used with it than to fix its just station, and show in what line it must occupy a place.

Dr. R.'s next objections are to the account of the preposition v. Upon reading those objections, I own I could not help thinking that some symptoms were discernible of that very spirit which he deprecates so much in the compiler of the Grammar,-a strong desire to press into the service of his peculiar tenets a preposition, by no means calculated to yield him any real assistance. Had it not been for this, I think he could scarcely have found fault with what is laid down in the Grammar upon the subject of ev. Nothing surely is said there inconsistent with what Dr. R. himself has mentioned, and what is most undoubtedly true, that the radical signification is in, and that commonly it is exactly expressed by that English preposition; but it was proper, nay, even essentially necessary, in a just grammatical analysis, to investigate the manner in which it came to receive a more extended signification, and occasionally to be applied in senses apparently remote. That s not unfrequently denotes instrumentality only, cannot, I think, be disputed; there are passages where it is impossible to give it any meaning but with; Dr. R. himself admits this; and all that was done or intended by the circuitous explanations in the Grammar, is to explain how it came to be used in this sense, without deviating in any great degree from the radical meaning. Explanations equally circuitous of some of the other prepositions are given in the Grammar, where it is impossible to trace the most distant reference to the points

which the Doctor supposes to have been in view. That the explanation of a happened to militate a little against his favourite tenet was perhaps unfortunate, but cannot at all affect the validity of that explanation itself, which must stand or fall by its own intrinsic merits.

Dr. R. refers to Dr. Campbell's note upon a particular passage. I am not disposed to call in question Dr. Campbell's merits in many respects, yet I must own his authority as a scripture critic does not rank in the first class with me ;-he is abundantly opinionative-not unfrequently under the power of prejudice, and that prejudice, I am sorry to say, in general antievangelical ;—as a critic and philologist, he is often exceptionable. In the passage referred to, Dr. Campbell censures our translators for rendering av vðarı, with water; but in this I think they did right, ev in that passage (Matth. iii. 11.) clearly denoting contrasted instrumentality,-the distinction of means without reference to the mode of operation;-" I baptize you, applying water, he shall baptize you, applying the Holy Spirit and fire;" whereas, in the other phrase, v Iogčavn, no such contrasted instrumentality could be in view. Even there, however, I do not apprehend that & was made use of to denote the mode of operation, but merely the place where the transaction happened,—a signification in which, even in the best authors, we find v often employed. Adgaσrus evi tuλaioiv ny, (Euripid. Phœnis. lin. 1141.) "Adrastus was at the gates ;” εύρε δ' εν Ηλεκτραισι πύλαις τεκνά, (Ibid. lin. 1563.) "found her children at the gates

of Electra ;” εν δεξια μεν ειχον Παίονας εν αριστερα δε ZITOUS (Thucyd. Lib. ii. cap. 98.) "they had the Pæonians on their right hand, and the Sinti on their left ;” μάλιστα γαρ εν μεθορίοις της Ωροποίας οι Αθηναίοι ήσαν, (Thucyd. Lib. iv. c. 91.) "the Athenians were nearly at the confines of Oropœa." In the passage referred to then, εν τω Ιορδανη might have been very properly rendered" at Jordan;" our translators, however, have given it literally « in Jordan,” a rendering to which I am not much disposed to object, though I do not think it conveys precisely the Evangelist's meaning; but even this translation will, I suspect, be found of little service to the Doctor's views, as certainly those baptized by John might with the utmost propriety be said to have been baptized or washed in Jordan, though they had done no more than taken water from that river to pour upon the part of the body to be washed; none of us would scruple to say that we had washed ourselves in a basin, although we had done no more than take the water which it contained in our hands, and apply it to the head, face, or body. Dr. Campbell's eagerness to censure our translators in this as well as in many other passages, proceeded, I am afraid, like many of his bitter censures on Beza, less from a desire of promoting scriptural knowledge than a secret dislike to the supporters of evangelical truth, and a wish to blame them wherever he thought he could find an opportunity.

So much then for Dr. R.'s objections to the explanation of these three prepositions, ex, 5, and ev. In

spite of these objections, and the authorities by which they are supported, I think it will be found that the compiler of that part of the Grammar was fully warranted in the views he has given. Allow me to add, that if either Pædobaptists or Antipædobaptists think to fortify their cause by so feeble a prop as the use of a preposition, they will build upon an unstable foundation indeed. The application of the prepositions in Greek writers was by no means so invariable or appropriate as to authorize any important conclusion from such refinements, where other phrases or other circumstances do not unequivocally determine the application. The side looks to the water, of which Dr. R. seems so jealous, were nothing more than what almost unavoidably occurred in discussing the different prepositions ;-the explanations given may possibly serve to show that conclusions of a certain kind cannot be built upon the use of a preposition; it is not meant to be contended that inferences of an opposite nature can.

After this long discussion on prepositions, I am afraid of running out of all bounds, should I enter upon the examination of Dr. R.'s observations about the explanation of βάπτω and βαπτίζω, nor indeed is this very necessary after the full investigation attempted in the Lexicon. A few remarks, however, may be allowed before finishing my letter.

Dr. R. seems disappointed that the signification of Barrila was not quietly allowed to rest as he wished it. But really it was rather unreasonable to expect this when the truth seemed evidently to point ano

ther way. If former Lexicographers, from inattention or haste, misstated, as I think they did, the radical meaning of a word, that surely was no reason why the just explanation should not be given now, and the former erroneous notion discarded. Dr. R.'s supposed analogy of the English word immerse, would have been sufficiently apposite, had the derivation of the two words run in a similar line, and the application been found equally extensive; as they unfortunately differ in these two essential requisites, I am afraid the Dr.'s example will do little to illustrate the point in dispute.

In one particular, I admit, Dr. R. has corrected the Lexicon; that is, respecting the use of Barrigi in an active sense. The use of the word, in this way, I think is very rare; but in one of the passages quoted from Anacreon, and another from Polybius, it appears evidently to have an active meaning, εβαπτίσ' ες οινον, and πολλα των σκαφων εβαπτίζον. Were I disposed indeed to refine on these, as the Doctor has done on the passage in the Batrachomyomach, I might urge perhaps that the first meant no more than "I poured him on the surface of the wine ;" and that the other was used in a neuter sense, 66 many of the vessels foundered." But I am not disposed to such hypercriticisms, and rather admit the common interpretation of both: neither of them however will be found at all inconsistent with the radical meaning, as given in the Lexicon. It is not denied that BarI may denote a total submersion; but it seems no less clear, that it may, and frequently does, imply no