If now, we ask for the evidence in favor of the new version, the answer presents two points,—_first_, that certain versions of the New Testament,—the Vulgate, Claromontanus, Syriac, and Gothic,—have so translated _loutron_; and _second_, that in accordance with Greek usage, the termination, _on_ (loutr_on_), justifies the assumption that the word designates an instrumental object. As to the first consideration,—it may be asserted with confidence that we are as fully possessed of the means of determining the question as were the unknown authors of those versions; and the growing prevalence at that time, of a ritualistic spirit in the church, and the consequent introduction of the form of immersion, sufficiently account for the rendering, apart from any critical considerations. Respecting the termination, _on_, the number of examples in which it is found in words that designate instrumental objects is too few to establish a rule. But were it accepted as decisive, the whole weight of its authority is against, instead of being in favor of the proposed amendment. A laver, and especially a Greek laver, is no instrument of bathing. Perhaps the _arutaina_, the dipper, might be so called. But the _water_ and the _washing_, each are instrumental causes of _the cleansing_, the salvation; of which, in the text, the apostle says,—“he saved us (_dia loutrō_) _by means of the washing_.” Nor do the classics ignore this relation. Plato (above, p. 181) asks concerning “the _washings_ (_loutra_) and sprinklings,”—“Are they not effectual to one end, to render a man pure, both as to body and soul?”