could be performed with perfect safety, and without any sacrifice of delicacy. If the writer intended to convey the thought that she did thus immerse herself, the lan guage he has employed was adapted to convey that thought. It is certainly, then, the dictate of propriety to assign to the word, in this place, its ordinary meaning, rather than by the unfounded apprehension of impossibility or indelicacy, to determine that it cannot have that meaning.*

And why, if it were necessary, may she not have entered into the water covered with a suitable garment ? Maimonides, as quoted by Lightfoot on Matt. 3: 6, observes, "If any should enter into the water with their clothes on, yet their washing holds good; because the water would pass through their clothes, and their garments would not hinder it."

I proceed to the second passage produced to sustain the meaning, to wash, to cleanse by water, ascribed to Banτlo [baptizo] in the Apocrypha. It is Sirach 31: 25 [English version, Ecclesiasticus 34: 25], thus translated in the common version, "He that washeth himself after the touching of a dead body, if he touch it again, what availeth his washing." In the article under consideration, it is thus rendered; He who is

CLEANSED

*That Judith did actually bathe herself in the water, was the opinion of Spencer, as expressed in his elaborate work on the Ritual Laws of the Hebrews. He says: "That the Jews also [i. e. as well as the Gentiles] when about to perform their vows, sometimes cleansed the whole body in a bath, I gather from the history of Judith who, when she had resolved to pray, is said to have baptized herself in a fountain of water." De Leg. Heb. Rit. p. 789. Judæos etiam, vota facturos, quandoque totum corpus lavacro purgasse, ex historia Juditha colligo, quæ, cum precari statuisset, aquæ fonte seipsam baptizasse dicitur.

[Baлticóuevos] from a dead [carcase] and toucheth it again, what does he profit by his washing ?

We have now to inquire, whether the washing, the cleansing, here spoken of, was of such a kind as clearly to show that there was not an immersion, or a total bathing, of the person. If there be no satisfactory evidence that an entire bathing was not usually performed on the occasion mentioned in the passage, and if, on the other hand, there be only a small probability that an entire bathing was performed, we surely have not sufficient authority for diverting the word Banilo from its customary meaning, and for refusing to it any recognition of the manner, or the extent, of the washing.

Let us see how the case stands. That Buлiço, as here employed, does not recognize any specification as to manner or extent, but that it simply means to wash, to cleanse by water, Prof. Stuart considers clear from the directions given in the Mosaic law, respecting those who had contracted defilement by the touch of a dead body.* * These directions are found in Lev. 11: 25. 28. 31. 39, 40. Num. 19: 18, 19. The substance of them is, that the defiled person must wash his clothes and himself in order to become clean. The texts quoted from Leviticus speak only of the washing of the clothes; the passage from the book of Numbers describes all the parts of the ceremony, and is therefore to be particularly considered. It stands thus in our version; Num. 19: 16. 18, 19. And whosoever toucheth. ... a dead body, or a bone of a man, or a grave, shall be unclean seven days. And a clean person shall take hyssop, and dip it in the water and sprinkle it upon the tent and upon all the vessels, and upon the persons that

* P. 308.

were there, and upon him that touched a bone, or one slain, or one dead, or a grave: And the clean person shall sprinkle upon the unclean on the third day, and on the seventh day : and on the seventh day he shall purify himself, and wash his clothes, and BATHE HIMSELF IN WATER, and shall be clean at even.

