BAPTISM-No. I. THE PREPOSITION "EIS," (INTO.) No ordinance of Christ has passed through a severer ordeal than that of baptism. Its subject, action, and design have, like the evidences of Christianity, been in debate for many centuries. This, however, is no argument against its authority, importance, or intelligibility. The most valuable truths in science and religion have long been in debate, and are still often assailed by many. The being of God, the mission of Jesus, the accountability of man, future rewards and punishments, are questions not yet decided by millions. The quantity, variety, and strength of argument, for any one fact or proposition in religion or morals, afford no assurance that it will be universally or even generally received by mankind. Still, however, truth is aggressive on the territory of error, and, despite of all opposition, is triumphing over it. And baptism, as taught in the Bible, is annually gaining on baptism as taught in scholastic theology, in greater ratios than a hundred to one. Unfortunately, however, it has become an ecclesiastic, full as much as a literary or Christian question. It is the corner stone of several ecclesiastic institutions that stand or fall with it. Hence, the fiery furnace of debate to which it has been subjected. Every word in construction with it, down to the prepositions eis, ek, apo, has been the subject of many a pamphlet, and the theme of many a debate. Whether eis is equivalent to into, and ek to out of, is litigated with the zeal of a Pharisee or a Jesuit. The meaning of baptism is hung on these prepositions as the Law and the Prophets hung on two pins in a Jewish synagogue. If eis literally mean into, the action called baptism is settled; or if, in certain associations it mean for, its design is established. Hence, the mighty agonies and efforts of controversialists on the Y meaning of this preposition. Some of our more prominent methodistic scribes have recently made some new discoveries of a very sublime and literary character on this subject. They very rationally conclude that if eis grammatically mean into, before nouns and pronouns, baptism must be immersion, and their custom of sprinkling drops of water on human faces must be a human invention. Rather as a literary curiosity, than otherwise entitled to any consideration, I proceed to lay before our readers some philological discoveries, made and reported by some of our more learned and gifted methodistic doctors and scribes of the "Western Christian Advocate." Some friend of free discussion sent me, the other day, the following scrap from a late Advocate:(From the Western Christian ADVOCATE.) THE GREEK PREPOSITIONS. public, of every Greek scholar, and of every "I would gladly turn the attention of the smatterer in Greek, to this point, as it has a tendency to settle that long mooted question-the mode of baptism: especially as erroneous views on this subject are connected with most modern heresies. Five or six years ago several articles appeared in the Western Christian Advocate, on this subject, from Rev. James M. Jameson, and Rev. T. W. Chandler, both members of the Missouri Conference. I am sorry to say these have not sufficiently arrested has carefully examined a part of the Septuagint, the attention of the public. Brother Chandler and the whole of the Greek Testament, to ascertain the truth, and has noted down every passage containing eis, ek, er, or apo. The ing rule, which I must give from memory, and in my own language, not having either of the above communications at hand. result has been a full conviction of the follow "Here is the rule:--When the inspired wrimotion into a place, they put the preposition ters intend to express, with certainty, voluntary eis, only* before the verb and the noun, or pronoun. When they would express to, or unto, or some kindred relation, they put eis When they only, before the noun or pronoun. express motion out of any place, ek or ex occurs before both the verb and the noun, or pronoun. And this rule is confined to voluntary action; for, in most instances of constrained action, only one preposition is used. "Take a few illustrations of this important rule: :- Enter into thy closet,' Matt. vi. 6 Eiselthe eis to tameion. Here eis stands before the verb elthe, enter, and the noun tameion, closet, and therefore should be rendered into. Ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven,' Matt. v. 20: Eiselthe eis teen basileian. Here, also, eis stands before the verb and the noun. 'Depart into everlasting fire,' Matt. xxv. 41: Poreuesthe eis to pur to aioonion. Here eis is put before the noun only, because the action is involuntary or constrained. The same may be said of verse 30, and also of Mark ix. 42. Observe, especially, in Mark ix. verses 43, 45, and 47, each of which contains an instance of voluntary action and of constrained action; in all the former, eis occurs before the verb and noun; and in the latter, before the noun only. He went up into a mountain,' Matt. v. 1. Here the preposition is put before the noun only, and should be rendered, He went up to a mountain.' 