market. May be rendered! without violence to the language! Is that the proper reading? Is that the truth, concerning what was customarily done by the Jews upon coming from the market? Does Professor Ripley believe that such a custom was so universal and so invariable among the Jews, as to make it a matter of wonder, that Jesus should sit down to dinner without having first immersed his whole body? Hear him. "That some

of the stricter sort, that many, enough to justify the Evangelist's general expression, did practise total ablution on the occasion mentioned, is altogether credible." Some of the stricter sort!-many! enough to justify the Evangelist!is altogether credible! Then Professor Ripley dares not join, without misgiving, in affirming that "all the Jews" had the custom of immersing themselves when they came from the market? No. He says, "In the absence of clear satisfying proof, it is not becoming to make positive assertions." How is this? The word "baptize" mean exclusively "immerse ;”—the Holy Ghost affirm that they baptize themselves ;—and yet no "clear satisfying proof" that they immerse themselves! Is the witness not a credible one, or is there some doubt whether the word means "immerse ?" But Professor Ripley says he is by no means satisfied that this is a necessary view of the passage," viz. that they immerse themselves. Necessary!" Will he hold to it at all? We shall see. But says he again, "However striking the language of Mark may, by some, be considered, as recognizing such a practice (and the language is certainly coincident with such a practice, especially when we look at it by the investigations respecting" baptize" on the preceding pages), yet I am not disposed to urge it." Not

disposed to urge it? Does he believe it? Will he venture to stand upon that ground? Will he venture either to affirm it or deny it? No-He dares not rest upon either ground, and make the Bible read either, "except they immerse themselves; or, "except they immerse their hands." He gently feels the ground of the first with his foot, but dares not venture upon it. He then poises himself, and presses with the other foot upon other ground; but he dares not rest upon this and abandon the first. With regard to the first he says, "In the absence of clear, satisfying proof, it is not becoming to make any positive assertions:" "the language is coincident with such a practice :" "it may be so rendered without the least violence :" " yet I am not disposed to urge it." With regard to the second he says, "But assuming the ground, that the evangelist did not intend to distinguish a total bathing from a partial washing, I again inquire did he distinguish one sort of partial washing from another sort of partial washing, one of which sorts was performed by dipping the hands into water?" And yet, assuming this ground, he assumes it only to argue: he reaches back to the other, and reminds us again that he has already said that the word Banτiovται in this passage, MAY WITHOUT ANY VIOLENCE" be considered as distinguishing a total immersion from a washing of the hands. Thus he will venture forward to argue upon one ground, provided he may keep open a safe retreat to the other. How firmly he may feel the ground under him may be inferred by his evident concern to keep open a retreat to the ground on which, alas, he is afraid to stand; and concerning which he admits that there is an "absence of clear, satisfying proof."

5*

Standing thus with light and uncertain tread upon both grounds, he is compelled to make the Bible give an uncertain sound and while professing to fix the sense with critical accuracy, he actually proposes to make it read, in both passages, with an ALIAS. After the word" baptize" (wash) in Mark vii. 4 (which he would read "immerse, or bathe"), he says, "The word hands may be considered as understood, or the word themselves may be understood." There is an "absence of clear satisfying proof" that they immersed themselves; and he is not certain that they simply immersed their hands. So he would split the difference by making the Bible read both ways, put ting in an ALIAS. In the same manner, in Luke xi. 38, he proposes the introduction of the same double reading for one single word. "And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not first washed before dinner: that he had not first IMMERSED; that is, himself, or his hands."

I have some fault to find with Professor Ripley's criticism, on the score of grammatical accuracy; for this, too, it appears to me, he has sacrificed on the altar of exclusive immersion.

Says Professor Ripley, "The verb (BantiσwvTα) is in the middle voice; and as there is no object expressed after it, it would be lawful, in order to express the Greek, to employ, as Professor Stuart has, the word themselves as being contained in the verb itself." This is correct, save that instead of simply being lawful to do as Professor Stuart has done, it is indispensable to do so, unless you can translate it by an English word, which, like the Greek Middle voice of a transitive verb, has a reflexive sense, implying that the agent is himself both the subject and the object of the verb. Thus, if we

say, "Except they wash"-the meaning is except they wash themselves: or if we say, "Except they bathe"-the object of the bathing is still themselves. But in what follows, it appears to me that Professor Ripley is most palpably and indefensibly in the wrong. He says, "As the verb vyovτai (wash), in the former part of the passage, has, in the middle voice, an object (x&igas-hands) after it, it is certainly justifiable to maintain, that the verb in the latter part of the passage (Bantio@vτai) has the same word understood after it for its object."

Now the middle voice does indeed admit an object after it, as in the case of viportai. It would therefore have been justifiable for the writer to have placed an object after faлTIOται,—had his meaning allowed it. But when the writer omits the object in such a case, and the meaning of the word is still reflexive, the subject of the verb is its implied object. When the writer in such a case omits to express another object, we pervert his meaning, if we understand or supply an object other than the one implied in the very form of the verb,-which makes its object identical with its agent. Thus Professor Stuart has most grammatically read the word fantιOWYTαI (Baptisontai)" they wash themselves." And it certainly is not "justifiable ;"-it is a flagrant violation of the rules of grammar, to supply, as Professor Ripley has done, the word hands instead of themselves.

In Luke xi. 38, the word is in the passive voice. It not only has not the word "hands" after it, but does not admit the word to be supplied as its object.* The

* Transmontanus says on this," Mr. Hall makes a display of his usual grammatical skill and accuracy. Had he consulted some grammar, he would have learned that there is a well-known Greek

grammatical rendering is," that he had not been baptized." The passage in Mark vii. 4 shows that, under such circumstances, people baptized themselves (they did it for themselves; they were not baptized by others). Hence, it is doing justice to the meaning, to say, without being tied down to grammatical nicety,—" that he had not first washed," or "that he had not first washed himself." This does not change the object concerning which the baptism is affirmed. But to supply the word hands, as Professor Ripley proposes, is to take an unwarrantable license. It does violence to the grammatical construction, and changes the object of the affirmation. It is quite as gross a violation of grammatical usage, as though the passage were made to read in English, "That he had not first been baptized his hands."* I will only add, that the word hands is not in this passage, or near it. The word construction, generally parsed as a case of synecdoche, in which the passive has an accusative after it." Mr. Hall certainly knew that very well; and, for that very reason, was careful to say that it does not admit the word to be supplied as its object."

He knew very well, too, that where the accusative is put, by synecdoche, after the passive voice, it limits the action of the vert to the part expressed by that accusative. If the writer means so to limit his meaning, he always supplies the accusative; if he does not, he who adds that accusative alters the meaning of the writer. The license is altogether unwarrantable. In the present case, it is a flagrant alteration of, and addition to, the word of God.

* Mr. Carson himself, on grammatical grounds, rejects the gloss of those who would supply the word hands in this passage and in Mark vii. 4. He says, p. 68, "When no part is mentioned or excepted, the whole body is always meant." Transmontanus has several ill-natured flings, p. 101, &c., about "a new grammar of the Greek language." There is no necessity for a new grammar; ne only needs a little more careful study of some old one.