his hand cordially, and bade him adieu. The venerable Pastor pronounced his benediction "on the maist noble representative of the house of Saxe-Coburg," and retired amid the crowd, who, with affectionate respect, made way for him, as the students conducted him to the manse.-B.

SUNDRY USEFUL QUESTIONS.

MR. EDITOR-I beg leave to propound to your readers the following questions :-

Is it becoming or modest for a minister to give sly hints in his prayers about his own talents or character? Is it consistent with modesty, or is it not sheer flattery of one's self to say in prayer, Thy poor unworthy servant-Thy poor young servant?' Should not these effusions be in keeping for secret confessions? I recollect very well of hearing my worthy old Pastor once telling me a case which came under his own inspection. A serious and excessively humble woman came to him, and with many groans and sighings, telling him that she believed that she had one of the worst hearts in the world; that she was a poor, weak, unbelieving doubting creature; she was desperately afraid, and so she was, that she was a hypocrite. She paused, and looked up, to see if she had not, by her lowliness, merited some incense of praise. 'Indeed,' said the minister, with unusual solemnity. I am afraid, Janet, that what you are saying is altogether too true.' Her humility and meekness vanished in an instant. 'It is false sir,' cried she; I am no hypocrite. I am as good as my neighbours.' I am afraid that there are more persons than Janet, and may be some of our Reverences, who would also kick, if taken short at their own humble personal confessions.

Moreover, is it befitting the sacred pulpit, or the solemnity of prayer, for one minister to puff another? I met

"A

with the following remark in the Col umbian Star, a paper abounding with excellent matter, and which no man can read, without reaping much instruction and benefit every way. preacher who will suffer himself to be lauded and flattered, without remonstrance, ought to be told that neither his God nor his hearers think better of his discourse, after the utterance of such fulsome adulation, than before. It is very frequently the case, that the whole audiencc passes a sentence of condemnation upon both the sentiments and delivery of a discourse, and never dreams that any thing good can be said of it, until they hear the concluding prayer, when they learn, for the first time, that the sermon was able, and pertinent, and eloquent.'

6

Is it consistent with the modesty of a worshipper of the Almighty, to tell him in prayer, that the minister has been an eloquent man, and has spoken pertinently and ably? For what purpose, can any one inform me, is that told to God in prayer? Perhaps some of your wise ones can tell me. Is it because a minister has done his duty, and is accepted of God, because he has been 'eloquent, and able, and pertinent?'

Moreover, may I venture, without offence, to ask, if it be consistent for a minister to ask God, in prayer, to strengthen and prepare his mind to utter the truth, to bring truth to his remembrance, and so forth, when every word of what he intends to say is in black and white before his eyes, and he turns over the leaves without auy attempt at concealment ? Should he not, as an honest and humble man, pray that God would strengthen and preserve his eye sight, and bless the natural helps to aid his vision, and continue to him the clear light of day? I am one of those old fashioned people, who have been taught from early life to believe the saying of our fathers in Holland, that Reading is not Preaching! I hope to live to see the day when the old rule of Holland,

and I am told of Scotland, will be enforced, that no young man will be allowed to have licence to preach, unless he write out fully, and commit his sermons. But perhaps this is all prejudice natural to an old man, who loves old usages of olden times. I shall reserve other questions to a future occasion, not being so wilful as to put too many hard questions at one time.-HERMAN WITS.

Tappan, Jan. 1828.

Reviews & Criticisms.

OUR LORD'S BAPTISM BY JOHN.
Part II.

[Continued from p. 264.] Christ's baptism was for the fulfilling of all righteousness. But we have seen that he could not fulfil the

righteousness of Christian baptism, or of John's baptism. It must therefore be the righteousness of some other baptism which he was to fulfil. And there was no other righteousness which he could fulfil in the ordinance of baptism, but that in the Levitical statute, concerning the consecration of priests to their office. Those who

were set apart for the priestly office, were to be regularly consecrated to it, before they could officiate therein.* At the age of thirty years, they were to be taken to the door of the tabernacle, there washed with water, and anointed with oil, and thus they were inducted into the priestly office.These washings or baptisms were performed by the application of water to the parts that were washed, and not by immersion, as appears from Ex. xxx. 18. ch. xl. 30, 31. Lev. viii. 11. They had a laver of brass standing at the door of the tabernacle, containing water for the convenience of washing; but this laver was not large enough for immersion.

It is

* Ex. xxix. 4, 7. Lev. viii. 6, 12. † Nun. iv. 3, 23, 30.

well to notice this fact, that in consecrating priests to their office, no such thing was practised as immersion.

It was the righteousness of this baptism that Christ was to fulfil.As a priest, he must be regularly or dained to his office before he could officiate therein, And it was for this purpose that he came to John. If it be asked why he did not go to the door of the tabernacle, according to the statute? We answer, that the ordinance was the principal thing regarded in consecrating priests to their office; the going to the door of the tabernacle was a mere circumstance, and could be dispensed with on an extraordinary occasion, without inva. lidating the ordinance. There were also three important reasons why he did not go to the door of the tabernacle.

1st. He would not have been re

ceived by the priests. They were his enemies, and would not have suffered him to approach the door of the tabernacle for consecration to the priestly office.

2d. Neither were they at liberty to receive him, if they would; for he was of the tribe of Judah, and they were expressly bound to the tribe of Levi, by their statute.

way

3d. John was appointed to induct him into office. He was our Saviour's forerunner, sent to prepare his to the temple. "Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before ine; and the Lord whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple."* And if he were to prepare the way of the Lord, he must open the door for him to enter upon his office, and come to the temple.