'And they went down both into the water,' Acts viii. 38: Katebeesan amphoteroi eis to udoor. As eis stands here before the noun only, it should be rendered-They went down both to the water;' and as ek occurs before the noun only, it should be, "They came up from the water.' See, also, John xx. 4, 5: The other disciple came first to the sepulchre, yet went he not in.' In the former clause the preposition stands before the noun; in the latter, before the verb, where it stands without the noun expressed, but understood; a case of frequent occurrence, and I think always rendered as above. It, therefore, confirms the rule; for the meaning is, he went not into the sepulchre. "Every person who wishes to settle this matter fully should examine all the following places in the Greek Testament, and he will then be able to judge whether the foregoing rule is correct or not. Eis is used before both the verb and the noun in the following passages." Here are given 248 quotations. 'Many instances occur like John xx. 4, 5, where eis stands before the verb, without the noun. In this case, generally, if not always, it means in. We give every instance of the kind found in Matthew, namely―vii. 13; viii. 8; ix. 25; xii. 45; xxii. 11-12; xxiii. 1-14; xxvi. 58. Before the noun, and without the verb and prepositions, as in the cases just given, it is more frequently translated, in the New Testament, to or unto than into. And it may be justly doubted whether it should ever be rendered into in this case, except when the action is involuntary. A few places appear to be exceptions; yet these, when closely examined, appear to speak of action in some degree involuntary or constrained. "In the same position ek equally conforms to the rule. A literary correspondent, who has sifted this subject to the bottom, writes thus to me I have arrived at the following conclusion, that the idea of voluntary action into a place or thing is never conveyed without either en or eis in connection with the verb; and the same may be said of ek. From all the investigation which I have made, the following is the result, namely-eis standing alone, as a governing preposition, never means into, whether in its connection with the verb or noun, but before the verb invariably means in; and sometimes before the noun it means the same, when there is no preposition connected with the verb; yet generally, in this relation, it means to or unto, but never into. Ek, before the verb, almost, or quite invariably, means out of; and when before the noun, it means of or from. Thus, when connected, the idea is out of or out from, as the case may be; not necessarily out of, as might appear to some.' In Matt. iii. 16, we read, 'Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water.' The preposition here rendered out of, is apo. In the New Testament this is redered from, 405 times, and out of, only 63 times. These matters of fact have a direct tendency to break the strongest prop of exclusive immersion, close communion, and water regeneration. Nor should we cease in our efforts until we get them fully before the public; for even those who have no knowledge of Greek may form a tolerably good idea of the correctness of the rule, if they will examine all the abovenoted passages in the English Testament. The above-noted passages are supposed to be all the places in the Greek, where either of the two prepositions accompanies the verb, and in the same connection also stands before the noun; ek is found about 70 times with the verb and noun, or pronoun, and dia, or some other preposition with it; with the verb alone, 523 times, and in its separate relation, 894 times. The examination of this subject has fully convinced us that no Greek grammar, which we have seen, explains the great force and delicate propriety of the prepositions in composition. Will some friend to religion and science supply this desideratum ?” JOHN THATCHER. Lawrenceville, Ill. Nov. 21, 1848. Here follow one hundred and fortyfive instances of eis, before both the whole New Testament, and eighteen verb and noun, gathered from the cases of eis before the verb and pronoun; of ek, or ex, seventy-six instances are given of the first case, and nine of the latter. These are said to be all the instances found in the New Testament. en says Mr. Thatcher and his dorsers, Western Christian Advocates -"When the inspired writers intend to express, with certainty, voluntary No scholar or critic in the Greek language ever propounded such a rule. It is an ex post facto law, made for a dilemma, for a special and peculiar case. We have, indeed, in our lan-motion into a place, they put the preguage, and in ancient tongues, rules position eis before the verb and the respecting verbs indicating motion, noun or pronoun." Shall we say and verbs indicating rest, but not one that the inspired writers did not here in any language known to me, and I intend to express voluntary motion presume to say, known to any man, into heaven, or involuntary motion into respecting verbs of voluntary or in- hell! But if motion voluntary and voluntary motion, as changing the