cified, are we not compelled by reason, and by the laws of language, to accept the word in its usual signification? and does it not betray an extreme want of candor, to refuse to do so? Not even the shadow of a reason can be given, why the baptism of cups, etc. in these passages, should not be rendered, immersion of cups, etc.

Heb. 9: 10, Which stood in meats and drinks, and diverse baptisms, βαπτισμοῖς.

We have already seen that diverse immersions, i. e. immersions on diverse occasions, were required by the law. To these the apostle unquestionably alludes; and it would be just as glaring a perversion of language and of reason, to refer these baptisms to the sprinklings practised under the ancient dispensation, as it would be to refer the sprinklings so often spoken of, to the immersions prescribed in the Mosaic code.

We have now gone through with an extended investigation of the meaning of bapto and baptizo, embracing a great variety of examples from the classics, as well as all that occur in the Septuagint and New Testament, a few instances of figurative use, and those that relate to the rite in question, excepted. We have examined their use, from the earliest period of Grecian literature, down to the first centuries of the Christian era, by heathen, Jewish, and Christian writers. If these words, in any case, signify either to wet, wash, pour, or sprinkle, we should expect, in this extensive range, to meet with some unquestionable examples. And what is the result? Prof. Stuart (allowing him to sum up for himself,) finds that bapto signifies usually, to dip and to dye; sometimes to smear; once in the whole compass of the language, to wash; and in two or three instances, to wet. To baptizo he assigns, in the classics and the Septuagint, the meanings, to plunge, to overwhelm; and in the Apocrypha and the New Testament, to wash.

Neither pouring nor sprinkling are alleged at all.* But on an impartial examination, it is evident that bapto signifies only to dip, and to dye. Every example may be fairly referred to one or the other of these meanings. As to baptizo, the word invariably used to denote Christian baptism, I appeal to the reader, whether it is not, in every example that Prof. Stuart has produced, susceptible of the meaning to immerse; and whether that meaning can, in a single instance, be set aside, without violating the established laws of language?

If baptizo only signifies generically, to cleanse, then it cannot mean specifically, either to immerse, or to sprinkle. But, to what conclusion does the foregoing examination necessarily couduct us? that the word is a generic, or that it is a specific term? Let the reader glance, once more, at the preceding examples. Does baptizo mean to cleanse, when we speak of baptizing a bucket into a fountain, in order to fill it? or when we speak of baptizing a ship, so that it becomes ingulfed in the sea? Does it mean to cleanse, where Plutarch relates that the soldiers baptized wine from casks, with cups, in order to drink,—that a general baptized his hand into blood, and wrote an inscription, -that weapons were found two hundred years after the battle of Orchomenus, baptized in the earth? Is this its meaning in Josephus, where he says that Simon baptized the sword into his own throat? or in [Aquila,] Job 9: 31, 'Thou shalt baptize me in the mire?'

We see, then, that when Christ gave the Apostles their commission to go and baptize, he made use of a term that

* See Bib. Repository for April, 1833, p. 313. Prof. Stuart remarks, however, on p. 318, that both the classic use, and that of the Septuagint show, that washing and copious affusion are some. times signified by baptizo.' This must have been a mistake; for, in the examination of usage, he has not, in a single example throughout the whole, assigned the signification, to affuse or pour.

was, at the time, universally understood to mean immersion. This ever had been its meaning; and this was still its meaning, wherever the Greek language was known, among heathens, Jews, and Christians. If Christ had wished to enjoin pouring or sprinkling, the language would have furnished definite terms for either of these actions. If he had wished to employ an ambiguous term, that would leave the manner of the rite undetermined, the language would have afforded a variety of such terms. But instead of employ. ing a word that was understood to denote pouring, or sprinkling, or even one whose meaning was ambiguous, he selected one that was always and every where acknowledged to mean immersion. There was not, in the whole compass of the language, a word whose meaning was more definitely settled, or better understood, than was that of baptizo at the time the commission was given. Can it be believed, then, that Christ, in case he had designed to leave the manner of the rite undetermined, would have chosen a term which he knew at the time, would be universally understood to mean immersion? The conviction must force itself upon every mind, that, when Christ promulged the law of baptism, a law of universal obligation, binding on all his followers to the end of time, he designed to be understood; and that, in order to this, he must have used language in its common acceptation. Baptizo itself, then, ascertains the manner of the rite, with as much definiteness and certainty, as is possible for any word to define an action. But, though the question may be considered as here fairly settled, yet, since Prof. Stuart has taken into view, not only the meaning of the word, but the primitive practice, we will still accompany him in the examination.

