question occurs,—Why the rising “could not be included in the designation of the rite,” seeing _bapto_ was ready to add that very idea to the meaning of _baptizo_? The question is anticipated by the professor, and the answer given. It is because the latter word has “greater _length_, _weight_, and _dignity_ of form!” The meaning of the words was a secondary consideration! _Bapto_ has but two syllables, while _baptizo_ has three. It has the advantage, therefore, in a greater length, and a buzzing zeta, to add to its “weight and dignity of form!” Or, perhaps, the superior “weight” of the one word over the other consists in the fact that while _bapto_ accurately expresses the hasty resurrection which the instinct of life and other influences specified so happily, though not invariably, connect with the administration of the rite, _baptizo_ maintains a dignified silence on that part of the subject. But the professor drifts back again to his first position. He insists that the baptism of Israel into Moses was received in their “wondrous march” enclosed between the walls of water, and enshrouded in the cloud, “and _not_ in the closing emersion.” And yet, even here, his protest that _bapto_ itself would not have given absolute assurance of exit, looks like a disposition to weaken the force of “the distinctive import” of _baptizo_. However these “dark sayings of the wise” are to be interpreted, the facts remain, that, confessedly, the word chosen by the Savior to designate the rite of baptism does not include in it the idea of emersion, typical of resurrection,—that it was chosen in preference to a kindred word which does distinctly express that idea,—and that the best reasons suggested by Baptist scholarship for this remarkable fact are, that _burial_ and _not_ resurrection was the doctrine symbolized; and that _baptizo_ sounds best! Such are the results of the elaborate researches of the scholarly Conant, confirmed by the eminent learning of Kendrick, divines than whom the Baptist churches have had none more zealous or more competent. Essentially the same is the definition reached through the exhaustive studies of our own departed Dale. Thus, according to the Baptist rendering of the gospel commission, we are to go into all the world and _submerge_ every creature,—a command which neither contains nor implies authority in any one to neutralize it by a systematic rescue of its subjects from the “liquid grave.” A result of the most serious import to our Baptist brethren follows from these facts. The definition, to dip, for the sake of which they have so long separated themselves, in translating the Scriptures into the languages of the heathen, is demonstrably and confessedly false, and the result is a corrupting of the word of God.