en who are found els rηv nóhev, AT or IN the city. In accordance with such examples of is before a name of place, one might say, that in Mark 1:9, εis ròv loodávny means, AT the river Jordan. So Bretschneider construes to loodavo, Matt. 3: 6, in his Lexicon, under antigo. This is clearly a possible construction; but whether it is here the most probable one, I entertain some doubts; because the Jordan naturally designates the element by which the rite of baptism is performed.

That εἰς τὸν ̓Ιορδάνην, however, may designate no more in Mark 1: 9, than the element with which or by which John performed the rite of baptism, one might argue from such an example as that in John 9: 7, where Jesus says to the blind man, Go wash IN the pool (via sis xoivußngar) of Siloam. Now we know that the word vinto (also viso) is used almost exclusively for the washing of the face, hands, or feet. So here, the blind man is directed to wash his face or his eyes at the pool, or in the pool, of Siloam. To plunge or immerse, is not necessarily implied by the word vinto, although in some cases it may clearly admit of this idea.

Other cases, where is before the Accusative is employed in a like sense with &v before the Dative, specially in regard to the place in which any thing is or is done, the reader may find by consulting Mark 2: 1. John 1: 18. Mark 13: 16. Luke 11: 7. Acts 18: 21. Mark 13: 9. In like manner the classic authors not unfrequently employ is before nouns significant of place; Winer's Gramm. Ed. 3, p. 350. And in accordance with the example in John 9: 7, cited above, we may appeal to the expression of Alciphron, III. 43, λουσαμένου εἰς τὸ βαλανεῖον, having washed IN the bath or AT the bath.

With so many examples before us, of cases where sis and v are assimilated in usage, both in heathen and in sacred writers, it must be somewhat doubtful, whether the solitary example of sis after pantiso and before the noun designating the element, which is found in Mark 1: 9, can be much relied on, in order to shew that the New Testament usage agrees with the usual classical one. The only circumstance which weighs much in its favour, so far as the case has yet been developed, is, that the noun which here follows Bantito, may very naturally designate the element by which the rite in question is performed; and so, the usual classical construction may more naturally be allowed. But this again is rendered so dubious by νίψαι εἰς τὴν κολυμ βήθραν and λουσαμένου εἰς τὸ βαλανεῖον, that we can scarcely

come with safety and confidence to a philological conclusion of such a nature.

We are obliged, then, to cast about us, and see if any further light can be thrown upon this usage of the noun (after the verb Bantico), which signifies the element by which the rite is performed. Have the classic writers used not only the Accusative with is, but also the Dative with and without v, and other equivalent constructions?

In answer to this question I will now produce several examples, which shew that the classical writers have expressed themselves in different ways, when employing the words fáлto and βαπτίζω.

Aristophanes, Eccles. They dip the wool equo, IN warm water; Dative without v. Aristotle, Hist. Anim. VIII. 29, And dipping it IN wine (v oivo), they drink it; Dative with v. Heraclides Ponticus, Allegor. p. 495, datt fantisera. Aratus, Phaenom. v. 650, fantov óízɛavoło, baptizing WITH the ocean; Genitive without a preposition, used in the same sense as the Dative with Ev. Ibid. 858, Bántot jóov ¿oлegioio bathes himself WITH the western flood, i. e. the sea; Genitive of instrument. Again, v. 951, Bathes herself notauolo, WITH the river; Genitive of instrument. Strabo, XVI. p. 1117, Dipped ororois, in the gall of serpents; Dative without preposition. Plutarch, De Educ. Puer. p. 15, roîę vnegßáklovoi fantiserat, are overwhelmed WITH excessive labours; Dative of cause. Marcus Antoninus, V. § 16, βάπτεται ὑπὸ τῶν φανTaolov, Genitive of instrument, with a preposition. Plutarch, Moral. Tom. III. p. 1504, οφλήμασι βεβαπτισμένον, overwhelmed WITH debts; Dative of cause, without a preposition.

It follows then from these examples, to which many more might easily be added if necessary, that the verbs Pánto and Bantiso admit after them several various methods of construing the noun, which designates the element made use of in the action indicated by the verb. (1) The Accusative case with is before it; which is the usual construction. (2) The Dative with v. (3) The Dative without v. (4) The Genitive with vnó, etc. (5) The Genitive without a preposition. And probably it is another variety still, which Sophocles exhibits in his Ajax, v. 96, where he says: Thou hast well BATHED (Payas) thy sword προς 'Αργείων στράτῳ, WITH the army of the Greeks.

From such examples, which indeed are somewhat numerous, we may come very fairly to the conclusion, that when a Greek employed the word βάπτω or βαπτίζω, he did not feel constrained to use the Accusative case after it with the preposition is.

He might express himself in various other ways, and still conform to the usus loquendi.