For these reasons he came to John. But John would not baptize him until he understood the design of his application; and when he understood this, he baptized him. From John's caution, it appears that he feared Christ would be considered as his disciple;

* Mal. iii. 1.

and this has been impiously asserted to be a fact, viz. that Christ was a Baptist, that is, a disciple of John. "No person," says Daniel Merrill, "can, with a very good face, deny that John, Christ's forerunner, was a Baptist. Christ was baptized by a Baptist in Jordan; he was therefore a Baptist!!!" Now, observe, Christ was a Baptist, and that because he was baptized by John the baptist, which is the same thing with being a follower or disciple of John. For in his estimation, immersion or baptism, as he will have it, is that which constitutes a person a veritable disciple. But a disciple is a Baptist. Hence conversely, a Baptist is a disciple.--But "Christ was a Baptist," therefore Christ was a disciple!!!!"

That Christ was baptized for the Priestly Office, appears,

FIRST. From the fact that he would not officiate as a priest, until the righteousness of the Levitical law was fulfilled in his consecration. He, at a certain time, was found asking questions of the Doctors; but we nowhere find that he taught, until after he was consecrated. He would not discharge the duties of the priestly office in a disorderly manner. For, although he was appointed to that office in the eternal counsels of peace, yet he must be actually invested with it, before he could officiate therein. As Paul, when speaking of the priestly office "No man says, taketh this honour to himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest, but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee." But he was called the Son of God, at his baptism.§ Hence it is evident, that he was actually invested with that honour at that time. Wherefore,

SECONDLY. From the circumstan

*Eight Letters on open communion. † Psalm cx. 4. Heb. v. 4, 5. § Matt. ii. 17.

ces attending his baptism, it appears that he was there consecrated to his priestly office. He was there washed with water by John, and anointed with the holy oil by the Father.*. The Spirit of God descended like a dove, and lighted upon him. anointing by the Spirit was without measure. So that he was well qualified for his office. And according to the statute, he was thirty years old at his consecration.§

His

THIRDLY. From the declaration from heaven, it appears that his baptism was for the priestly office, viz. "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." The same words were repeated at another time, with the addition of an injunction to hear or obey him. But we are to hear the instructions of a priest, as it is written. "For the priest's lips should keep knowledge; and they should seek the law at his mouth; for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts. T But Jesus Christ is that priest whose law we are to seek and obey. Consequently, he was here consecrated to his priestly office. And this is also farther confirined by Isaiah, as quoted by Matthew. "Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased; I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall show forth judgment to the gentiles."** Now the priests were the 'servants' of God, to make atonement for the people, and to teach them his law.†† To this office they were set apart at their consecration. Christ also, as a priest, was a servant to his Father, to make reconciliation for iniquity. And as a priest, the law was to be sought at his mouth. "The isles shall wait for "He his law," saith the prophet. was anointed to preach the gospel."††

So puzzled with the question, that they would have said "it was of men," had they not feared the people who held John as a prophet.*

Hence it very evidently appears that Christ was baptized for the PRIESTLY OFFICE. One can scarcely help thinking that the Holy Spirit has caused such clear proofs of the truth to be recorded, with the express view to silence the opposition which he saw would be raised against it.

A question now occurs, and which it is worth while to investigate. What was the mode of our Saviour's baptism? Some say it was by immersion, because say they, he came UD out of the water.' If it could be proved that no one ever came "up out of the water," without first going under it, then this circumstance would be a solid argument in favour of immersion. But that will not be attempted by the most strenuous advocates of immersion. Why then will men of learning, and candour lay so much stress upon this circumstance? which certainly cannot prove that Christ went under the water, even themselves being judges. Besides, if this circumstance did prove that Christ went under the water, it would prove too much; and that which proves too much is good for nothing.

If the phrase "up out of," proves I that Christ come up from under the water, then I can prove that the Israelites come up from under the land of Egypt! Because the same mode of expression is often used in reference to their coming up from Egypt. "I am the Lord that bringeth you "up out of the land of Egypt." Let our friends look to the horns of the dilemma. If the phrase "up out of," does prove that Christ came up from under the water; then verily we have proved, in the same style, what the Israelites came up from under the land of Egypt, as if Pharaoh, in addition

* Matthew 21, 23-27.

to his other acts of tyrannous proceedings, had actually buried the children of Israel under the sod!!

But, it may be said, that the absurdity of the thing, namely, that they came up from under the land of Egypt determines the point that this cannot be the meaning; so much the better. For it will render the absur dity of the argument, when used in favour of immersion, the more evident to minds free of prejudice. For you rest your argument for immersion on the peculiar phrase. But ere your argument can be established from the phrase, you must admit that this is the uniform meaning of it. If you give this up: you give up your argument.

But there is an instance, wherein no absurdity can be urged. "Where is he that brought them up out of the sea, with the shepherd of his flock?"* Hence again, if" up out of," proves that Christ come up from under the water, this expression in Isaiah, also proves that Israel came up from under the sea. Because as we said before, the same argument must, and will prove, as much in one place as in the other. But we see that the argument proves too much here. Israel did not come up from under the sea. Consequently, the argument is good for nothing And therefore is no proof that Christ was immersed. And he who, after all, will maintain, from this circumstance, that Christ did come up from under the water, must stand charged with an obstinate inconsistency.

For

He

It may be asked why our Saviour went into the water? To this I reply, that questions prove nothing. might very easily have stepped into the brink of the water, without going under it. But it can not be proved that he did even put his foot into the water. Because the Greek preposition ('ano) here rendered out of,' is more accurately rendered from,' and

Isaiah Ixiii,-11