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; 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.

Dr. GEORGE CAMPBELL ON MARK VII. 4, AND LUKE XI. 38.

The learned George Campbell, whom our Baptist brethren are so fond of quoting on these passages, in Mark vii. 4, and Luke xi. 38, finds it impossible to carry out his theory. He is about the work of translating the New Testament; and he is determined beforehand that baptize must mean exclusively immerse.

Mark says, that the "Pharisees and all the Jews, when they come from the market, except they baptize themselves, eat not." Mr. Campbell does not believe that they immersed themselves as often as they came from the market. What does he do? Does he give a grammatical and faithful translation of the word baptize? He dares not. He gives no translation: he makes a gloss : he gives a commentary, and "corrects and alters the

diction" of the Scriptures by substituting his comment in the place of the words which the Holy Ghost teacheth. And this is his comment for no scholar, I trust, will ever venture to call it translation. "For the Pharisees,

and indeed all the Jews who observe the tradition of the elders, eat not except they have washed their hands BY POURING A LITTLE WATER UPON THEM!" The words," by pouring a little water upon them," are not in the original; they are inserted by Mr. Campbell. And, in the name of wonder, I would demand, does the word Ninto (Nipto) necessarily limit the mode of washing to "pouring a little water on the hands?". Does it not mean to wash; and simply "wash ;" without referring in the least to the mode; whether by pouring the water on the hands, or by dipping them? But let us go on with Mr. Campbell's translation: "For the Pharisees, and indeed all the Jews who observe the tradition of the elders, eat not except they have washed their hands by pouring a little water upon them: and when they come from the market, BY DIPPING THEM. Does he call this a translation of the words un BaлTIO@VTαι? Does the verb baptizo then mean, TO DIP THE HANDS? I repeat it; a comment this may be; but it is no simple nor faithful translation of the word of God. Nor can a faithful translation of the passage be made, giving to " baptize" the meaning of " immerse," without making the passage speak that which Mr. Campbell held as not true. Carson is right, and must have the judgment of every unbiassed scholar in hist favor, that Campbell's notion of making this baptism refer to the hands by dipping them, is "an ingenious device, without any authority from the genius and practice of the language."

2

Campbell's translation of Luke xi. 38 is still more remarkable. Luke, inspired by the Holy Ghost, says, "The Pharisees marvelled that Jesus had not first been baptized before dinner" (eßantioon). Which Campbell thus translates:" But the Pharisee was surprised to observe that he USED NO WASHING before dinner." Heré the distinction between washing and dipping cannot be pretended: and what becomes of Campbell's argument about "immerse" as being the only proper meaning of the word "baptize?" Here the scripture says, The Pharisee marvelled that Jesus had not been baptized before dinner. Campbell dares not translate the word "baptize" here by the word "immerse :" nor does he find it possible to introduce the word "hands?" The first would make the Bible speak falsehood, and the latter would be too gross an "alteration of the diction of the Holy Ghost." He therefore gives up all talk about immersing or dipping-and says, "He used NO WASHING before dinner;" and so is, after all, driven on to the very ground adopted in our common English translation.

PROFESSOR RIPLEY ON MARK VII. 4, AND LUKE XI. 38.

The remarks of Professor Ripley on these two passages, in his examination of Professor Stuart, are, it seems to me, as curious a piece of non-committal, and of tripping lightly over ground on which-one dares not tread firmly, as can be found in the whole compass of Biblical criticism.

He thinks the passage in Mark may be rendered, "without the least violence to its language," so as to make it read that the Pharisees and all the Jews immerse their whole bodies as often as they come from the

market. May be rendered! without violence to the language! Is that the proper reading? Is that the truth, concerning what was customarily done by the Jews upon coming from the market? Does Professor Ripley believe that such a custom was so universal and so invariable among the Jews, as to make it a matter of wonder, that Jesus should sit down to dinner without having first immersed his whole body? Hear him. "That some of the stricter sort, that many, enough to justify the Evangelist's general expression, did practise total ablution on the occasion mentioned, is altogether credible." Some of the stricter sort!-many! enough to justify the Evangelist!is altogether credible! Then Professor Ripley dares not join, without misgiving, in affirming that "all the Jews" had the custom of immersing themselves when they came from the market? No. He says, "In the absence of clear satisfying proof, it is not becoming to make positive assertions." How is this? The word "baptize" mean exclusively "immerse ;"-the Holy Ghost affirm that they baptize themselves;-and yet no" clear satisfying proof" that they immerse themselves! Is the witness not a credible one, or is there some doubt whether the word means "immerse ?" But Professor Ripley says he is by no means satisfied that this is a “necessary view of the passage," viz. that they immerse themselves. "Necessary!" Will he hold to it at all? We shall see. But says he again, “However striking the language of Mark may, by some, be considered, as recognizing such a practice (and the language is certainly coincident with such a practice, especially when we look at it by the investigations respecting" baptize" on the preceding pages), yet I am not disposed to urge it." Not

disposed to urge it? it?

ture to stand upon

Does he believe it? Will he venthat ground? Will he venture

either to affirm it or deny it? No-He dares not rest upon either ground, and make the Bible read either, "except they immerse themselves; or, "except they immerse their hands.” He gently feels the ground of the first with his foot, but dares not venture upon it. He then poises himself, and presses with the other foot upon other ground; but he dares not rest upon this and aban-”. don the first. With regard to the first he says, “In the absence of clear, satisfying proof, it is not becoming to make any positive assertions:" "the language is coincident with such a practice :" "it may be so rendered without the least violence :" " yet I am not disposed to urge it." With regard to the second he says, “But assuming the ground, that the evangelist did not intend to distinguish a total bathing from a partial washing, I again inquire did he distinguish one sort of partial washing from another sort of partial washing, one of which sorts was performed by dipping the hands into water?" And yet, assuming this ground, he assumes it only to argue: he reaches back to the other, and reminds us again that he has already said that the word ẞantiσortal in this passage, "MAY WITHOUT ANY VIOLENCE" be considered as distinguishing a total immersion from a washing of the hands. Thus he will venture forward to argue upon one ground, provided he may keep open a safe retreat to the other. How firmly he may feel the ground under him may be inferred by his evident concern to keep open a retreat to the ground on which, alas, he is afraid to stand; and concerning which he admits that there is an "absence of clear, satisfying proof."