This gives an idea of the position of eis in numerous passages in the New Testament, and leads us to subscribe to its general significations, at, upon, in, to, into. But is not its leading meaning To? (See Bretschneider.)

The Greek preposition ek, from which out of and from are translated in various places in the Scriptures, is made, in connection with eis, to be a very satisfactory evidence of immersion in baptism. It must be obvious, however, to the scholar, that apo is placed in contrast with eis, and that ek, as well as apo, denotes simply an action from a place. Apo, from city; eis, to city; and apo, from Jerusalem, eis, to Gaza." "Get thee [ek] from thy kindred." "Howbeit there came other boats [ek] from Tiberias." "Who shall deliver me [ek] from the body of this death ?"

66

Ek means from, as well as out of. The Greek preposition apo signifies from, of, and out of. "This term," says Dr. Cater, "occurs about six hundred and forty-four times in the New Testament, only signifying out of twenty-four times, when properly translated."

The reader, by examining the significations, as given, of the prepositions en, eis, ek, apo, can at once see how various their meanings are in the New Testament.

But with regard to the term eis, we remark, that it would be venturing too far to state that it does not, when in a single attitude, connected with a verb of motion, signify an action into a place. In its single attitude, as found in the case of the baptism of the eunuch, it generally means to, not into. The previous examples where eis occurs, illustrate this.

Eis, be it remembered, often denotes an action to a place, but seldom, when not doubled, an action into a place. To make these points evident, the Greeks, when they wished to express definitely

an action into a place, prefixed eis to a verb, such as eiserchomai eis, or embaino eis; and we may here add, that the inspired writers acted on a similar principle, as the following examples will clearly show: "David [eiselthen eis] entered into the house of God." (Matt. xii, 4.) "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall [eiselthen eis] enter into the kingdom of God." (Matt. viii, 21.)" Ananias [eiselthen eis] entered into the house." (Acts ix, 17.) Here the reader will perceive that eis is doubled, to express an action into a place. This is not the case in the account of the baptism of the eunuch by Philip. Circumstances, however, as we proved in the previous chapter, must determine its signification.

Το say that ek does not mean from, but out of, is to state that which is lamentably incorrect,-as lamentably incorrect as to state that it does not mean out of, but from. Often from, often out of, is the true sense of the term, in many portions of the Scriptures.

To say that en does not mean with, but in, is to state that which violates all proper rules of thought, and outrages the structure and true teachings of the Hebrew-Greek of the New Testament. Often with, often in, are true meanings of the term in the Scriptures.

To say that apo means out of in the case of our Lord's baptism, and generally means so, is to state that which the water-loving Carson admits is wrong, that which inspiration frowns on. Often from, seldom out of, is the true attitude of the word in the New Testament. We simply desire to give its sense here, which begins to apply, on the termination of the term "when," leaving the matter thus when he was baptized, he went straightway up from the water. În plain English, after his In baptism, he went up from the water--simply from. The significations of the words eis, en, ek, and

apo, are now before us, from which we understand affusion only is favored.

We shall here add a few quotations and remarks on the preposition eis, as we intend this chapter for a chapter of reference; and shall, after a few more chapters, argue the question of mode from the English translation.

Professor Stuart says, page 41, that katabaino eis, used in the account of the eunuch's baptism, often means going down to a place. The following examples will clearly prove this. John ii, 12: "Jesus went down to Capernaum." Acts xiv, 25 : They went down to Attalia." The form of speech in these passages is the same, in the original, as that given in the narration of the eunuch's baptism. The reading of the whole would run thus: Philip and the Eunuch went down [eis] to the water; Jesus went down [eis] to Capernaum; and they went down [cis] to Attalia.

We shall conclude this chapter with this astonishing fact, that eis occurs eleven times in the chapter which sets forth the baptism of the eunuch, and is only translated once into. This is, of a truth, a marvellous affair, and the more so from the fact, that it is translated into in the narration of the eunuch's baptism. Did Luke intend this? Did he intend eis to signify into once out of eleven times, and ten times out of the eleven quite a different thing? Who will answer this? The influence of trine immersion on the minds of the king's translators, can only answer and account for this matter. They were immersionists. This is a full explanation. We are not finding fault with them. They were honest men--acted out the light that was in them: still we record our most solemn conviction, that Luke did not intend to convey the idea of going into the water, but the idea of going to the water, where Philip baptized, as John did, with water.

CHAPTER XI.

THE SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED.

Bur after all we have said on the prepositions, we observe that those conversant with the water controversy, are apprised that the main issue is made, and must be made, on the import of the term baptizo: and to our mind it is evident that the use the Scriptures make of the word must finally settle the question. Under this persuasion, in the outset of this chapter, we shall take a decided stand, and make an issue with immersionists on their own grounds-promising to the reader that we shall prove by their own translations all we care to contend for. Campbell's translation, Mark vii, 3, 4, reads thus: "For the Pharisees, and indeed all the Jews, who observe the traditions of the elders, eat not, except they have washed their hands by pouring a little water on them, and when they come from the market by dipping them." Now, does not this passage clearly set forth a line of distinction between those that returned from the market, and those that were not at the market, making it only binding on those that were not at the market to have their hands washed by causing a little water to be poured on them? Will it not therefore absolutely follow, if baptizo is used in any case, in the New Testament, to designate washing before eating, where the person was not at the market, that pouring, according to this translation, is the signification, or at least, one of its significations in the New Testament? We most confidently assert here, and defy contradiction, that if a solitary case can be found, where the verb is so used, in the New Testament, pouring is made the meaning of the word. In view of testing this

D

matter by the rule laid down in Campbell's transtion, that when at the market dipping was required before eating, but when not at the market only a little water was poured on the hands, let us turn to Luke xi, 37, 38, where we at once see that the Savior had been preaching when invited by the Pharisee to dine with him. These verses read thus: "And as he spake, a certain Pharisee besought him to dine with him and he went in, and sat down to meat. And when the Pharisee saw it, he marveled that he had not first [ebaptisthee] washed before dinner." Here we have the very form of the verb, letter for letter, that Mark employs to designate the baptism of our Lord by John, used by Luke to point out the washing of hands, which was done, Campbell's translation deciding, by having a little water poured on them. Let immersionists escape from this if they can. We say it is impossible. We invite their attention to this meaning, clearly fixed by their own translation, and bid them, if they can, to resist this conviction, and deny this conclusion. We have always been astonished at the blindness of Campbell when this translation was approved. We cannot well conceive how he could have lost sight of the case of the Savior in Luke xi, 38, when he allowed the translation of Mark vii, 3, 4, to pass through his hands. We say blindness; for a child, capable of reading and thinking, ought to have seen, and ought to see, that the case of the Savior would fall under the rule of washing his hands by having a little water poured on them--he not being at the market, hence not under the rule of dipping, which required the person to be at the market.

Men may parade lexicons, and read over and over all the places where baptizo occurs in the New Testament, in order to fix its meaning, but from no quarter can we gather more light on this point than