hand, there is brevity, dignity, directness, and an appropriateness which is marvellously beautiful. How far from Christ to introduce anything for effect! Christ's wonderful power in gathering and using materials is a topic worthy of the most careful study. We are accustomed to admire and praise the poet who looks upon nature and life with a fresh and hearty spirit, who speaks of them with a healthy tone, who sees with clear, correct vision, their facts, events, and relations, and who forces every fact and object, high or low, near or remote, old or new, to yield its hidden lesson. Christ, then, deserves our highest praise. He had sympathy with nature and with men. He was not indifferent to the world in which he lived. He was no recluse; but loved, on the contrary, to mingle with men, to listen to their songs or their complaints, and to watch or encourage them in their toil. And this interest which he felt in men and in the affairs of the world about him we have throughout regarded as a purely human interest; this power of observation and this skill in the use of the facts which he observed purely as characteristics of his human nature. As a man he used diligently the means at his command for improvement, and thereby "increased in wisdom" (Luke ii. 52). ARTICLE VII. Ἐγὼ βαπτίζω ἐν ὕδατι. — JOHN Ι. 26. BY REV. JOSEPH TRACY, D.D., BOSTON. OUR English version of the scriptures, it is said by some, errs in translating these words: "I baptize with water." The prepositon év, it is said, should be translated "in"; and when the dative daт is used without a preposition, ev should be understood, and the phrase should be rendered, "in water." Instead of this, we are told, they have translated it," with water," as if oúv were understood. The correction of these errors, it is claimed, would show, even to the mere English reader, that "baptize" means "to plunge." 1 The question thus raised concerning the meaning of Barrio, as shown by its grammatical construction, is certainly a fair one, and we propose to examine it carefully. In the first place, then, it is a mistake to suppose that where üdar is used without a preposition the translators understood σúv. The dative with oúv never designates the instrument, but always a companion, or accompaniment, or co-operator. Baπтiço iμâs σúv idari must mean, " I baptize Βαπτίζω σύν ὕδατι you and water, both together," or, "I and water, acting together, baptize you." It could not mean, "I baptize you, using water as an instrument"; for σúv never means "with, as an instrument." The few apparent exceptions are cases. where the instrument is personified and spoken of as a companion or an assistant. The fact is, that in such phrases no preposition at all is understood in the Greek, though we must supply one in English. By one of the best-known idioms of the Greek language, the relation of instrumentality is expressed by putting the name of the instrument in the dative without a 1 Bibliotheca Sacra, Jan. 1869, p. 43. preposition, as we, in English, express the relation of ownership, by putting the owner's name in the possessive case without a preposition. So Luke, the purest Greek writer in the New Testament, writes: Εγὼ μὲν ὕδατι βαπτίζω ὑμᾶς (Luke iii. 16), which are the very words which the rules of the language required him to use, if he meant to say: "I baptize you with water," as an instrument. So, in the next verse: "But the chaff he will burn with fire unquenchable"-Tuρì ảoẞéore, the dative of the instrument without a preposition. It is another mistake to suppose that the sacred writers, if they meant to mention water as the instrument, must have used the genitive, üdaros, with μerá. They need not do it, because, as we have seen, the simple dative without a preposition is the proper form of expression for that idea. And they could not do it, because μerá with the genitive would not express their meaning. It never expresses the relation of instrumentality, but always accompaniment, like σúv, except that oúv may express a closer relation. We conclude, therefore, that "I baptize with water" is the correct translation of Barrio vƐarı, and that the evangelists did deliberately record the fact that John baptized with water as an instrument. But how is it where they use the preposition, and write, Barтiço èv üdaтi? Doubtless, év primarily expresses locality, and means in, on, at, or more loosely, among. From this the transition is easy to the idea of time, as at such a time, or in such a year, or during the occurrence of such events; to the employments in which one is engaged; to the manner or spirit in which one does anything; and finally, in some cases, to the means by or with which a thing is done. So in Matt. viii. 32, the swine died év Toîs vdaow, by the waters; 1 Cor. iii. 13, Every man's work shall be revealed év Tvρí, by fire; Rom. x. 9, "If thou shall confess (èv Tô στóμati σoû) with thy mouth." Luke xxii. 49," Shall we smite (ev paxaípą) with the sword.” Rev. vi. 8, ἀποκτεῖναι ... ἐν ῥομφαῖᾳ, "to kill with sword." In this last sense it is seldom used by classical writers. They commonly express the same idea by the dative without the preposition. Among later writers it is more common, and in the New Testament its use was probably favored by its resemblance to a well-known Hebrew idiom. 