while that of dyeing or colouring belongs only to Bantw; it would seem altogether probable, that the former signification is the more usual and natural one, and therefore more probably the original one. Accordingly I have so arranged it in my statement above; but at the same time, it should be understood, that the signification of dyeing or colouring, as attached to the word Banto, and many forms derived from it, is not less certain than the signification of dipping or immersing. If the reader will keep this in mind, he will be enabled in the sequel easily to solve some cases, concerning which there has been dispute, among those who have defended views that widely differ in regard to the manner in which the rite of baptism should be performed.

In addition to the two fundamental meanings of the word Вanto as derived from BAII, there are other derived or secondary meanings of the word, which will of course be noted in the sequel, when we come more fully to consider this subject. My present object, and the one first in order, is merely to illustrate, in an intelligible way, the different forms of the respective words. I do this first, in order that we may see whether Banto and Bantigo are really synonymous, as they have often been asserted to be; or whether they have, in some respects, a real diversity of signification; a question not without importance in regard to the object before us.

It is seldom that any language has two words, which in all respects are synonymous, and are both in common usage at one and the same time. Synonymous words may indeed exist in a language, when a recent form of a word is substituted for a more ancient one of the same meaning; or when a word of foreign origin co-exists with one that is indigenous and of the same meaning, as is the case in our own language with regard to a great number of words derived from the Latin, Greek, French, etc. which co-exist with our indigenous Anglo-Saxon words; or lastly, words of different forms and yet synonymous in sense, may exist in a language which has different dialectical variations, such as the ancient Greek exhibited. But do any of these reasons exist in respect to βάπτω and βαπτίζω, so that on account of them we may take these words as in all respects synonyinous ?

In quite ancient times, we find evidence of some difference being supposed to exist between them. For example, Tertullian says: "Dehinc ter mergitamur," Corona Militis c. 3. Je

rome (advers. Luciferianos) also says, "Nam et multa alia, quae per traditionem in ecclesiis observantur ; velut in lavacro ter caput mergitare," etc. Now mergito is a frequentative form of mergo. At the same time, however, these fathers, and others who wrote in Latin, often and commonly use the words tingo, mergo, demergo, in order to express the idea conveyed by Banrisw; especially do they employ tingo and mergo. By these latter words, in fact, do the Latin ecclesiastical writers for the most part render Barrio, when they really translate the word; for oftentimes, like our English Version, they employ the original word itself, baptizo, in order to represent the Greek ßantisw, merely making it conform to the Latin mode of inflection.

It would appear then, that a feeling existed among some of the Latin fathers, when they rendered ßantiso by mergito, that Pantiso is, in its appropriate sense, what the grammarians and lexicographers call a frequentative verb, i. e. one which denotes repetition of the action which it indicates. Nor are they alone in this. Some of the best Greek scholars of the present and past age, have expressed the same opinion in a more definite shape.

Buttmann lays it down as a principle of the Greek language, that a class of verbs in -5w, formed from other verbs, have the signification of frequentatives, Gramm. § 119. I. 5. 2. Rost lays down the same principle, Gramm. § 94. 2. b. Both appeal, by way of confirming their opinion, to such examples as orivo to groan or sigh, στενάζω to sigh or groan often or much; αἰτέω to ask, απ τίζω, to beg, i. e. to ask repeatedly; έρπω το creep, ερπίζω to creep along, to continue creeping; ρίπτω to cast or throw, ριπτάζω το throw hither and thither. In accordance with this, Stephens and Vossius have given their opinions; and the highest authorites of recent date in lexicography, have decided in the same way. Passow, Bretschneider, and Donnegan, all affirm, that Bantiso originally and properly means to dip or plunge often or repeatedly.

With all deference to such masters of the Greek language, and with the full acknowledgement that frequentative verbs may be, and actually are, formed in the way just stated, I must still, doubt, whether the sense of frequentativeness belongs essentially to verbs of this prolonged form, which are derived from other verbs of a shorter and more simple form. My meaning is, that although frequentative verbs may be easily and naturally formed in this way; and although this mode of formation accords well

with the genius of the Greek language; yet still, it is rather owing to special usage, in some cases and with regard to particular words, that this prolonged form is employed in this way, than to any absolute general usage or to the nature of the case. Proof will be necessary to sustain such a declaration against such authorities; and I proceed to adduce it.

Thus how to bubble up, to gush forth, has a kindred verb Plus, of the same meaning; dozow to bind by oath, to adjure, and ὁρκίζω the same ; αλέγω, to take care of, to attend to, αλεγίζω the same, with the exception that aλyo is not only employed in this sense, but also in the sense of reckoning up, computing; shades of meaning which do not appear to be attached to alayiw. In like manner w to be accustomed, to be wont, and is in the same sense; ¿w to sift, to strain, and now the same; xavazw to ring, to resound, xavazio the same.