involuntary is here set forth, and in meaning of prepositions in construc- a thousand parallel passages, by idention with them. Το say that if a tically the same construction, what man went into water with his will, comes of the new Greek law-makers we must have before the term water, of the nineteenth century. This disone preposition; but if he went into covery will greatly subserve the cause water against his will, we must have of Universalianism, for it leads the another, is as baseless a figment as saints into heaven, and sends the ever entered into the brain of any wicked to, but not into hell. If there linguist or metaphysician inscribed were a Universalian college in Chrison the rolls of literary fame. tendom, would it not honor the discoverer of the true syntax of "inspired Greek," with a new title! But this is an age of discovery, as well as an age of improvement; and we are prepared to receive anything new, provided only it is a discovery or an invention made by any one of the Anglo-Saxon blood. And for ought I know, the Rev John Thatcher, of Illinois, may yet receive the degree of L.L.D. for this new and brilliant discovery in aid of infant affusion. But as even in California, it is not all gold that glitters, we must not think that it is all philosophy, philology, or sound theology that is either sprinkled or dubbed with literary honors by ex parte boards of scholastic fame. But to be grave on such a grave occasion, may I ask common sense, to say nothing of uncommon sense, baptized in Grecian fountains, for what reason should we change the common version of the 46th verse of the 25th chapter of Matthew, which reads "And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal," into-" These shall go away to everlasting punishment but the righteous into eternal life ?" The new divinity of this new school will say, according to the new doctors, by all means change it; for, The author of this new discovery seems to have forgotten that, as in our language, so in Greek, verbs of motion require after them prepositions indicating what is implied in the verb, without any regard to the will of him that uses the preposition. For example-we cannot, willing or unwilling, enter in a house, or enter in a contract; but must enter into both. Nor could Mr. Thatcher himself, with all his Greek to help him, sit into a chair, or repose into a bed. Without any assistance from either, he might sit in a chair, or even sleep in a pulpit. But he will say that he could go to bed, as well as into bed—and I will say, if he only go to bed and not into it, he cannot, for his life, sleep in it. So he may go to the water, but unless he go into it, he never can be baptized, with all his Latin, Greek, and Hebrew to help him. It appears to me that these zealous scribes were too hasty in presenting this free-will offering to the world. It is too obvious that they have had but a sprinkling" of ill-digested Greek. They have never been bap tized into "inspired" or uninspired Greek. The error into which they fall appears at the very threshold of the criticism they have endorsed. It appears in all its nudity immediately on propounding their new rule. In their first illustration they develope the lurking sophism which infatuates their whole performance. Reader, if you can, ponder their first example:"Eis-elthe eis to tameion"-"Enter into thy closet." "Here," say they, "eis stands before both the verb elthe, enter, and the noun tameion, closet; and, therefore, should be into." They translate elthe by the English word enter, but for this they have no authority whatever ! Elthe means come, and the eis, of which they say so much, when prefixed to elthe, or to its root erchomai, means to come into, or to enter. This philological fact never seems to have entered," their heads. Their rule is annihilated by this single fact. 66 "went into ;" and erchomai is found seven hundred and eleven times, but is never by itself translated by the word enter. Twice only eis is added to it in construction, and in both cases it is translated enter! Such an uniformity in such frequent usage is seldom found in any language, living or dead. If any thing be wanting to dissipate to the winds this effort at criticism, it may be found in the philological analysis and history of the word into. It is from the French entre, and that is from the Roman intro. Enter is, then, but an anglicized form of the Roman intro, through the French entre; and hence, to come in, is its essential as well as its universal acceptation. The reason why an eis frequently follows the verb eiserchomai is, to one not very conversant with the Greek idiom, very evident. Prepositions are words prefixed to nouns and pronouns after verbs, to show the relation between the verb and these nouns or pronouns. Now as eis commonly indicates motion towards, as en intimates repose, it is proper that after the verb enter, and before the following noun or pronoun, a preposition indicating the relation between the actor, the action, and the thing acted upon, should be placed before it. Thus, John entered into the house. They both went down