417.

Dr. CARSON.-"I fight for no church, for no party. I do not make even my past attainments my standard; I am willing to advance or recede, as I am made to hear the word of command. When Christ says, 'Go,' I will go: when He says, 'Come,' I will come. If any man can show me to be wrong in anything, I shall be swift in changing my course" (p. 258).

Bp. LowтH.-"Such strange and absurd deduction of notions and ideas, foreign to the author's drift and design, will often arise from the invention of commentators. . . . This was the case of the generality of the Fathers of the Christian church who wrote comments on the Old Testament: and it is no wonder that we find them of little service in leading us into the true meaning and the deep sense of the prophetic writings."-Prelim. Diss., p. 70.

T. POWELL. No man's name should shield him when he perverts the truth." "It shows the weakness of the cause when good men are pushed to such straits and mistakes to defend it.”— Apos. Suc., pp. 17, 18.

It is frequently objected to immersion that a prediction of the Spirit's influence is spoken of in Ezekiel by the sprinkling of water. We read in Ezekiel xxxvi. 24-26: "For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land. Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you," &c. The simple fact of sprinkling being mentioned in the Old Testament no more proves that baptism is sprinkling than that it is walking, fighting, or flying; as all these, and many other things, are mentioned in the Old Testament. But it is said in reference to the passages above cited, that God is speaking "in relation to the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the Jews at their future conversion," and that "it does not seem unreasonable to suppose that an allusion is intended to the sprinkling of water in baptism." It was but recently maintained that because the Holy Spirit is said to be poured out, therefore baptism is pouring. A third inference would be quite as logical, because the impartation of the Holy Spirit is spoken of by the terms sprinkle and pour, therefore to sprinkle is to pour, and to pour is to sprinkle, the words must be perfectly synonymous; or that baptism is not to sprinkle or to pour separately, but to sprinkle and to pour conjointly. The gift of the Spirit, whether spoken of as pouring or sprinkling, is certainly not necessarily a baptism of the Spirit. Therefore the words of Ezekiel, if prophetic of the impartation of the gracious influences of the Divine Spirit, are no proof whatever that baptism is sprinkling. It has been maintained,-pure water, under the Mosaic economy, being never sprinkled for any purpose,-that in this

passage the allusion is to the water of cleansing, which was water mixed with the ashes of a red heifer, and which was sprinkled for ceremonial purification, but which required to be succeeded by the person "bathing himself in water," in order to a completing of the legal purification. We do not, however, insist on this interpretation of the passage, as the words do not literally so read. But, understood in any legitimate sense, they afford not the slightest evidence that baptism is sprinkling. The Spirit's operations, it has been before shown, are ever spoken of in accordance with the emblem by which they are represented. And sprinkling, under the Jewish law, is no more proof that baptism is sprinkling than bathing enjoined by the same is proof that baptism is either sprinkling or immersion. We can admit that in Scripture, dipping, pouring, and sprinkling, are all variously used by Divine appointment, without admitting that this affords the slightest pretext for the idea that baptism includes the whole three, or is any one of the three, according to our choice. Our Saviour well knew, in enjoining immersion, whether all the three were equally suitable to His gracious design. He surely understood significance, decency, practicability, convenience, &c. It would be as logical and legitimate to conclude from the 26th verse that baptism is the reception of water into the stomach, because God says, "A new spirit will I put within you," as to conclude from the 25th verse that baptism is sprinkling. The entire passage, instead of referring to an ordinance to be administered by man, refers to blessings which the eternal Father to man will communicate, and in man will effect.

Prof. Wilson holds that Eze. xxxvi. 25, as meaning unmixed water, has better support from authorities than as meaning the water of ceremonial purification; yea, that "this must be undoubtedly its meaning, if the prediction contemplates any religious observance under the Christian dispensation;" that the "water was combined with sacrificial blood under a less spiritual economy;" but to "water unmixed" "the prophet manifestly alluded" (p.305). If! Manifestly! This same learned brother sees not only in Titus iii. 5, but also in Rev. i. 5, "Unto Him that washed us from our sins in His own blood," and in 1 Peter i. 2, "Sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ," an obvious allusion to baptism. Ergo, "had the Author of Divine revelation intended to establish immersion as the exclusive mode of Christian baptism, He would not have authorized the use of such terms as washing, sprinkling, pouring, in circumstances which carry an obvious allusion to that important ordinance" (pp. 306, 307). Delightful corroboration of the fancy that sprinkling is baptism by a comparison of the above "passages"! This is worthy of a place by the side of the argument in favour of baptizing infants, from Acts xxi. 5, 6.

Dr. Dwight, who on John xiii. teaches that "Christ has expressly taught us that immersion is unessential to the administration of this ordinance," next teaches that "the same doctrine is taught by God in the thirty-sixth chapter of the prophet Ezekiel" (Ser. 159). The latter is worthy of the former. If in this passage we have proof that to baptize is to sprinkle, might we not read, Then will I baptize clean water upon you, &c.?

Dr. Wardlaw desires that "the following examples be attended to:" Eze. xxxvi. 25; Psalm li. 7; Heb. ix. 13, 14; and Isaiah liii. 15. · We