purifying, or baptizing only the outside. For, the same word is used here for making clean, which is used in John iii, 25, for purifying; which purifying was the same with their baptism, as we have shown above. Hence it is evident that our Saviour alludes to those purifyings or baptisms which were performed by sprinkling: "A clean person shall sprinkle water upon the vessels and persons." To these baptisms the Pharisees were superstitiously attached. "They had received to hold the baptism," that is, the ceremonial washings "of cups, pots and brazen vessels and tables."

Wherefore, we must conclude that these vessels were not immersed, but sprinkled, for that was the mode in which their ceremonial purifications were ordinarily performed. And Paul, when he refers to the Jewish ceremonies of purifying, speaks only of those which were performed by sprinkling." Hence we find that the word baptism is used by Mark for that cleansing which was performed by sprinkling; wherefore sprinkling is called baptism by the Holy Spirit.

2. Luke xi, 38, "And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not first washed (baptized) before dinner." This was that Pharisee who invited Jesus to dine with him. Now, no consistent person would hazard the assertion that Jesus and all the Jews immersed themselves every day before

a Heb. ix, 13, 19, 21.

dinner.

The Pharisees no doubt washed themselves before they dined, else they would not have found fault with our Saviour for neglecting it. The assertion that they immersed themselves every day before dinner, is so completely destitute of even a shadow of evidence, and so contrary to probability, that it is a mere begging the question. And yet Mr. Hascal who appears to prefer the authority of Lexicons and Abraham Booth, to that of the Bible, has rendered this passage thus: "And the Pharisee, beholding, marvelled that he was not first immersed before dinner."

Mr. Merril also labors to show that this passage ought to be so rendered, and refers to the ordinance of bathing. "The unclean person shall bathe himself in water." But the learned Divine ought to know, if he does not, that, to bathe does not signify a total immersion. Neither does it necessarily signify any immersion at all. A person may bathe himself, either by going under water, or by the application of it to the part or parts bathed. Hence this passage to which he so eagerly referred, fails him-it affords no evidence for immersion.

But why will he refer to the ordinance of bathing, and pass over, or reject the ordinance of sprinkling which was enjoined in the same institution? "A clean person shall sprinkle upon the unclean on the third day, and on the seventh day." Thus we find

a Num. xix, 18, 19.

that he who bathed himself, was first sprinkled. And sprinkling also was the ordinary mode of purifying, as is evident from the fact, that Paul made no mention of their bathings, when he spake of the Jewish ceremony of purifying. Hence the idea of immersion, in the passage before us, is altogether excluded. And the term baptism is used for a washing performed otherwise than by immersion.

If

But, to return to Mr. Hascal's rendering. Will he or any of his brethren inform us whether the Jews had baths in all their dwellings, sufficiently large to immerse themselves in them? If they had not, where did they go to immerse themselves? Or if they had, where do the Baptists obtain the knowledge of it? Is it by an immediate revelation? so, it is not from heaven, because it is unsupported by the word of God, which is the only rule of our faith and practice. It must not be forgotten that these baptisms, or washings, were not for personal cleanliness, they were their ceremonial purifications, and what kind of baths they had for these washings John informs us in his gospel. Thus we again see that the word baptism is used for a washing which is not performed by immersion: It does not, therefore, signify immersion.

Some have tried to get the body under water from Mark vii, 3, by saying that when they washed their hands they immersed them. But herein they fail. For, first; there is no connection between washing the hands by rubbing them with their fist, as

it is in the original, (πυγμή νίψωνται τας χείρας,) and their ceremonial washings. So that the immersion of the body in the ordinance of baptism, cannot be inferred from the supposition that they immersed their hands when they washed them. Second, if they did immerse their hands, it would avail them nothing to prove immersion in baptism, because the word baptism is not used. And even if it were, it could not be proved that they immersed their hands, because they might wash by applying water to one hand by the other; or they might wash at a faucet, or water might be poured upon their hands. And it is very probable that the latter mode was practised, if we are allowed to refer to the Bible for evidence. We read that Elisha poured water upon the hands of Elijah."

3. 1 Cor. x, 2. "And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea." Daniel Hascal has rendered this passage thus : "And were all immersed unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea." Such rendering evinces the extravagancy of the man, and is its own refutation among the thinking part of community. For, who, but those who have taken leave of their reason, and would rather swallow down the most glaring absurdity, than relinquish a beloved hypothesis, can believe that the Israelites were all carried aloft, and plunged into

a 2 Kings iii, 11.

See his definitions, &c. Had he said that the Egyptians were immersed he would have spoken more correctly.

the cloud, then let down and plunged into the sea. It is also at variance with the account which Moses gives of their passage through the sea. He says that after the cloud passed over them, and the waters were driven back; they passed through dry shod. But they could not have been very dry after having undergone such a double plunging in the watery elements.

But why is there such a variance among the Baptists themselves about this baptism? Some say, that the Israelites were surrounded in a thick mist, and thus were immersed in that. Others say, that the cloud was above them, and the sea on each side, and thus there was a representation of a burial or immersion. Others, as Mr. Hascal, will have them carried aloft and immersed in the cloud, and then let down and immersed in the sea. And others, again, in order to get rid of the difficulty altogether, say it was under the law, and therefore has no connexion with baptism. Such a division of sentiment among themselves, only evinces their anxious cares for immersion-a conscious inability to defend their exclusive system, and their reluctant doubts concerning it. But the most common mode of evading the force of the argument drawn from this passage, is, by saying that the sea was on each side, and the cloud above or over them, and thus there was a representation of a burial-a type or figure of baptism. To this I reply,

First, Paul says nothing about a figure or type,