The examples of βαπτίζω and βάπτω followed by a Dative,* with or without a preposition, show that the distinction, if ever made, was not universally regarded. The expression, "Dipping it IN wine, (èv ¿lvos) they drink it," Aristotle, Hist. Anim. VIII. 29, does not essentially differ from the expression, Dipping it INTO wine, (lıs divov). In the example from Aristophanes, "They dip the wool ɛqua IN warm water, the Dative is used without a preposition. But may not this use be explained by considering the preposition, &, as understood before the Dative ? Thus this example would resemble the preceding one. Nor is the mind so much directed to the material, namely warm water, as to lose sight of the profuseness and thoroughness of the washing, or dipping. with the other examples.

So

4. Even were the distinction in classic use fairly sustained, Prof. Stuart has himself said in another part of his articlet (whether with perfect propriety or not, I need not here examine), "Classical usage can never be very certain in respect to the meaning of a word in the New Testament. Who does not know, that a multitude of Greek words here receive their colouring and particular meanings from the Hebrew, and not from the Greek classics ?"

In regard to the expression in Mark 1: 9, ßantioðŋ . . . ἐις τὸν ̓Ιορδάνην, was baptized INTO, or IN, the Jordan, which seems to have suggested this discussion, I am not at all anxious to prove, that the preposition &ɩs, here employed, does add material strength to an argument in favor of immersion. The use of is, in itself considered, that is, without considering the proper force of Barillo, might be explained by a reference to other pas

sages which show that Mark did not always nicely discriminate between the two prepositions, ¿15 and ¿v. The use of this preposition, in the present instance, is indeed in perfect accordance with the proper meaning of βαπτίζω; so that the preposition might naturally be suggested by the verb. Just as in English, it would be perfectly natural to say, he was immersed or dipped INTO the river; while yet it is equally common to say he was immersed, or dipped, IN the river. Again, if controversy were kept out of sight, and regard were paid simply to facts in the usage of language, not one scholar in a thousand would hesitate to render is as here situated, by in or into. Still the expression, used by Mark, is not materially different from the expression ἐν τῷ ̓Ιορδάνῃ; just as, in English, there is no material difference between the expression, he was immersed INTO the Jordan, and the expression, he was immersed in the Jordan. It is, after all, the meaning of the verb which must guide us; and this, I trust, has been shown to be sufficiently specific and definite.

After this discussion, which is both a needless and an unsuccessful one, Prof. Stuart declares himself " 'philologically compelled" to conclude, "that the probability that Banilo implies immersion, is very considerable, and on the whole a predominant one; but it does not still amount to certainty. Both the classic use and that of the Septuagint shew," he says, "that washing and copious affusion are sometimes signified by this word. Consequently, the rite of baptism may have been performed in one of these ways, although it is designated by the word βαπτίζω.”*

This statement, however ample its acknowledgments may appear to some, requires alteration. For among

* P. 318.

all the examples adduced by its author from classic writers to illustrate the meaning of Barrio, and among all the significations furnished by him, I have searched in vain for the signification washing and copious affusion.* The examples from the Septuagint and the Apocrypha adduced to sustain the meaning to wash, do by no means support that meaning, while the meaning of copious affusion does not occur among the alleged Septuagint uses of this word. Prof. Stuart had, probably, in his mind, while writing the sentence above quoted, the significations, "to smear over or moisten by dipping in,” and, “to moisten, wet, bedew," ascribed by him to Búлto [bapto] in the Septuagint; and perhaps he intended these to be considered as equivalent to the signification, copious affusion. On these alleged significations I have already sufficiently remarked in the preceding section. That "the rite of baptism may have been performed" by washing or copious affusion, is not then sustained by actual usage. And even if, in some instances, the word might be rendered wash, it would no more be a necessary consequence that baptize and wash are synonymous, than it would be a necessary consequence that immerse and wash are synonymous, because we can speak of a thing as washed which has been immersed.

Prof. Stuart concludes this topic with the acknowledgment (an acknowledgment, which ought to have been

* I confine this remark to Bartlcw [baptizo], for this is the word now under consideration. The only apparent exception to the remark is, the instance which occurs under number 6, of meanings in classical use. But that is only an apparent exception.

The meaning to wash is indeed ascribed to ẞánto [bapto]: but the idea of dipping is unquestionably connected with this meaning. See number 7, of meanings in classical use.

expressed in stronger terms), "On the whole, however, the probability seems to be in favor of the idea of immersion, when we argue simply from the force of the words or expressions in themselves considered."* In view of all the preceding philological investigations, and with regard solely to philological necessity, I may rather ask, Does the force of the word farlo, in itself considered, permit us to depart from the idea of immersion? $2. "Circumstances attending Baptism."

"Do the circumstances which attend the administration of the rite of baptism, as related in the New Testament, cast any light upon the MANNER of the rite itself?"

Two passages are here introduced, on which dependence is sometimes placed as being decidedly favorable to the practice of immersion; namely, Matt. 3: 16, And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water; and Mark 1: 10, And straightway coming up out of the water.

"The question has been raised," Prof. Stuart says, "whether this means Went up out of the water of the river,' i. e. rose up after being plunged into the river, and came out of the water." That it does not mean the rising up from underneath the water after having been immersed into it, he shows by three considerations. "1. The rite of baptism was completed, before John [Jesus] went up from the water." 2. "The verb" used by the Evangelists (vaßatvo) “will hardly permit such an interpretation." The proper verb to express the rising up from under the water, and the "one continually employed by the ecclesiastical fathers, in order to designate emerging from the water" is ¿vadów, "which means to come up out of," or to emerge from." 3. "The pre

66

position," employed by the Evangelists, "will not allow such a construction."*

It is then stated as "a clear case, that Jesus retired from the water of the river, by going up its banks. Nothing more can properly be deduced from it."*

Prof. Stuart seems not to have correctly apprehended the precise bearing of these verses upon the question in hand. The expressions, went up out of the water, and coming up out of the water, or as the preposition might be rendered 'from the water,' are not understood by those in opposition to whom he wrote, as referring at all to the action of arising from underneath the surface of the water; but to what took place after Jesus had thus arisen, namely, his retiring to the bank from the spot in the river where he was baptized; that is, his coming out of, or from, the water. This would, of course, be a coming up, an ascending, from a lower place to a higher. This, I presume, is the meaning generally ascribed to these expressions; not that, against which the arguments above stated are directed. This meaning also agrees with common usage in speech, and is not contrary to the original text. Whether the expressions, disconnected from the train of discourse, might not be otherwise understood, is a question of little moment. Nor will I undertake to say, that this is incontrovertibly their meaning. Suffice it to say, that this meaning violates no principle in language, and is not at all forced; and that these verses are altogether favorable to the belief that an immersion was performed, because, in addition to the meaning of the word Bantiw, the persons mentioned resorted to a river in order that baptism might be administered. On this last point, I am happy in being

*P. 320.