exaggerated, or insufficient meaning, the simplest sentence may seem to us involved in the deepest obscurity. This, then, is our first business, to ascertain as accurately as possible the meaning of the words which the Spirit of God has chosen as the medium by which the thoughts of God shall be revealed to man. A sufficient degree of attention to this simple direction will render many a passage luminous which now seems hopelessly beyond the reach of our understanding."-Prin. of Bap., p. 247. Dr. A. RANKEN.-"The tendency to error renders study the more necessary to prevent it, or when it does prevail, to distinguish it from the truth."-In Dr. Burns's Cy., vol. i., p. 254. Dr. CARSON.-"To allege probability against the ascertained meaning of a word, is to deny testimony as a source of evidence, for the meaning of testimony must be known from the words used."-In Tes. of Em. Pa., pp. 7, 8. FAMILY TREASURY.-"By contributions to religious literature, or the composition of sacred song, we are raising waymarks' adapted to be of use when the living voice and the consistent example have ceased their teaching. These are footprints on the sands of time.' "Footprints that perhaps another, Thus multitudes, though dead, have not had a bound put to their usefulness in this world, but still exert a mighty influence for good by means of the lettered page. They speak by it, and will do so to the end of time, saying, to the latest generation of men, of the Divinely-appointed path they travelled, 'This is the way; walk ye in it.'"-1860. Page 620. THE Baptist's position does not stand in need of proof or corroboration that baptism is immersion from the prepositions and other words with which the term baptize is invariably associated in inspired and classic writings. It is conceived that, from other sources, overwhelming testimony that baptism is immersion, has been adduced. It is, however, conceived that certain words-and we shall dwell only on those that are to be met with in Holy Writ-are confirmatory of this fact. Not only do we deem objections from every source which we have yet noticed to be of the most futile character, but we are also indisposed to abandon our position, that the words associated with baptism accord with and corroborate other facts and arguments that have been adduced. 1. In regard to the preposition en. So blinded by their prejudices are some of the Pædobaptists, that injustice and falsehood in reasoning have seldom a more prominent and lamentable exhibition than in what some have written respecting the Greek prepositions. Mr. Thorn, having referred to apo, en, eis, and ek, says: "Perhaps the reader will be surprised to learn that in Schleusner's celebrated Lexicon of the Greek Testament, the first is said to have 20 different senses; the second, 36; the third, 26; and the last, 24. Again, the translators of the English Testament have rendered the first by 24 different words; the second, by 32; the third, by 36; and the last, by 32. Finally, the word APO is translated by from 374 times; EN, by at, on, or with, 313 times; Eis, by to or unto, 538 times; and EK, by from, 186 times. And it may be added that learned men deem such to be the current senses of these respective prepositions, especially of the first three of them. With such incontrovertible facts before him, what person of common sense and candour will contend that these words prove the baptized to have been in the water at all?" (p. 9.) He here tells us how many meanings Schleusner has given to these prepositions, but he does not say what is given by Schleusner as the primary meaning of each. Nor does he intimate how often one word is used for another without any change of meaning. For instance, how often do we read of those that were baptized of John. This involves no obscurity in English, although by is the literal rendering of the Greek. In regard to apo, which, Mr. Thorn says, is translated in the common English version by 24 different words, there is no intimation given how often a different word is given with exactly the same sense as if from had been given. For instance, in St. Matthew's Gospel* we read,—“ had his raiment of camel's hair" (iii. 4). We do not object to of as here given; but clearly it has the meaning of from, in accordance with the original. So,-"ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?" (vii. 16.) In this verse once it is rendered by, and twice of: but who does not see that in every instance it might be rendered from, which is the meaning of the original, and indeed the import of our translation? In exactly the same manner it is rendered for in xiv. 26,-"They cried out for fear." And, because of, in xviii. 7: "Woe unto the world because of offences." In xix. 4, we have at given as the rendering of apo, and at, especially according to our punctuation, seems to us preferable to from: yet from is the meaning of the original, and is admissible. "Have ye not read that He who made them from the beginning made them male and female?" So in xxiii. 39, "shall not see me henceforth" is the same as, shall not see me from hence. Again, in xxiv. 21, "not since the beginning," is the same in import as, not from the beginning. In xxvi. 58, and xxvii. 