others which are miserably frigid and prosaic? Dr. Carson eloquently stigmatises, as soulless, the unfortunate critic who would expound the application of the dew to Nebuchadnezzar, on the principle of conforming the language of the narrative to the standard of physical fact. But what shall be said of the Greek translator, whose rendering this moment proves him to be in the best sense highly imaginative and spirited; while the next, in attempting to translate the self-same word, he furnishes melancholy proof that he pitiably misunderstands its meaning, and is utterly insensible to the lovely image which it contains? We confess ourselves unable to ascertain how these things hang together. If the translator really appreciated the alleged figure in the original, why not present it uniformly on the page of his version? If he did not, instead of meriting a eulogium as a man of refined literary taste, there is no evidence that in any of his different renderings he had the slightest intention of conveying the figure in question. That the same writer should be at once soulless, and eminently distinguished for a nice appreciation of the finer and more elevated beauties of style and sentiment, if not a self-evident contradiction, seems at least to reside in the neighbourhood of absurdity. Dr. Halley's view of this point, though in the main sound and satisfactory, seems not altogether accurate in regard to the extremely literal character which he assigns generally to the Greek version of Daniel. Theodotion, the author of that version, he describes as "creeping upon the literalities of his original, and afraid of indulging his fancy even in the accommodation of his preposition to Greek usage." We are far from charging the writer with doing injustice to Theodotion, though we consider the description not strictly applicable to the version at large. Indeed, we are not prepared to give the translator credit for creeping over the original at all, believing his version to be little more than a recension of the true Septuagint; while in reference to the chasms which he was compelled to fill up from the original, he has satisfied all biblical scholars of his incompetency to translate Hebrew and Chaldee. So far then as Theodotion is justly responsible, we cordially adopt the language of Halley, when he expresses his confident assurance that in no other word of his version does the fancy of the author ever reflect a sunbeam of poetry."

66

Some may consider it difficult to reconcile the assertion of the wretched servility of Theodotion's renderings with the fact, that in as many passages he has given us no fewer than three different representations of the same Chaldee verb. This circumstance, it may be urged, certainly establishes the existence of such a measure of freedom in the translation as should protect it against the unqualified charge of a "creeping literality." But the objection may be turned without much effort. Had Theodotion been a more accomplished Orientalist, and possessed of fuller confidence in his own fitness to deal with the terms and constructions of these passages, the strong probability is, that his translation would not have been adorned with these rich but anomalous varieties. Enlightened conviction on his part, respecting the correctness of one rendering, would have prevented the comfort or the infliction of several renderings. On the other hand, this very diversity supplies a powerful argument against the view of those who, in the exercise of a refining criticism, would extract a splendid figurative sense out of the rendering of a translator, whose version contains invincible evidence not only that he was a stranger to the mens divinior of poetry, but that he perceived not, in the sacred original, the poetic beauty which critics have detected in his sorry translation.

On the subject of figurative interpretation, we have some additional considerations to adduce, involving certain strictures on the doctrines maintained by Dr. Carson; but we shall reserve them for a branch of the discussion which is more immediately connected with the mode of Christian baptism. In the meantime, we close our examination of the passages from Daniel, by reminding the reader that our opponents have not proved, against such Orientalists as Gesenius and Lee, the modal meaning of the verb in the Chaldee original; while the author of the Greek version, on which a figurative exegesis is mainly, if not exclusively based, presents a rich specimen of "the liveliness of imagination," from which the modern Baptist has perhaps reaped an ephemeral advantage! We wish it also to be remembered that the relation of βάπτω to the religious ordinance is indirect and remote, though by no means unimportant; and we appeal to the judgment of every candid mind, duly acquainted with the subject, whether the Baptist exposition of its occurrences in Daniel is not clogged with a variety of formidable and hitherto unanswered objections.

CHAPTER FOURTH.

SECONDARY SENSE OF BÁΠΤΩ.

SECONDARY SENSE OF BΑΠΤΩ, ΤΟ DYE. DR. CARSON OPPOSED TO HIS BRETHREN ON THIS POINT. -DIRECT PROOF THAT THE VERB DENOTES TO DIE, IRRESPECTIVE OF MODE.-EXAMPLES FROM GREEK AUTHORS.CURIOUS MISTRANSLATIONS OF GALE, COPIED BY CARSON. COMMENTS AND STRICTURES.-EVIDENCE FROM THE SEPTUAGINT AND NEW TESTAMENT. ARGUMENT FROM THE STRUCTURE OF CERTAIN PASSAGES, WELL STATED BY HALLEY, DERIVATIVES OF BANTO SUSTAINING THE PRECEDING VIEWS.

THE secondary sense of βάπτω comes now to engage our attention. That the verb signifies to dye, in some instances, without the most distant reference to any specific mode, and in others with a distinct intimation that dipping formed no part of the process, may be established by the evidence of examples to which no reasonable exception can be taken. On this branch of the investigation Dr. Carson has rendered valuable service to the cause of truth, by boldly and successfully combating the unphilosophical criticisms of Gale and other writers belonging to his own denomination. Of the soundness and excellence of the principles which he adopts in regard to secondary senses in general, there can be but one opinion, while he obtains an easy and decisive victory over his friends, in the application of these principles to the meaning of βάπτω. But when he proceeds to deal with the evidence in detail, this part of his treatise betrays a number of singular mistakes both in translation and criticism, which, whether bearing intimately or otherwise on the ulterior question at issue, must go to diminish considerably the influence, and lower the imposing pretensions of the work in which they are found.

The proof of this assertion will appear in the course of producing evidence to the fact, that βάπτω in its secondary acceptation, denotes to dye. From the following plain testimonies, it will be perceived that this meaning occupies a safe and unassailable position.

Herodotus, Lib. vii. 67, speaks of ἕιματα βεβαμμένα, "dyed or coloured garments," without any specification of mode. It will probably be imagined, from what is known otherwise respecting the art of the ancient dyer, that the presumption is in favour of dipping; and as the example presents no evidence on the other side, it must be considered less decisive than some of those which follow.

Aristotle de Coloribus, cap. iv., towards the close, says, "The colours of things βαπτομένων dyed, are changed by the causes stated." This example refers, in the most general terms, to the result of the process, apart altogether. from any given mode of operation; but we are assured, on the most unexceptionable authority, that Aristotle applied the verb to cases in which dipping was necessarily excluded. The subjoined example is in