into the water. They both came up out of the water. They talk of an eis before the verb, and an eis following the verb, and preceding the following noun or pronoun, and yet have not given one instance of the kind in the one hundred and forty-five examples of which some one hundred and twenty are of the single verb eiserchomai. They speak of eis placed before the verb, and yet render the verb without the eis, as though it were no part of it. With them, eis elthe and elthe are equally indicated by the word enter! Now had they perceived the great philological fact that compound verbs, for the most part, have both a regimen and a meaning corresponding with the words in composition with them, they could not have so imposed upon them-scholar, when asked what part of selves and the community. Few linguists speak of a preposition as being placed before a verb when incorporated with it, and when giving meaning to the radical part of the compound. Classical scholars never speak in this style. What speech is eiserchomai, would say that it is not one, but two parts of speech, a preposition and a verb! We cannot, in conformity with any usage, English, Greek, or Latin, approve either the rule or the style of our Illinois philologists. But before exhausting all the philology and spirit of the first rule, let us glance for a moment at the second. The style of this new school of criticism would lead us to suppose that it is only sometimes "the inspired writers intend to express, with certainty, voluntary motion into a place, but when they do so, they put the preposition eis before both the verb and the noun or pronoun." And when they express to, or unto, or some kindred relation, they put eis only before the noun or pronoun. The first example of this rule which they adduce is Poreuesthe ers to pur to aioonion. “ Eis, only," says our philologist, "is put before the noun because the action is involuntary or constrained," &c. In this case eis means, not into, but to or unto, because the "inspired writers do not intend, with certainty, to express voluntary motion into a place," but only to or unto a place. This ought to be a very popular doctrine with those who only fear hell, and care little for heaven. This construction is most comfortable to such persons, because they only go to the environs of eternal fire-they just go unto it, not into it—for it is discovered here only to express involuntary motion! A vote of thanks or a gold medal ought to be voted as a reward to the discoverers of this grand secret—who have discovered when the Apostles intend to express with certainty, voluntary or involuntary motion-when they would lead our minds only to, and not into a place. Methinks I hear a "still small voice," saying dismiss these critics, and divulge no farther the secrets of this philology, else all wicked men will become converts to it. it. So, then, the illusion is dissipated; for if to hell, with them, means into hell-then, to the water, with us, means into the water. And as these doctors are very involuntary in their progress into the water, and we can bring them only to it, but not into it, we shall attempt to convince them, their new rules to the contrary notwithstanding, that it is but a quibble from first to last. 66 I care not to expose, in a very grave style, their criticism upon "from," and "out of," as the rule I am about to apply to their to and unto will suit both cases. While conceding that there is more definiteness and precision, on many occasions, in preferring "into" to " in," and "out of," to "from," yet, in common usage we as often-nay, I might say more frequently-use to than into, and from than out of, while we mean, and are understood to mean, into and out of. Take an example from a passage in an obsolete document, now lying on my table : — "On returning from America to London, our minister made a short visit to Paris, and while there went to Versailles. He was there introduced to a minister from Madrid, from whom he learned that special ministers had been sent from the principal capitals in Europe to Vienna, to negotiate matters of great interest to the pacification of Europe." Need I show that "to London,' 'to Paris," "to Versailles," "to Vienna," mean into these cities? Or need I prove that from America, from Madrid, from the Capitals of Europe do not mean from their gates or boundaries, but out of their midst ? Nay, the phrases every day occurring, in all circles of society, when con 99.66 But, after all, there is a large class of common sense readers who will say—to what end all this expositionsidered, are of this sort" John went or controversy? It is wholly a work of supererogation. It is unnecessary. Why? forsooth! Because the methodistic philologists concede that involuntary motion is expressed by to and unto, and that these are sufficient to send the wicked to hell, if not into to town, and returned to his house in one hour." Did he not go into the town, and enter into his house? "William went to the garden, and Thomas to the field." Did neither of them enter into these precincts? "John has returned from the orchard, Wil |