necessary to specify anything else.

And this application

of blood, which was made by sprinkling, and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean, Paul calls a baptism.

The current of his discourse leads him on to speak of another of the "divers baptisms," in ver. 15, and onward. Having made a comparison between the "purifying of the flesh" by the sprinkling of blood, and of the ashes of a heifer, and the "purging of the conscience" by the

sprinkling of the blood of Christ," he runs out the same parallel between the ritual of establishing the first testament under Moses, and the ritual of establishing the second under Christ. It is worthy of remark that the same form of ritual is still kept up; it is still a sprinkling, and not an immersion. "For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people, according to the law, he took of the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled the book and all the people. Moreover, he sprinkled likewise with blood both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry." The argument is, that Christ, in ratifying the new covenant, must ratify it with his own blood; and the only modal application of this blood spoken of even in figure, is the "sprinkling of the blood of Christ." The current of his discourse, and the contrast which runs throughout his argument, shows that the "divers baptisms" are still referred to in these purifyings so repeatedly described under the mode of sprinkling.

He speaks of "divers baptisms." Another of these is mentioned in Numb. viii. 7: "And this shalt thou do unto them to cleanse them" (viz. the Levites, to prepare them to enter upon the functions of their office), "sprinkle water of purifying upon them, and let them shave all

their flesh, and let them wash their clothes, and so make themselves clean." Note here, that no man inducts himself into the priesthood, and all that was done to the Levite by another's hand was the "sprinkling." The Leper was in like manner to be cleansed by sprinkling, Lev. xiv. 9. And so pre-eminently is the sprinkling considered as the important element in the cleansing, that this alone is the outward part of the ritual pitched upon to designate the purifying with which Christ washes away the sins, and cleanses away the pollution of the soul. Thus, Isaiah lii. 15, "So shall he sprinkle many nations." Heb. xii. 24, "And sprinkling of the blood of Christ." 1 Pet. i. 2, " And sprinkling of the blood of Christ." You never read of his "Immersing many nations," nor of the “Immersion of the blood of Christ ;" no, never, in the word of God.

But the IMPORT of baptism by water is this same cleansing away of sin by the blood of Christ. The washing away of sin is effected-not by the water-but by the blood of Christ. Baptism by water signifies this washing away of sins. Thus, "Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins."* Now if the application of the sign is to resemble the application of the thing which performs the real cleansing, and to resemble it even in figure; if the type is to resemble the antitype; the shadow the substance; then as it is the sprinkling of the blood of Christ that DOES the cleansing, surely it should be the sprinkling of the water in baptism that SIGNIFIES the

*There is a curious mode of setting aside this argument, by considering baptism as designed to represent the burial and resurrection of Christ! The word of God gives quite another view of the import of baptism; see Acts ii. 38, and xxii. 16.

cleansing; immersion would spoil the resemblance, and mar the significance of the sign.

But not to come at the conclusion too soon, let us hold here upon the testimony of the facts so far considered. We have here, then, " DIVERS BAPTISMS" performed by

SPRINKLING.

Turn now to Mark vii. 3, 4-" For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not; holding the tradition of the elders. And when they come from the market,* except they wASI, they eat not; and many other things there be which they have received to hold, as the WASHING of cups, and pots, and brazen vessels, and tables."

The words "wash," and "washing" are, in the original (Bαnowα), except they HAVE BAPTIZED THEMSELVES; and (BαлτIσμονç), "BAPTISMS."

See how this subject is introduced. "And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled (that is to say, with unwashen) hands, they found fault." Then follows the explanation: "For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, cat not; and when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not." See Matt. xv. 2-" Then the Pharisees and Scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat brend

*Rosenmüller says, "The sense is, when they come from the market (i. e. any public place), they do not take their food except they wash their hands.' Ayopa (the market) signifies not only a con course of men, or place of public resort, in which provisions are sold, and in which trials are held, but all similar public places. Ayopa-public places, opposed to private dwellings."

+ "The rule of the rabbins was, that if they washed their hands. well in the morning the first thing they did, it would serve for

with unwashen hands?" Compare this with Luke xi. 38. A pharisee marvelled that the Lord Jesus "had not first washed before dinner" (original, εВαлτiσon); that “he had not first BEEN BAPTIZED before dinner." The fault of the Lord Jesus and of the disciples, in the eyes of the Jews, was, that they had not first been BAPTIZED (or baptized themselves) before eating; i. e., they had eaten with UNWASHEN HANDS. The washing of the hands, therefore, was a baptism; and, as the form of the original language, as well as our translation, shows, a baptism of the PERSONS, not simply of the hands; i. e., THEY (the persons) were baptized when their hands had been washed for a ceremonial purifying.

There is this further peculiarity about it; their hands were not commonly dipped or immersed, but washed in running water, as streaming from a pitcher or from a watering pot.*

all day, provided they kept alone; but if they went into company, they must not, at their return, either eat or pray, till they had washed their hands."-Matthew Henry, on Mark vii. 4.

* A very worthy minister of the Episcopal church, who had travelled much, and spent considerable time in the East (formerly Rector of St. Paul's Church in this place), assured me that the practice is continued in the Eastern world to this day. Before meals, a servant comes round with a pitcher, and pours water on the hands of those about to eat, or they are otherwise cleansed with running or streaming water. He said, as often as he saw it done, it brought to his mind the passage in 2 Kings iii. 11. "Here is Elisha, the son of Shaphat, who poured water on the hands of Elijah," i. e. who was servant to him: the very common duty of a servant is used as an appellation to designate the relation of a servant.

The custom of washing the hands before eating, as it still prevails in the East, was this: "When they wash, the water is poured

I am aware that attempts have been made to set aside the force of these passages, in Mark vii. and Luke xi. But these attempts have done no more than to demonstrate the strength of our position. There are only two possible grounds of resisting the conclusion. One of which is, that the baptism is predicated of the hands, as though the hands were immersed; and the other, that while the Jews on many occasions WASHED their hands, yet as often as they came from the market, they IMMERSED their whole bodies. As was noticed in the previous discourse, Dr. Campbell takes the first ground, and Mr. Carson the second. Campbell, appearing to know full well the absurdity of supposing that "all the Jews" always "immersed" themselves as often as they came from the market before eating, referred the baptism to the hands, and maintained an immersion, but an immersion of the hands only. Carson replies, that he considers Campbell's view of the matter as "nothing but an ingenious device, without any authority from the practice of the language." Such it most undoubtedly is. No scholar could ever have been betrayed into such a "device," save from the hard necessity of making out an from a vase upon the hands over a basin-they never make use of a basin or a tub to wash in, as is the practice elsewhere." (Oscanyan, in Kurtz, p. 179.)

In John ii. 6, &c., where there were set six water-pots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews:-at the time of the middle of the feast these water-pots appear to have been empty The purifying (which Mark and Luke call a baptizing) had been performed, not by the guests immersing themselves or dipping their hands in the water-pots, but by "drawing out," and probably by carrying and pouring the water on the hands. If this be so, then our Baptist brethren are left destitute of that last, but unavailing refuge, the “dipping of the hands.”