merse, the only proper translation of the word as here used, is, "Except they immerse themselves." People may explain it, as Mr. Woolsey does, by saying that the meaning is, except they dip their hands; but that is mere commentary; it is "altering the diction of the Holy Ghost," it is not "faithfully translating." The Holy Ghost affirms the baptism of the persons, not of the hands. If it be correct commentary, to say that it means, except they wash, or purify, or immerse their hands; then the Holy Ghost here witnesseth, that a washing, purifying, or immersion of the hands, is, to the full meaning of baptize, a baptism of the person. The baptism is predicated of the person; and it is "covering up and concealing from a mere English reader," the witness of the Holy Ghost concerning the proper import of the word baptize, to put the word "hands" into the text in this passage. No grammatical construction, no pure and faithful translation, allows the baptism here to be predicated of the hands.

JUDD ON MARK, VII. 4.

Mr. Judd in his learned reply to Stuart, p. 25, translates the passage, "And when they come from the market, except they βαπτισωνται, ΒΑΡΤΙΖΕ THEMSELVES." In the same manner he makes the Pharisee in Luke xi. 38, wonder that Jesus had not been baptized before dinner. As Mr. Judd maintains that baptize must and shall mean immerse, he maintains that baptize not only may have its usual meaning here, but that "that meaning is absolutely required by the scope and harmony of the passage:" i. e., he will make the Scripture here testify that the Pharisees and all the Jews immersed their whole bodies before eating, as often as they came from the market. "Surely," says he, p. 37, "the Jews could have immersed themselves after coming from the market." Surely they could,

if they never went from the market, and took their meals where they could not. But Mr. Judd mistakes the question. The inquiry should be, not whether they surely could immerse themselves, but whether they surely did. It is not necessary to show that the act of immersion was physically impossible: the proper inquiry is, not whether it was impossible to be done, but whether it can possibly be true that it was actually done. Surely the Jews could have eaten Stephen like cannibals after they had stoned him; for the thing was not impossible to be done: but it is impossible that it should be true that it was done. Of such a custom of immersing the whole body as often as they came from the market, there is not a scrap of evidence in the wide world, except in this assumed meaning of the word baptize. The manners and customs of the Jews have been well known from that day to this; and no such custom was ever known or heard of, till invented as a historical fact necessary to help the Baptists out of this difficulty. We may say with Mr. Woolsey, p. 24 (and Mr. Woolsey, at least, will join with us in making this application of his language,) "such a scheme to support" immersion "for baptism is of very recent invention, and can be but of short duration." Mr. Woolsey rejects this historical "invention," and says, p. 158, "There is not sufficient ground for believing that the Jews immersed their whole body when returning from the market."

Here the Holy Ghost saith, "that the Pharisees and all the Jews, when they come from the market, except they BAPTIZE THEMSELVES, eat not." Mr. Woolsey thereupon says, "There is not sufficient ground for believing that they immersed their whole body." The conclusion should be, that Mr. Woolsey must either alter the word of God, or give up immersion as essential to baptism; or impeach the veracity of the Holy Ghost. This is a hard

alternative, but Mr. Woolsey, by denying the custom of immersion upon coming from the market, must of necessity infix himself upon one of the forks of this trident.

CARSON ON MARK, VIL. 4.

So Carson thinks, he sees the entire want of historical evidence to support the notion that the Jews immersed their whole bodies as often as they came from the market. He sees the difficulty in supposing that a custom which no body ever heard of, was so common among the Jews, as to be a matter of wonder and remark that Jesus or his disciples should once omit it before eating. He sees the difficulties and feels them; but he has determined that baptize shall mean immerse; and the grammatical construction absolutely forbids him to predicate the baptism of the hands, or of any thing else than the whole person. Before him is danger, but behind him is perdition. He screws himself up to the desperate venture. He knows; -as a scholar -as an honest man, he knows,—that there is no giving a fair grammatical translation of these passages, without either giving up immersion for baptism; or impeaching the veracity of the Holy Ghost; or maintaining the hard alternative of affirming, what is still harder to be believed, that the Pharisees and all the Jews never used to eat when they came from the market, except they had immersed their whole bodies. Give up immersion, he will not. Reject the testimony of the Holy Ghost, he dares not. He, therefore, screws himself up for the alternative. While he stands poising upon the brink of the precipice, the renowned George Campbell stretches out the hand for his relief. Affirm, says Campbell, “that the immersion is predicated of the hands ;"—and offers his mighty shield and buckler, and his mightier name, to protect and countenance his brother in such an escape from

