Page images
PDF
EPUB

We shall here give another illustration on this point, though it would seem, from what is said, to be unnecessary. We shall suppose A. to be standing on the bank of a river, under this instruction, that he is to [baptize cis] dip to the surface of the water a vessel, (cis meaning to,) would it not be obvious to A. and to all, that the sense thus fixed to the preposition would limit the action of the verb baptize, and unfold its true import in the case? But change the instructions, and affix eis to the verb, giving into as its sense, and then bid A. to dip the vessel, and he will not dip [eis] to, but [cis] into.

From this way of viewing things, if the meaning of eis, in the account given of our Lord's baptism, stood fixed by cirumstances at, then the act would not have taken place in the water of Jordan, but at Jordan. Under this light, and its guidance, we proceed to other considerations, which will, we trust, afford some pleasure to the critical reader.

Matthew iii, 6: Ebaptizonto en, baptized at, that is to say at Jordan, in its channel-Mark having put eis in contradistinction to en, in drawing a line between the place of the Savior's baptism and that of the people-the Savior being baptized cis, in the waters of Jordan-and the people en, at Jordan in its channel. Matthew iii, 11: Baptizo en, baptized with, that is to say WITH water, seeing that no other signification can be put to en here, and that with is one of its proper significations in the Scriptures. Mark i, 4: Baptizoon en, baptizing in, that is to say in the wilderness, at the place he preached-no other meaning being appropriate here. Mark i, 5: Ebaptizonto en, baptized at Jordan, in its channel-the reasons above given.-Luke iii, 16: Baptisei en, baptized with water--the reasons are above given for with representing cn.

John i, 26: Baptizo en, baptized with water, for the previous reason. John i, 31: Baptizoon en, baptized with water-same reason. John 1, 33: Baptizein en, baptized with water-same reason. Acts i, 5: Baptisthesesthe en, baptized with water-same reaActs xi, 16: Baptisthesesthe en, baptized with

son.

water--same reason.

The reader can now see why we were so particular in fixing the significations of the prepositions, and in showing their influence on the verb, both in act and import.

Those who may dissent from these reflections and conclusions, would do well to inquire into the cause of Mark using baptizo eis to express the baptism of the Savior, and baptizo en to express the baptism of the people; and then how it came to pass that baptizo eis are only used once, in reference. to water baptism, in the history of our Lord.

In conclusion we observe, that the reader ought to bear in mind, that en, in some of the quotations in this chapter, refers to place; and so does eis, in the case of our Lord's baptism, leaving the verb to be understood accordingly; and that en, in some of the same quotations, refers to the mode of baptism; leaving the verb so to be understood both in action and sense:

The baptism for which we contend is a baptism with water. The whole array of the rules, quotations, prepositions, and the verb, as above presented, make this point decidedly satisfactory.

An immersionist may grumble here at our not going at once to the English translation, and try to make capital out of our appeal to the original; but we shall here venture to say, before going there to inquire how John baptized in the wilderness, in Bethabara, in Enon, in Jordan: and to press his mode of baptizing up through the years of the Apostles, that he will see cause to wish us

back in the original; for, whether we go to the English version, the classics, or the lexicons, we shall alike be able to maintain the idea of affusion in baptism.

The reader can see, as far as we have advanced, that the idea of affusion stands out most prominent, and take this for the sign of an abundant harvest.

CHAPTER X.

THE SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED.

It is here in accordance with our design, as intimated in the fourth chapter, and in keeping with the order of our investigation, to turn the attention of the reader to the general character of the prepositions, en, eis, apo, and ek. In the foregoing chapter we gave some examples in connection with the verb baptizo, showing that any one meaning given to the prepositions en and eis by lexicons, would lead the reader of the New Testament astray, apart from consulting the lexicon of circumstances; and we might have then so said of apo and ek, and would have said so only for the fact, that they do not so intimately connect themselves with baptism as the other terms; nor are they as often used in baptism, consequently of inferior interest. We shall now, however, give the diversified bearing of this whole family of prepositions, believing it will be of some advantage to the lover of truth, and that it will shed much light on the question before us-mode of baptism.

The Greek preposition en, from which in is properly translated in some places, by in others, and with in many passages, is made in the hands

of immersionists to say things and do things only equalled by the fabulous story of Hercules strangling a huge serpent when but a child. The truth is, facts being revealed, that the signification of en in the New Testament runs thus: at, by, with, in, into, for, concerning, of, among, after, under.Render en in always, and sense will stand abashed, and propriety mortified. "He shall baptize you [en] in the Holy Ghost." That is, in plain English, to plunge or dip the disciples in the Holy Ghost. Shocking abuse of language. John's first Epistle, v, 6: "This is he that came [en] in water and blood, not by water only, but [en] in water and blood." Now, put the proper reading of these passages along side of this reading, and an opinion can be formed not very creditable to the cause that would bend even the truth of inspiration to subserve its interest. "He shall baptize you [en] with the Holy Ghost." How simple and beautiful this rendering! "This is he that came [en] by water and blood, not by water only, but [en] by water and blood." Is not this rendering alike simple and beautiful? "Our Lord Jesus Christ [en] in his coming." This too would be the work of an immersionist, when consistent with his theory. The true reading, however, is: "Our Lord Jesus Christ [en] at his coming." "Being baptized [en] in the baptism of John." That is, in a plain form of speech, the Baptist theory being respected, immersed in the immersion of John. Now, let us have the old way of the matter: "Being baptized [en] with the baptism of John." Here we have both sound and sense. Let us take one example more, given in the previous chapter to illustrate a different point. The example is: "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." The immersionist would have the

affair thus, translating here as he would the baptism of the Spirit-the nations [en] in a sword: and ruled [en] in a rod of iron. Here we now have a a partial view of the position of en in the New Testament when taken in connection with all the other significations above assigned to it. A prominent meaning is WITH. The Greek preposition eis from which into is translated in some passages, and in others to, at, en, upon, is construed by immersionists to denote the total dipping of the eunuch in water, there being no other evidence in their favor but this. Well, let us see if any plausible reliance can be placed on this position here. "And when we were fallen [eis] to the ground." "Jesus therefore cometh [eis] to the tomb of Lazarus." "Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came [eis] to the sepulchre: and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first [eis] to the sepulchre, yet went he not [eis] in." We shall give here one example more: "Go thou [eis] to the sea and cast an hook." Now translate the term [eis] into in these passages, and you will make the Scriptures state what Heaven never intended. If the Savior had said to Peter, "Go thou eis the sea and baptize," would not the immersionist have it, that eis here signifies into the sea; therefore Peter immersed? Peter went [eis] to the sea; and Philip and the eunuch went [es] to the water. these facts the reader can make up his own opinion. In our judgment, however, this would seem to be the most natural and reasonable construction; but if immersionists are satisfied with the English translation, and feel disposed to dissent from our view at this point, we are perfectly willing to test the matter with them at the court of Cæsar.For whether the eunuch went [eis] to or [eis] into, we shall make it plain, yea, put it beyond doubt, that he was baptized by affusion-if baptized as John baptized.

From

« PreviousContinue »