In some of the like examples, there is a slight shade of difference in the meaning of the simple and derived verbs. heyiw and alέy above are an instance, to shew that one of the verbs has greater latitude, in actual usage, than the other. So vo means to burn incense, to sacrifice, to move violently, to be in a state of fury, to be boisterous, while vaso is usually confined to the meanings of sacrificing and raving; Bogfogów means to cover with mud, to change into mire, while BooBooit means to resemble mud or mire or dung, to smell of mud, etc. avow to bloom, to grow up in a flourishing manner, and avviso to adorn with flowers, to deck with garlands; πλουτέω to be rich, and πλουτίζω to make rich; deinvέw to sup, and deлviso to give a supper to others, etc.

How natural it is, where two kindred words exist in any language, to give one a direction in practice somewhat different from the other, is abundantly illustrated by the examples just produced.

But still, the attentive and intelligent reader will of course remark for himself, that the variations now before us are not of such a nature as to establish the position, that a frequentative sense is attached to verbs in -So, derived from other verbs. Gale asserts, that not only these verbs just mentioned, but infinita alia, are of the tenor above described; and that "the common criticism," which makes ßantito a diminutive instead of a frequentative, "is nothing but a ridiculous piece of pedantry" Refl. on Wall's Hist. of Inf. Bapt. p. 217. That the opinion which be condemns, has no foundation in truth, I deem to be quite certain. But that the opposite opinion, which makes Bantico a frequentative, (if by this it is designed to imply that

it is necessarily so by the laws of formation, or even by actual usage,) is equally destitute of a solid foundation, I feel constrained, on the whole, to believe. The lexicographers who have assigned this meaning to it, appear to have done it on the ground of theoretical principles as to the mode of formation. They have produced no examples in point. And until these are produced, I must abide by the position, that a frequentative sense is not necessarily attached to antico; and that, if it ever have this sense, it is by a speciality of usage of which I have been able to find no example.

I am unable to determine, from the grammars of Buttmann and Rost as cited above, whether they intend to give it as their opinion, that all verbs in -5w, derived from other verbs which are shorter and more simple, have a frequentative sense. They merely assert the fact, that to such verbs belongs such a meaning; without defining any limits, in respect to the principle which they lay down. This is leaving the matter at loose ends; inasinuch as the reader can never determine, by what they say, whether they mean to lay down a universal principle of language, or whether they mean merely to aver, that there are frequentative verbs in the Greek language, which take the form in question.

To the latter proposition I fully and readily accede; of the former, I have already given reasons why we should doubt. Indeed, there is not a single lexicographer, so far as I know, who has been consistent with himself, if he holds to the general principle in question. Even Passow and Bretschneider and Donnegan, "quos facile principes nominarem," and who have all attributed to Barrio the sense of a frequentative, have given to many of the verbs in ∞ and Sw, named above, the very same sense; and have thus shewn, that they do not regard the principle concerning frequentatives, as laid down in the grammars, to be any thing more than one of partial application. That it actually applies in real usage to Burrito, none of them have even attempted to prove by examples.

What then is the foundation of such an assertion, in writers of such distinguished knowledge and acuteness, as the grammarians and lexicographers mentioned above? Two reasons, as it

seems to me, may be given for it with probability; first, that there are some clear and undoubted cases in which verbs in -ζω have a frequentative sense; as in στένω στενάζω, αἰτέω αἰτίζω, ἔρπω ἑρπίζω, ρίπτω ῥιπτάζω; secondly, that the usage of

the Greek language forms many verbs in -o in such a way, that they denote usual, customary, or often repeated and habitual action ; e. g. Ελληνίζω to speak as a Greek, βαρβαρίζω to act or speak as a foreigner, Zavviso to act like a Scythian, Diliлniso to take part with Philip, etc. The frequency and extent of the two classes of verbs just named, would seem to give some colouring to the assertion, that verbs in So, generally, might be considered as a species of intensive verbs; but Buttmann himself avers (and very rightly) in another place, that verbs of this ending can be reduced to no definite species, § 119. I. 3. d. Let the reader consult δικάζω, χειμάζω, μελίζω, θερίζω, λακτίζω, etc.

On the whole, I am unable to make out for verbs in Sw, any peculiarity of meaning, as appropriate to them only. Not even where they are derived from more simple verbs, does such a difference always, or even more usually, exist. It follows, then, that we are to regard Bantico, so far as its mere form is concerned, and unless there are special reasons for viewing it dif ferently, as only an example of a prolonged and secondary form of a verb; of which there are so many scores of examples in the Greek language, particularly in the Present and Imperfect tenses.

Dismissing then the question of mere form, let us now inquire, whether in actual usage Banrio has a different meaning from Banto. In particular, is it distinguished from faлto by the writers of the New Testament?

The answer to these questions will be fully developed in the sequel. I have already intimated, that ßantico is distinguished from Banto in its meaning. I now add, that it is not, like this latter word, used to designate the idea of colouring or dyeing; while in some other respects, it seems in classical use, to be nearly or quite synonymous with Barro. In the New Testament, however, there is one other marked distinction between the use of these verbs. Bantigo and its derivates are exclusively employed, when the rite of baptism is to be designated in any form whatever; and in this case, fanto seems to be purposely, as well as habitually, excluded.

Let us come now, for the fuller development of this matter, to the more important part of our inquiry under the first head, viz. What are the classical meanings of βάπτω and βαπτίζω? In some measure I have been obliged to anticipate the answer to this inquiry, in the statements which I have already made;