the dilemma. But, Carson is too well informed, and too honest, to resort to what he believes a mere subterfuge. He rejects the proffered aid. Down the precipice he leaps; -and, according to Mr. Woolsey, carries the Baptist cause,—if it must go with him,—to perdition: for in his opinion, there was no such custom as that which Carson is obliged to maintain; and the proof of that custom failing, Carson's argument sinks into a miserable grave.

MR. WOOLSEY'S CHOICE OF ALTERNATIVES.

But what is the alternative which Mr. Woolsey is obliged to adopt? The one from which Carson, "inferior in learning and research to none of the Baptists," shrunk back with horror; rejected as utterly untenable; and denounced as "nothing but an ingenious device, without any authority from the genius and practice of the language.' Mr. Woolsey rests on ground at which Carson himself would wield a thunderbolt; to which Judd scorns to descend; and on which, no one, who maintains it, is able to give a faithful translation of the passages in Mark vii. 4, and Luke xi. 38, without making the Bible speak, what those who take the ground admit to be, falsehood.

THE BAPTISTS AT WAR WITH EACH OTHER.

Here we have Carson and Judd pitted against Campbell and Woolsey; the house divided against itself on a point which is decisive of the whole question. Carson and Judd give up the notion of limiting the baptism to the hands: Campbell and Woolsey give up the custom of an immersion of the body as often as the Jews come from the market. The work of destroying their mutual errors is done to our hands; and the truth comes out clear, that the Scriptures do not consider immersion as at all necessary to baptism; for to make it so, compels us either to alter the

plain diction of the Scriptures, or to make them speak an admitted falsehood.

How comes it to pass that these mighty champions so come into conflict with each other? Hear Mr. Woolsey, (p. 7.) "All error, when seeking to wear the aspect of truth, comes in contact with truth itself. Truth and error can never be made to harmonize; the former will continually show a just repugnance to the latter, and the latter will as continually cross the path of the former." Baptists," Are not united among themselves as to what methods and arguments they shall adopt to sustain their unhappy position.* What is cherished by one, is discarded

* Our Baptist brethren conflict with each other on other impor. tant points. Mr. Woolsey insists that the famous passage "Buried with him by baptism into death," so plainly refers to the mode of baptism, that every one must see it; and declares that "If baptism here does not mean a "literal" burial and resurrection, then is Christ not risen ;" and preaching and faith are "vain," p. 210. But the famous Baptist historian Robinson, and Dr. Judson, so long a missionary in the East "both admit that this passage is misapplied, when used as evidence of the mode of baptism." [Hamilton, p. 95.]

So again, Mr. Woolsey maintains that the disciples spoken of in Acts xix., were not re-baptized; imputes to us the intention of excluding "the holy John," with all the repenting and believing converts that followed his instruction, from the Christian dispen. sation; and of not "allowing" even Christ, "the captain of salva. tion," and the great head of the church, to have been a member of the same; declares that it required more than a simple pious Christian to have invented such a scheme, savoring more of DARING DESIGN, than of ardent love and "attachment to the Divine Redeemer." And yet Professor Ripley of the Baptist Theological Institute, at Newton, Mass. says, "It never seemed to me right to represent this verse as the language of Paul, informing these men what was usually done in the days of John the Baptist. A reader not think. ing of the controversy respecting the verse, could hardly fail to