Practice of John and the Apostles.-The manner in which the baptismal rite was originally administered, may

be ascertained, independently of the meaning of the word, from the circumstances accompanying its administration, and from such descriptive allusions to it, as the sacred writers have incidentally furnished. The first account we have of the administration of the ordinance occurs in Matt. 3: 5, 6, Then went out to him Jerusalem and all Judea, and the region round about Jordan, and were baptized of him, v T 'Iopdávy, in the Jordan, confessing their sins. Ver. 11. I indeed baptize you, έv üdarı, in water unto repentance. Compare Mark 1: 8. John 1: 26, 31, 33. Luke 3: 16. Acts 1: 5: 11, 16. In these passages it is stated that John baptized his candidates in water, and in the river Jordan. Now, why should the Baptist choose his station near a river, and take his candidates down into the stream, except for the purpose of immersing them?

Prof. Stuart supposes that the expression βαπτίζειν ἐν üdari,-év 'Iopdávy, naturally means to baptize with water, with the Jordan. He thinks that the dative construction, which is usually employed by the sacred writers, is unfavorable to the sense of plunging into. The classics, he says, when they wish to express the idea of plunging, usually employ sis, into, with the accusative, after bapto, and baptizo. But an actual comparison of all the examples that I have been able to collect from the classics, where baptizo is clearly used in the sense of plunging, the element being named, shows that this verb is, in this sense, oftener constructed with the dative case, than with the accusative. Prof. Stuart did not scruple, in the example he quoted from Heraclides Ponticus, to render Barrilev üdarı, to plunge in water. So in the Septuagint, 2 Kings 5: 14, where we have the expression, ἐβαπτίσατο ἐν τῷ Ἰορδάνῃ, exactly the same phraseology that is employed by the Evangelist, he unhesitatingly rendered it, Naaman went down and plunged himself seven times into the river Jordan. Now, if, to baptize in the Jor

dan, means, in the Septuagint, to plunge into the river, as it certainly does, on the authority of Prof. Stuart himself, why shall not the very same expression, mean the same thing in the New Testament ?†

Mark 1: 9. And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Gallilee, and was baptized of John into the Jordan, ἐβαπτίσθη... εἰς τὸν Ἰορδάνην.

6

Mark here says, not merely that Jesus was baptized in the Jordan; but that he was baptized into the Jordan. The grammatical construction, then, shows that John, at least in this case, practised immersion. Prof. Stuart, notwithstanding what he has just alleged, that this is the proper construction, and the usual classical one, for denoting the idea of plunging, contends that this sense is not clear in the present case. He supposes that the language of Mark may mean nothing more, than that John baptized with the Jordan, or at the Jordan. That εἰς τὸν Ἰορδάνην may designate no more in Mark 1: 9, than the element with which, or by which John performed the rite of baptism,' says he, 'one might ar gue from such an example as that in John 9: 7, where Jesus says to the blind man, Go wash in the pool, sis xoλuμßnepav, of Siloam. This passage is brought to illustrate that in Mark 1:9; but this, in fact, as much needs illustration as the other. To suppose that the expression, to wash, sis, into the pool, means to wash with the pool, is as absurd in philology, as it would be in mathematics, to assume that one and two make four. That is sometimes denotes locality merely, is admitted; but that it ever properly denotes instrumentality, and especially after a verb of motion, cannot be proved. As for the meaning at, his examples are by no means apposite. In every one of them, the preposition properly expresses

Compare Moschus, Id. 1. 29. Tupí navra Béßanraι, Virgil, Georg. 3. 447, mersatur in gurgite. Moret. 96, tingit aqua.