the true sense of the terms at issue, in the different cases that may arise before us. 1. The words baptizo eis are generally used in classics, according to the judgment of Stuart and Campbell, to denote an action in water. 2. The words baptizo en are used in the New Testament, according to the decision of the best critics, to denote an action with water. 3. The words baptizo en are also used in the New Testament, according to the same authority, to denote an action at, or by a place, or in a place. 4. The words eis and en always have their significations fixed by the circumstances with which they stand connected; and then they regulate the action and sense of whatever verbs precede them. We are responsible for this rule. It is our own. We here give an example of baptizo eis from the. classics. Plutarch says "Plunge yourself in the sea, [baptison eis.]" This expresses an action in water, but nothing more. But, that we may be able to bring all the important examples of baptizo eis, and baptizo en, that are to be found in the Scriptures in connection with water-baptism, under the test of these rules at once, we must place them in array before the reader : Matthew iii, 6: Ebaptizonto en. Acts xi, 16: Baptisthesesthe en. Now, is it not evident, from this aspect of the case, if the first rule be applied, that there was only one baptism in water? And is it not equally evident, if the second rule be applied, and then the third, that all the other baptisms occurred at, by, or in places, where John baptized with water, not in water. That we may properly meet these items of inspiration, we here remark, that eis occupies about the same relation to en, in some cases, that ek does to apo; that is to say, that as ek is a surer sign of an action out of a place than apo, so is eis, wherever found, a surer sign of an action in a place than en. Let it be distinctly understood, however, that there is no certainty with regard to their significations, apart from circumstances, no matter how found, nor where found; hence the necessity of the fourth rule. Ek and apo, it will be perceived, are merely introduced, and their relation to each other alluded to, for the purpose of illustrating the shade of difference, in meaning, that evidently exists between eis and en, the terms now duly under consideration with the verb baptizo. We said that the significations of eis and en cannot be arrived at, apart from circumstances. The following texts will prove this. Luke xi, 32: "For they repented [eis] at the preaching of Jonas." Matthew ii, 23: "And he came and dwelt [eis] in a city." Matthew xxvi, 10 "Why trouble ye the woman? for she hath wrought a good work [eis] upon me." Luke xxii, 23: "I am ready to go with thee, both [eis] into prison, and [eis] to death." Numerous examples of this class could be given, but these are all-sufficient, so far as eis is concerned. Luke iv, 1: Now let us see how en stands. "And was led [en] by the Spirit into the wilderness." Luke xxiv, 30: "And it came to pass as he sat [en] at meat with them." Matthew i, 20: C "The Angel of the Lord appeared [en] in a dream." Revelation xix, 15: "And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that [en] with it he should smite the nations; and he shall rule them [en] with a rod of iron." Gentle reader, are you not fully convinced, from these quotations, that no rule can determine the meanings of eis and en, but the rule of circumstances? We shall now proceed to bring all the points before us to a bearing. We said a moment ago, that eis is a surer sign of an action in a place than en. This view of the matter will account for the sudden change in the form of speech used by Mark, which is thus manifest: "And there went out unto him all the land of Judea, and they of Jerusalem, and were ebaptizonto of him en the river Jordan. And it came to pass in those days that Jesus came from Nazareth, of Galilee, and was ebaptisthee of him eis Jordan." This is a very nice feature in revealed truth; one that will require tender honesty on the part of the investigator. Why did Mark use en to express the baptism of the multitude, and eis to express the baptism of the Savior? It strikes our judgment, with more than ordinary force, that Mark intended by the use of en, speaking of the baptism of the multitude, to show that they were baptized at or by Jordon, in its channel; and by the use of eis, speaking of the baptism of Christ, that he was baptized in the water of Jordan. If Mark knew that the multitude were baptized in the water of Jordan, as well as our Lord, it does seem strange, and unaccountable to us, in many respects, that he should say in the fifth verse, and in the ninth verse, what he does that the multitude were baptized en Jordan, and the Savior baptized eis Jordan. We would not lay so much stress on eis here, only for the fact that the Savior was the antitype of Aaron; and on this account he had to enter into the priesthood by a baptismal washing.Aaron was washed, or baptized, as the Apostle Paul calls it, at the door of the tabernacle, and then anointed with oil; hence it was but meet and right that the antitype, Christ, should undergo a baptismal washing, and then be anointed with the Spirit, before he could enter on his priestly mission. Origen, the learned Greek father, confirms this view. Hear him in his comment on the Epistle to the Romans, c. 6: "Christ was baptized by John, not with that baptism which is in Christ, but with that which is in the law." (See chapter xix-also cut representing this baptism.) The Savior was ebaptisthee eis, and the multitude ebaptizonto en. The baptism of the Savior does seem presented in contradistinction to the baptism of the people, as it regards place, and our reasons for so thinking are now before the reader. To avoid the force of these views, an appeal may be made to the cases involved in the Greek, but this, we think, would be very unsatisfactory, and could not reduce the force of our views. We shall now turn our attention to all the examples of baptizo en, as above given. In doing this, we would remark, according to our our own rule of judging, that, after circumstances determine the significations of the prepositions eis and en, such significations regulate the action, and fix the sense of the verb. The first feature of this rule we found true in all the examples quoted in this chapter, which only leaves us to prove that the significations of these prepositions regulate the action of the verb, and fix its sense. at." Now for the proof. "For they repented [eis] Does not eis or at regulate the action of the verb repented, and fix its sense? And he came and dwelt [eis] in a city." Does not eis or in regulate the action of the verb dwelt, and fix its sense? "For she hath wrought a good work [eis] upon me." Does not eis or upon regulate the action of the verb wrought, and fix its sense? "I am ready to go with thee, both [eis] into prison, and [eis] to death." Do not eis or into, and eis or to, regulate the action of the verb go? "And was led [en] by the Spirit." Does not en or by regulate the action of the verb led, and fix its sense? "And it came to pass as he sat [en] at meat with them." Does not en or at regulate the action of the verb sat, and fix its sense? "The angel of the Lord appeared unto him [en] in a dream." Does not en or in regulate the action of the verb appeared, and fix its sense? "That [en] with it he should smite the nations, and rule them [en] with a rod of iron." Do not en or with, and en or with again, regulate the actions of the verbs smite and rule, and fix their sense? It must now be quite obvious to the reader, that the various significations attached to eis and en arise out of the circumstances with which these terms are identified; and that no lexicon can give the inquirer after truth their true meanings, apart from the narrations with which they are connected. Now let us affix eis and en to the verb baptize, and see how the matter will work, having the significations and attitudes above given with them. Baptize [eis,] at, baptize [eis,] in, baptize [eis,] upon, baptize [eis,] into; baptize [en,] by, baptize [en] at, baptize [en,] in, baptize [en,] with. Is it not therefore indisputably evident, that the action of the verb is regulated, and its sense fixed, by the restrictive sense of the prepositions? And is it not also indisputably evident that the verb has no control over the fixed sense, by circumstances, of these prepositions? |