Greek word. The English word dip may refer to the dipping of the whole person or thing, or to the dipping of a part of the person or thing, as the connection requires, while yet the distinctive meaning of the word remains; so with the Greek word. As a person, or thing, that has been dipped in water, may very properly be said to have been washed in water or washed with water, while yet no one concludes from this, that the words dip and wash are synonymous and interchangeable; so in Greek, a person or thing baptized may be truly said to be washed, and yet the word wash is not an adequate representation of the word baptize. As in English we speak of a person having plunged into pleasure, being plunged into calamity, plunged into debt; so in Greek, similar figurative uses of the word baptize are employed; and in both languages, the proper explanation of the term is drawn from its radical meaning. This same English word, plunge or dip, so perfectly well understood in popular intercourse, might, if investigated by a foreigner on the same principles, and in the same manner, which have been applied to the investigation of the Greek word baptize, be represented to be quite as indefinite and quite as dubious in meaning, as the Greek word is by some moderns represented.

SECTION FOURTH.

“Do Вαлly and its derivatives, when applied to designate the rite of baptism, necessarily imply that this rite was performed by IMMERSION of the whole person ?”

Under this general question, the article which we are considering proposes several particular inquiries.

1. "What is the proper force and signification of the word, according to the general usage of language?"

The following paragraph contains the reply to this inquiry. "A review of the preceding examples must lead any one, I think, to the conclusion, that the predominant usage of the words βάπτω and βαπτίζω, is to designate the idea of dipping, plunging, and overwhelming, and (in the case of fáлtw) of tinging or dyeing. But we have already seen in Nos. 6, 7, above respecting classic usage, that fάnt is employed in the sense of bathing the surface of any thing with a fluid, and also of washing it. We have also seen in Nos. 2, 5, 6, of examples from the Septuagint and Apocrypha, that the word βαπτίζω, sometimes means to wash; and βάπτω to moisten, to wet or bedew. There is then no absolute certainty from usage, that the word fanτw, when applied to designate the rite of baptism, means of course to immerge or plunge. It may mean washing; possibly (but not probably) it may mean, copiously moistening or bedewing; because words coming from the common root BAII, are applied in both these senses, as we have seen above."

The conclusion here stated, is of course drawn from the significations of ßantiw [baptizo,] as given by Prof. Stuart in the preceding sections. If those significations require to be modified, the conclusion must in like man ner be modified. My examination of Nos. 6 and 7 of examples drawn from classic usage, and of Nos. 2, 5, and 6, of examples from the Septuagint and the Apocrypha, shows that the conclusion above stated is not sustained; and that the word ßantica is, in reality, sufficiently specific and definite to determine its meaning, when applied to designate the rite of baptism.

* P. 313.

Prof. Stuart here introduces a discussion, which a correct view of the proper force and signification of Bantigo renders in a great measure needless. The discussion relates to the different cases of nouns and the different prepositions used after the word Bantico. The classic Greek writers frequently employ the Accusative case with the preposition is [into] after this verb; and when thus employed by them, no doubt can be entertained that they meant to express the idea of immersing. In Mark 1:9, precisely this form of expression occurs; "Jesus . . . was baptized [immersed] εis tòv 'Iogðávny, into, or in the Jordan." But the sacred writers generally do not thus connect the verb with the Accusative and the preposition is. Their prevalent manner is, to use the Dative case, either with or without the preposition & (in, by, with) after this verb. The inquiry suggested by this departure of the sacred writers from the common usage of the classic writers, is, (not whether sis and èv, (into and in) may not be synonymous, especially in the New Testament, as they both correspond to the Hebrew preposition 7, but) whether the inspired writers did not "intend to avoid a description of the manner of the rite, by forms of expression which designate merely the means, without marking the manner." Prof. Stuart is not confident that such was their intention; but yet, although Mark 1: 9 is so entirely in accordance with classic use as expressing the idea of immersion, he cannot think it "quite safe to build with confidence upon" this "solitary example;" particularly considering that the preposition els may, in certain connections, rather mean at than into. Thus it is " a possible construction" of this passage in Mark, that it was

more

* P. 314.

intended to convey no other meaning than that Jesus was baptized "AT the river Jordan." Of this, however, he entertains "some doubts," and seems rather disposed to favor the opinion that the expression in Mark "may designate no more than the element with which, or by which," [not IN which] "John performed the rite of baptism." Some passages are quoted; they contribute, however, but little, if any thing, to the purpose, as they do not exhibit the preposition is in such connections as the passage in Mark places it. Remarkably apposite as is this passage to show, that the word faлtio has a meaning sufficiently definite to imply that the rite of baptism was performed only by immersion, he yet seems to conclude that as this is a "solitary example," it ought not to be considered as adding "confirmation to the supposition of such a meaning."*

The discussion of this point is not so lucid, nor is Prof. Stuart's opinion of the passage so clearly stated, as might have been expected. Indeed, it may well be considered a hopeless undertaking to reconcile this passage in Mark with any other representation, than that Jesus was immersed in, or into, the river Jordan.

The discussion, I have said, is in a great measure a needless one. I will assign my reasons.

1. The word ẞanilo is more specific and definite than Prof. Stuart has represented it; and it is an improper extension of its meaning, that is fundamental in this particular discussion. Let this error be corrected, and the discussion would have no place. Instead of the preposition influencing the meaning of the verb, it is rather the verb that should decide the meaning of the preposition. That is, granting that the prepo

sition here used, may perhaps, in certain connections, mean at rather than in, or into, it is yet far from being a just conclusion that the verb, here employed, does not necessarily mean to immerse; but on the contrary, because the predominant meaning of this verb is confessedly to immerse, it is a fair conclusion that the ordinary meaning of the preposition, in, or into, must be retained.

2. The sacred writers not unfrequently use is where from more common usage we should expect ¿v; that is, the one preposition is used for the other without any very obvious design; compare Mark 2: 1. 13 : 9. 13: 16. Luke 117. John 1:18. This may have resulted in their usage from the influence of the Hebrew preposition, to which both is and tv correspond, and which requires to be rendered in, into, by, or with, &c. in different connections. As this one preposition in Hebrew has so extensive a meaning, it might be supposed, as we actually find, that in Hebraistic Greek there would be some interchanging of these prepositions, both of which so nearly correspond to the same Hebrew preposition.

3. The classic writers use both of these forms of expression; and a distinction between Bantigo followed by εἰς, and βαπτίζω followed by ev, or by a Dative without any preposition, is not in their use perfectly and uniformly obvious, so as to establish a principle in the language. Even the examples produced by Prof. Stuart,* in which Búnta is followed by a Genitive case, with a preposition or without one, do not direct the mind to the means, (the ocean, or a stream, for instance, with which any thing is bathed), so far as to prevent the mind from noticing the profuse quantity of the means. Thus, in the example from Aratus, Phaenom. v. 951, bathes herself лоταμoło, WITH the river.

* P. 316.