of the results? The truth is, it exactly speaks what they preach, but what they fear to give in type to the world.

We have concluded to present the public with a number of quotations from it, in this chapter, not only for their special benefit and edification, but for the sake of making the doctrine of affusion remarkably luminous by contrast.

Now, we bespeak careful attention to its workings.

In 2 Kings v, 10, we read: "And Elisha sent a messenger to him, saying, Go and bathe in Jordan seven times, and thy flesh shall come again to thee, and thou shalt be clean."

So louo signifies to bathe, and baptizo too, according to the sense here, when taken in connection with the translation in Mark vii, 4; and Luke xi, 38, given in the previous chapter.

But let us proceed to the 14th verse, which reads: "Then went he down, and dipped himself seven times in Jordan, according to the saying of the man of God: and his flesh came again like to the flesh of a little child, and he was clean."

Naaman was only told to wash, and the writer of Kings points out the act by the use of the word ebaptisato. How strange then the thought, that louo should be magnified into a dipping process! He was not told to dip himself in Jordan, but to wash himself. If we are under a disease that affects a portion of our bodies, and are told by a physician to wash, do we understand him to bid us dip our whole bodies? No. If he dipped himself he did what he was not commanded to do. Jerome, the author of the Vulgate, we think, gives the proper rendering of the passage: "He went down and washed in Jordan seven times, according to the saying of the man of God." Does not this agree with the command of the prophet, "Go and

wash?" We cannot conceive how the thought ever crept into the mind of man, that Naaman immersed or dipped himself in Jordan. Did not Origen say the altar was baptized, which had only water poured on it? In like manner the writer of the book of Kings spoke, in calling the occurrence in Naaman's case a baptism, or, that he baptized himself in Jordan. Washed with the water of Jordan, no doubt, is the true meaning.

Let us now turn to Matt. iii, 5, 6: "Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region around the Jordan, and were immersed by him in the Jordan, confessing their sins."

Josephus informs us that one million one hundred thousand people perished in the siege of Jerusalem. Add to this the fact that Judea included nearly one half of the territory of Palestine, west of Jordan-not to say one word concerning the region round about Jordan, which included most of the territories of Samaria, Perea, and a large portion of Galilee, and there is a field for calculation, which will present the round number, at a low estimate, of three million, the subjects of John's baptism. John baptized about 227 days, which, when viewed at 12 hours actual labor each day, will present us with the thought, that he baptized 1101 every hour of the preceding time. Let him believe this that can, and subscribe to immersion. The above quotation says they were all immersed. Our faith draws back, and staggers under the pressure of impossibility.

The 11th verse of this chapter reads: "I indeed immerse you in water to repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he will immerse you in the Holy Spirit, and fire."

We can conceive how they could have been immersed in water, but the idea of immersing into

the Holy Spirit shadows our sense into confusion. The former could be understood as an action in, but the latter never can be so understood. The Spirit fell on them; and no matter how overwhelmed with its influence, the action was on them by it, and not in it by them. If John were represented as immersing the people by overwhelming them with water, and not in water, then there would be an evident propriety in the language of this quotation: but as the facts stand, it is an insult to the common understanding of mind, and a plain perversion of the teachings of inspiration.

The 16th verse reads thus: "And Jesus, being immersed, went up immediately from the water: and the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming upon him."

Here we have the old cry, he went up straightway out of the water, totally forsaken. So apo at last is admitted to mean from, and not out of. This gives us some hope. Perhaps the next translation will bring them to their sober sense. The Savior was immersed. Was Aaron immersed--his type? As well might they say one was immersed as the other. The Savior was baptized by being washed in Jordan, as Aaron was washed at the door of the tabernacle; and, as the one was anointed with oil, so the other was anointed by the Spirit. We wonder that they did not so fix the matter, as to represent the Savior as being immersed in the Spirit. They had as just a foundation for this, as they had in representing the descent of the Spirit, of which John spoke, under the idea of an immersion of the disciples.

Matthew xxviii, 19: "Go therefore and disciple all the nations, immersing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

Let us now turn to Mark i, 4, which reads:

"John came immersing in the desert, and proclaiming the immersion of repentance, for the remission of sins."

John came immersing in the desert-right in the desert. Here they give us a dry land immersion, which took place in the desert-not in Jordan. The immersion of repentance, however, is too sublime a thought for our humble comprehension; hence we must pass it by, regretting the intellectual loss.

The 8th and 9th verses read: "Iindeed immerse you in water but he will immerse you in the Holy Spirit. And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was immersed by John in the Jordan."

Here we have once more an immersion in the Spirit. The word, of itself, presupposes an immerser, the person to be immersed, and the thing in which the person is to be immersed. Can the word be used apart from these thoughts, in a religious sense? It cannot. Pray, then, who immersed the disciples in the Spirit? This is the point, and right here the confusion of thought begins. Did the Spirit descend on the disciples, or were they taken and plunged in the Spirit? We pity the cause that has to be supported by so fearful an abuse of language. God baptized them from heaven by pouring forth his Spirit on them.

Mark xvi, 16: "He that believeth and is immersed, shall be saved; but he that believeth not, shall be condemned."

Let us now turn to John's Gospel, i, 28: "This took place in Bethabara, beyond the Jordan, where John was immersing."

Well, here they give us another dry land immersion; for, if the front doors of Bethabara opened over the water of the Jordan, John could not have baptized there, and be said to have baptized in

Jordan. But we understand, says the immersionist, when it is said he baptized in the desert, and in Bethabara, that the thing was done in water. This is begging the question, as it has not been proved that John ever wet the soles of his feet in water, when officiating.

In Acts ii, 38, we read: "And Peter said unto them, Repent, and let each of you be immersed in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

Let us now turn to Romans vi, 4: "Therefore we were buried with him by our immersion into his death: that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also should walk in newness of life."

The only thing remarkable here is, that the structure of the original text is completely abused, and made to say what it never did, and never can say, when the rules of the language are respected. All this, however, because the verb in the Old English translation is in the present tense, and at war with the idea of water baptism, which had taken place long before the text was written. Were must supplant the place of the present tense, and even immerse the people -not in water, but in the actual death of the Son of God. Shame! shame! Could the truth in the passage blush, in proportion to the indignity offered, we should soon see the magnitude of the offense.

In 1 Cor. x, 2, we read: "And were all immersed to Moses in the cloud and the sea.'

Immersed to Moses--not in water, nor in the sea, nor in the cloud, but to Moses--just to him. All the hosts of Israel, men, women, and children, were immersed To Moses. This is decidedly the greatest outrage on language, sense, and propriety, that we have ever met with-except Campbell's rendering of the same passage, which, if our mem