candor, that readers should have knowledge respecting the men who are held up as oracles. "Beza," then, "with natural talents considerably above the middle rate, had a good deal of learning, and understood well both Greek and Latin; but he neither knew Hebrew (though he had the assistance of some who knew it), nor does he seem to have been much conversant in the translation of the Seventy [the Septuagint]. Hence it has happened, that his critical acuteness is not always so well directed as it might have been. The significations of words and idioms are often determined by him from classical authority, which might with greater ease and more precision have been ascertained by the usage of the sacred writers and their ancient interpreters." * Whether in explaining the phrase úðατα лollά [many waters], his critical acuteness was so well directed as it might have been, may easily be decided by those who have attended to the preceding investigation of Septuagint use. Again; Beza is said to have been "too violent a party man to possess that impartiality, without which it is impossible to succeed as an interpreter of holy writ."+ Prof. Stuart also says of him in reference to another topic, "His zeal against the Anabaptists misled him." Perhaps, too, it misled him on this; for such was his zeal against those who were called Anabaptists, that he names them among certain religious sects whom he calls monstra hominum [monsters of men]. § * Dr. G. Campbell's Preliminary Dissertations. Diss. X. Pt. V. § 3. + Id. Diss. X. Pt. V. § 4. P. 387. § Dr. G. Campbell, Diss. X. Pt. V. § 12. The passage that next claims our attention as showing some circumstances connected with baptism, is Acts 8:36-39. It relates to the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch by Philip. As they went on their way, they came unto a certain water.... and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip. In his remarks on this passage, Prof. Stuart has fallen into the same mistake as in his remarks on Matt. 3: 16. That is, he labors under the impression that the act of going down into the water, as our version expresses it, is understood by those against whom he is writing, as being the act of immersion; and the coming up out of the water, as being the emersion, or the rising up from under the surface of the water. Now it is very possible, that some persons may have cherished such a notion. But how they could have acquired it, is to me unknown; for our English version represents that the baptism took place after the descent into the water. For myself, I say, this notion never entered my mind till it was introduced by the representations which some advocates for infant sprinkling felt themselves at liberty to make, respecting the sentiments of those whom they were opposing; nor do I recollect ever having heard a Baptist express this notion. So different is it from what I believe to be the current opinion respecting this passage, that some may think me guilty of a mistake in representing a distinguished scholar as combating this notion, and as taking advantage from it against those whose opinions he is controverting. I beg leave, however, to quote the language of Prof. Stuart. He says, "I have another remark to make on κατέβησαν ἀμφότεροι εἰς τὸ ὕδωρ, they BOTH went down to the water. This is, that if zutέ34oar els tò bdwg [they went down to, or into the water] is meant to designate the action of plunging or being immersed into the water, as à part of the rite of baptism, then was Philip baptized as well as the eunuch; for the sacred writer says, that BOTH went into the water. Here then must have been a rebaptism of Philip; and what is at least singular, he must have baptized himself, as well as the eunuch."* Very true, I add. But on whom does the absurdity of such consequences rest? It is a mere assumption, against which the remark is directed. Again he says; "All these considerations together shew, that the going down to the water, and the going up from the water, constituted no part of the rite of baptism itself; for Philip did the one and the other just as truly as the eunuch. As then neither the language allows us to construe the passage as signifying immersion and emersion, nor the circumstances permit us to interpret the passage thus, we have no good and sufficient grounds here to consider this example as making any determination with respect to the mode of the baptismal rite.”+ Throughout his remarks on this passage, Prof. Stuart blends together two things that are perfectly distinct; namely, the going down into the water, and the immersion into it. That the going down into the water was the immersion, no one believes; the immersion, after the descent into the water, is expressed by another word, he BAPTIZED him. The proper question to be discussed on this passage, and a question which ought to be considered apart and by itself, is, whether the sacred writer meant to say, that Philip and the eunuch actually went down INTO the water, that is, descended to such a distance into the water as was requisite for immersion; or whether he meant only to say, that they went down To the water, that is, to its margin. Prof. Stuart vindicates this latter view. His reasons are, 1. The preposition here employed [is], means to and towards, as well as into. 2. The verb here employed [xaτaßatro], when analyzed, rather expresses the movement down to a place, than the entrance into the place. The entrance, however, into the place, he says, may sometimes be included by popular diction."* To these reasons he appends the remarks which I have already examined. sons. The opinion which Prof. Stuart has adopted is not, I observe, a necessary consequence from these two reaThe preposition here used, and which our English version renders into, certainly has the meaning into, as well as the meaning to and towards. Again, the language of Luke is that of "popular diction," and not that of philosophical analysis; thus, by Prof. Stuart's own acknowledgment, the idea of entrance into the water may be included in this expression. Allowing, as every one ought to allow, that the preposition here used has in various places the meaning to and towards, as well as into, and allowing that the preposition in itself considered cannot decide the question proposed, there yet is no insuperable objection to its being here rendered into; and there is no insuperable objection to the clause being rendered, they went down both INTO the water. But are there any positive reasons in favor of thus rendering the clause? There are. 1. The verb here employed [xaraßatvo], when followed by the preposition * Pp. 325, 326. used in this passage, includes almost uniformly in the New Testament the idea of entrance into the place mentioned. I refer to the following passages. John 2 : 12. Acts 7: 15. 14: 25. 16: 8. 18: 22. 25: 6. These all resemble each other. Without expressing each of them in English, let it suffice to mention one or two: Jesus went down To Capernaum; is it not clearly implied that he went INTO Capernaum? Jacob went down To Egypt; did not the speaker and the writer mean, he went INTO Egypt, and not merely to the border of it? So of the rest. Our common mode of speech illustrates the phraseology; I am going To Boston, means, that I intend to go INTO the city. Similar to these passages are Rom. 10: 7, Eph. 4 : 9. I ought also here to mention Luke 10:30, A certain man went down from Jerusalem To Jericho; his intention, regarding the language as that of common life, was to enter the latter city as well as to go towards it. Acts 8: 26 should here be mentioned; the way going down from Jerusalem To Gaza; that is, leading INTO Gaza, just as the road To Boston leads INTO Boston. I refer to two additional passages. Luke 18: 14; Did the publican go down merely To his house? Can we avoid the idea of his entering the house? Mark 13 : 15; Let him that is on the house top not [καταβάτω εις τὴν οἰκίαν] go down INTO the house; then by an intensive repetition of the thought, the Saviour adds, let him not enter therein to take away any thing from his house. There are two passages in which this same preposition is used in connection with this verb, but in which the nature of the case would seem to exclude the idea expressed by the preposition into. Luke 8:23. There came down a storm of wind on the lake [κατέβη . . . εἰς τὴν Murny]. Rev. 13: 13. He maketh fire come down from |