'Ev udari, therefore, may mean either in water or with water, as the context may determine. In some cases, in connection with βαπτίζω, ἐν is used in its most primitive sense, denoting locality; as John i. 28, where it is said that John was baptizing in (ev) Bethabara, and, iii. 23, in Enon, and Matt. iii. 6, év T 'Iopdávy, in the Jordan. So, also, Mark i. 4, John was baptizing v T ἐρήμῳ, in the wilderness, and the next verse, ἐν τῷ Ἰορδάνῃ Tотаμ, in the river Jordan. In other cases, év údaтɩ means simply idari, with water. The same discourse of John is reported in Matt. iii. 11, Mark i. 8, and Luke iii. 16. According to the reports of Matthew and Mark, he said, év vdarı; but according to Luke, simply dari, without the preposition. John probably spoke in the Hebrew, as they called it, of that age; and the three evangelists translated it, each in his own way, into Greek. The three reports, therefore, very naturally differ in several words, but agree in meaning. Luke, the most classical in style, translates John's word by the simple instrumental dative, udari, with water. If the three writers have all given John's meaning correctly, Matthew and Mark must have used év dari to mean exactly what üdari means in Luke, that is, with water. In John i. 26, év udari is used, evidently in the same sense, though the conversation there reported probably occurred at a different time. It is certain, therefore, that ev, in this connection, may be rendered in, locally, or with, instrumentally, as the context may require. But it cannot be rendered into, or by any form of speech which expresses the idea of motion into. That idea must be expressed by eis, with the accusative. See John i. 9, Eis TÒV KÓσμov, into the world; and in vs. 11, eis тà ïdia, to his own. The only apparent exceptions to this distinction between eis and ev are merely apparent. A verb describing motion to or into a place to stay there, may be followed by ev with the dative, if the idea of staying there is most prominent in the mind when the preposition is used. Matt. xiv. 3, čleто év puλay, "put him in prison," where he was still confined. Mark xv. 46, κaтé0ŋкev avтòv Év μvnμeiw, "placed him in a tomb." In these passages, eтo and кaтéОŋкev describe motion into, and would require eis with the accusative; but the mind passes from that idea to the idea of continuance in the prison, or the tomb, which requires év with the dative. But when the idea of coming to or into is not thus crowded out of mind, eis with the accusative must be used. Luke xxiv. 36, it is said that Jesus eorη év μéo aurav. No mention is made of his coming, but only of his αὐτῶν. presence, which is expressed by ev with the dative. But in John xx. 19 we are told that in the evening, the doors being shut [locked] for fear of the Jews, on purpose to prevent anybody from coming in, ἦλθεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς καὶ ἔστη εἰς τὸ μérov," Jesus came into the midst of them, and stood there," μέσον, as we should arrange these words in English; and vs. 26, Jesus came, the doors being locked, and stood, eis tò μéσov, into the midst of them. His coming notwithstanding the locked doors was the remarkable fact, and controlled the choice of the preposition. The passage cannot be translated, ad verbum, into elegant, idiomatic English; for we have no preposition which can at once express the relation of both verbs to midst; nor does the genius of our language permit a preposition to pass over the nearest verb and show relation to the preceding one. Hence, to give the exact and entire meaning of the Greek in good English, we must change the order of the words, and translate, as above: "He came into the midst of them, and stood there." There is one instance of this kind in connection with John's baptism (Mark i. 4-9). Having told how people resorted to him from Jerusalem and all the region of Judea, he mentions the remarkable fact that Jesus made the long journey from |