But are all these modes of speaking, now exhibited, equivalent to each other? I think not. There is a difference which may be made quite manifest, between saying, Bayev eis tov ποταμόν, and ἔβαψεν ἐν τῷ ποταμῷ, οι βάπτων τῷ ποταμώ, βάπτων ποταμοῦ, ἐβάφη ὑπὸ τοῦ ποταμοῦ, etc. In the first case, I understand the writer or speaker as meaning to designate the manner of the baptism; he plunged INTO the river means, that he immerged or submerged himself, i. e. that he went down or sunk beneath the surface of the water. In all the other cases, the manner of the action is no farther designated, than the words Pánto or pantiso imply it; but the means, cause or instrument of baptism is designated, viz. the river, or the waters of the river. "Εβάπτισε εἰς τὸν ποταμόν cannot usually mean less, than that the individual of whom this is affirmed, did actually dive into the water, or was in some way submerged in it; whereas all the other methods of construction do not of necessity imply any more, than that the individual concerned bathed himself or washed himself, with the element named. This may have been by plunging into it, or in any other way; but the expression, when the Genitive or Dative is used after the verb, either with or without a preposition, does not designate the manner of the baptism, but only the kind of element by which this baptism was effected. This results from the nature of the Genitive and Dative cases, and the prepositions with which they are connected, in all the constructions now in question. To this I make the appeal; and those who know enough of the laws of syntax and idiom in Greek, to be qualified to judge, will be able to determine for themselves whether the distinction now made is well founded.

Believing that it is so, I may now bring to the test, the cases of Buntiso in the New Testament, after which verb the element is designated. As we have already seen, all these are either in the Dative with or without ev, one only excepted, which seems to be construed after the usual analogy. Setting aside this then, for a moment, we may say, in all other cases in the New Testament, the mode of baptism is left undetermined by the original Greek, so far as the language itself is concerned, unless it is necessarily implied by the word ßantico; for in all other cases, only the element by which, not the mode in which baptism is performed, is designated by the sacred writers.

I take this to be sufficiently plain and certain, to the well-instructed philologist; and I apprehend it may now appear plain to others, from the evidence placed before them. Is there then, in the word ẞantis itself, a meaning sufficiently definite and exclusive to imply of necessity, that the rite of baptism was performed only by plunging? And does the solitary example in Mark 1: 9, add confirmation to the supposition of such a meaning?

It will be remembered, that I am now making the inquiry, how much we may justly conclude ex vi termini, i. e. merely from the force of the words concerned, independently of any historical facts that may stand connected with them, and be explanatory of them. For in this case, as in all others, more or less of modification may be admitted in respect to the sense of particular words, as the circumstances, i. e. the facts connected with the case, may require.

The answer to the above questions which I feel philologically compelled to give, is, that the probability that Bantico 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, 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 ẞantico. Whether in fact it was so, then, seems to be left for inquiry, from other evidence than that which the word itself necessarily affords.

In respect to Mark 1: 9, ἐβαπτίσθη ... εἰς τὸν Ιορδάνην, after what has been said above, and in consideration that this is the only instance of the kind in the New Testament, it cannot be deemed, as it appears to me, quite safe to build with confidence upon it. The expressions, vipa sis xolvμßýðqav, in John 9:7, and λουσαμένου εἰς τὸ βαλανεῖον (washed in a bath) in Alciphron III. 43, shew that the Greek verbs which designate the washing of the hands, face, or feet, and also of the body, may and do take the same construction, viz. the Accusative with eis after them. In either of these two last cases, plunging is not essential to the idea conveyed by the verb, although it is admissible.

On the whole, however, the probability seems to be in favour of the idea of immersion, when we argue simply ex vi termini, i.e. merely from the force of the words or expressions in themselves considered.

I know not that I can cast any further light on this part of my subject, by pursuing simply philological investigation. However, as this seems to leave us somewhat in a state of uncertainty still, we must have recourse to the other means of inquiry suggested above.

6. Circumstances attending Baptism.

II. 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?

1. The Baptism of John.

(a) John is called Bantiorns in the following passages; viz, Matt. 3: 1. 11: 11, 12. 14: 2, 8. 16: 14. 17: 13. Mark 6: 24, 25. 8:28. Luke 7: 20, 28, 33. 9:19. But as this appellation determines merely his office, and not the manner in which he performed the rite of baptism, it would serve no purpose to pursue an investigation relative to this word; which of course must take its hue from βαπτίζω.

(b) I have already remarked, that Bretschneider considers Matt. 3: 6, All Jerusalem etc. ... were baptized iv to 'loodávy, in the Jordan, as designating the place where they were baptized. This he seems to justify by an appeal to Mark 1:4, John was baptizing iv to oru, in the desert. But the difference between the two cases is, that the river Jordan may naturally signify the element with which the rite was performed.

I find nothing else in the accounts of the several Evangelists, or in the Acts of the Apostles, respecting the baptism of John, which has not already been discussed under our first inquiry in S 5, excepting the phraseology in Matt. 3: 16, and in Mark 1: 10. It is here related, that Jesus being baptized by John, άvéßn (avaBaivov) ano rov üdaros, went up from the water, viz. from the river Jordan. The question has been raised, 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. It becomes necessary therefore to investigate this question.

Several considerations may serve to determine it. (1) The rite of baptism was completed, before John went up from the water. So says Matthew, βαπτισθεὶς ὁ ̓Ιησοῦς; and Mark also says, that Jesus was baptized by John in the Jordan, and then