Is our version incorrect in saying, he shall BATHE HIMSelf In water, as the concluding part of the ceremony ? No. The Hebrew word thus translated (7) signifies bathing, as well as a less extensive washing. It is used in Ex. 2:5, where Pharaoh's daughter is said to have gone down to the river Nile to wash, that is, to bathe. It is also used in reference to cleansing for the leprosy; Lev. 14: 8, 9, And he that is to be cleansed shall wash his clothes, and shave off all his hair, and wASH HIMSELF IN WATER, that he may be clean... But it shall be on the seventh day that he shall shave all his hair off his head, and his beard and his eyebrows, even all his hair he shall shave off; and he shall wash his clothes, also he shall WASH HIS FLESH IN WATER, and he shall be clean. That the word flesh, as here employed, is equivalent to body, will not, probably, be questioned. Scarcely a doubt can be entertained, in view of these verses, that the leprous man, in whose case there was to be so much particularity, did actually bathe his whole person as the concluding part of the ceremony by which purification was obtained. This same Hebrew word is also used in Lev. 15 : 5—18, in which verses such cases of uncleanness are mentioned as would lead one naturally to expect that an entire bathing should be performed. In the 13th verse of this 15th chapter, it is said, he shall BATHE HIS FLESH IN RUNNING WATER; and in the 16th verse, he shall WASH [BATHE 7] ALL HIS FLESH IN WATER. The history of Naaman, the leper, sheds light upon the meaning of this word,

when used in reference to cleansing. The prophet (2 K. 5: 10-14) directed him, go and WASH [?] in Jordan seven times. What did Naaman understand the prophet as enjoining in this direction? Let the 14th verse speak. Then went he down and DIPPED HIMSELF [1] seven times in Jordan.

It may here be mentioned that the German translation of the Bible by Augusti and De Wette, employs the word bathe in Num. 19: 19, and in all the other places mentioned above in which the same Hebrew word occurs. Thus, Ex. 2: 5, Then came down the daughter of Pharaoh to BATHE in the stream.* So of the rest.

An attentive consideration of what has now been brought forward will lead, not to a small probability, but to say the least, to the highest degree of probability, that when in Num. 19: 19, the person defiled by the touch of a dead body is required to wash, or bathe, it was actually a bathing that was enjoined, and not a partial washing. This conclusion is in perfect accordance with the requisition that his clothes must be thoroughly washed. If his clothes were so defiled by the touch of a dead body that they must be thoroughly washed before they could be ceremonially clean, is it not likely that his person was required to be thoroughly washed? Consider, also, that according to Lev. 11: 32, if a dead animal should fall upon "any vessel of wood, or raiment, or skin, or sack, whatsoever vessel it be, wherein any work is done, it must be PUT INTO WATER... so it shall be cleansed." Was it not then in perfect accordance with the Mosaic precepts, that the human person defiled by the touch of a dead body, should undergo a complete bathing?

I add, once more, that the very language of the pas

* Um im Strome zu baden.

sage under consideration coincides with this view. The word which is rendered wASHING in this verse, is more specific in signification than our English word washing, and ought rather to be rendered BATHING. The verb from which this word is derived, (low), designates a general washing, or bathing, of the person; while to express a mere partial washing, as of the hands, or face, or feet, a different verb (víлt) is employed. The difference between these two Greek words is happily exemplified in the gospel of John, 13: 10; a correct translation of which is, He that has been BATHED (lovo), needeth not save to WASH (viлt) his feet, which might have become soiled in walking from the bath. By bearing in mind this more specific sense of the word rendered WASHING, that is, BATHING, the correspondence between the two parts of the verse is very conspicuous; He that has IMMERSED HIMSELF in order to be cleansed from the defilement occasioned by the touch of a dead body, and toucheth it again, what availeth his BATHING?

And here it is suitable to mention what Lightfoot on Matt. 3: 6, produces from Maimonides; "Wheresoever in the law, washing of the body or garments is mentioned, it means nothing else, than the washing of the whole body. For if any wash himself all over, except the very top of his little finger, he is still in his uncleanness." Lightfoot, on Mark 7: 4, produces also from another Jewish writer a sentence, which shows that pollution occasioned by the touch of the dead, was so great that the person "must plunge his whole body."

But enough. My remarks on Sirach 31: 25 [English ver. 34: 25], I bring to a close by saying, that even if the evidence, adduced to show the meaning of this passage, did not exist, yet the method by which Prof. Stuart would show that Bantigo here means simply to cleanse by