Should we set aside the arguments arising from the meaning of the word employed,—from the customs of the people as to personal ablutions,—and from the form and elevation of the laver, the present facts discover an insurmountable objection to the idea of immersion. Or, will it be insisted that the priests as they came into the sanctuary at the appointed times of service, successively, climbed to the top of the laver and, balancing on its brim, immersed their hands and feet; and, then, in fulfillment of their official duties, immersed in the water thus fouled, the inwards, or bowels and intestines, and the pieces of the sacrifices, about to be offered to God? The supposition would be indecent and profane. And yet, this is the unavoidable result of demanding immersion, in this case. For, the same language is used in requiring the washing of the priests and of the sacrifices, and there was but one laver, to supply all demands for water at the sanctuary. 4. But, again: On the day of atonement, the high priest was required, at a certain time in the order of observances for the day, being alone in the sanctuary, to “wash his flesh with water in the holy place.”—Lev. xvi, 24. Here, at least, there is no room for controversy. The laver was outside the door of the tabernacle. The priest was within, “in the holy place.” In it, there was no vessel in which an immersion could take place. Immersion was not merely improbable.—It was impossible. The circumstances compel us to accept the language of the place, just as it stands; and to believe that the high priest, on this occasion _washed_ himself, and that he did so, as all washings of the person are performed, “_with_ water,” as an instrumental means; and that it was applied with his own hands to his own person.