55, "afar off"" is the same as from far. In xxvi. 64, it is rendered after, in the word "hereafter." Ap' arti, literally from now. Also in many places it is rendered "out of," where from might have been used with equal appropriateness. This notice of apo in St. Matthew's Gospel is a proof and specimen of the deception which Mr. Thorn's words are calculated to produce in those unacquainted with Greek, when he says by how many different words apo, en, eis, and ek, are rendered by the translators of the Greek Testament. But for the present, directing our thoughts especially to the preposition en, we, in the most unqualified and emphatic manner, deny the truth of what Mr. Thorn asserts, namely, that learned men deem at, on, or with as the current sense of the preposition en. Instead of being an incontrovertible fact, it is a glaring falsehood. He tells us, too, that it is translated by at, on, or with, 313 times. Also he tells us how often the other prepositions which we have mentioned are translated by certain words; but he does not tell us how often they are translated in the New Testament, or in the translation of other works, by their obvious, primary, and common meaning. He does not tell us that en occurs in the New Testament 2,660 times, and that the English translators have given IN as the rendering 2,045 times. How often it is translated within, among, at, &c., having the sense of in, as in the expressions, "within yourselves,' "among themselves," "among the people," "at that time," &c., from the want of time having not examined, we are not able to say. It is in various instances rendered with and by, where the sense of in, conveyed by the original word, is apparent. He "spake unto them again by * We have not examined the other parts of the New Testament, and, consequently, we have not tested whether Mr. Thorn's statements are correct or not respecting the various numbers given. Our quotations from Mr. T., except otherwise specified, are from his tract, Dipping not Baptizing. parables" (Matt. xxii. 1). And, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind" (ver. 37). Also in the sense of in, we read, "On the feast-day" (xxvi. 5). "On the Sabbath day" (xxiv. 20). "All ye shall be offended because of Me this night" (lit., in Me, in this night). "Though all men shall be offended because of Thee," &c. (Lit., in Thee, &c.) And yet though in is in many instances the undoubted sense of en, where our translators have given other words, and though our translators have given the word in as the translation of en more than 2,000 times out of the 2,660 instances of its occurrence, Mr. Thorn can speak of it as an incontrovertible fact, that learned men deem at, on, or with as the current sense of en! As a specimen of the occurrence and rendering of en, we give the following from the second chapter of Matthew's Gospel. "In Bethlehem," "in the days" (ii. 1); "in the east" (ver. 2); "in Bethlehem" (ver. 5); 66 among the princes" (ver. 6); "in the east (ver. 9); "in Bethlehem and in all the coasts" (ver. 16); "in Rama" (ver. 18); "in Egypt" (ver. 19). In the first chapter in John en occurs 14 times, and in every instance excepting one, in which it is rendered " among, it is rendered in. If en hudati ought to be translated with water, why do we not find it in any of those places where indisputably an action performed upon an object with the element, is spoken of; as when we read, "Wash His feet with tears . . . anointed them with the ointment" (Luke vii. 38). "Fill the waterpots with water" (John ii. 7). "He sprinkled, likewise, with blood, both the tabernacle," &c. (Heb. ix. 21.) "The world that then was being overflowed with water" (2 Peter iii. 6). Or if en, when in construction with baptizo ought to be translated with, then we must read, "John did baptize (en) with the wilderness" (Mark i. 4), "and were all baptized of him (en) with the river of Jordan" (i. 5). "And John also was baptizing (en) with Enon" (John iii. 23). And should en mean with after bapto, we must read: "He that dippeth his hand with Me with the dish" (Matt. xxvi. 23). We do not deny that en sometimes means with; but we maintain that compared with the meaning in, these are very rare occurrences, most exceptional cases. We believe that there is not a lexicon in existence which does not give in as the genuine and primary meaning of en; and that there is not a learned man in the world who will not admit that in may be designated as THE meaning of en. We are aware that lexicons give additional meanings to en, as they give many meanings to every word occurring so frequently; and we are aware that some learned Pædobaptists advocate the rendering with in some exceptional cases to which we object. These are cases where the rendering with, somewhat obscures immerse as the import of baptizo. Dr. Halley says: "As to the preposition en, which is employed in construction with this verb, it so frequently denotes the instrument in the language of the New Testament, that it is more natural thus to construe it, even in phrases where in the Attic dialect such a construction might not be allowed. When the dative case is employed without the preposition, no other version ought to be admitted without necessity" (p. 325). Mr. Stacey speaks of ego hudati baptizo and ego baptizo en hudati as We are having the same grammatical force, and being equally rendered, "I baptize with water;" and of any other sense as being "inappropriate," or "inadmissible" (p. 199). He asserts "that en does frequently assign to the substantive the office of an instrument in the production of a certain effect," and then quotes Matt. xxii. 37; Luke xxii. 49; Rom. xvi. 16; x. 9, 10; xii. 21; 1 Cor. vi. 20; James iii. 9; and Rev. xiii. 10; on some of which passages he comments. Then he undauntingly says: "No permission, therefore, is asked, no licence is required, for the translation of en hudati, with water. Common usage and strict grammatical authority are a sufficient justification" (p. 200). Just as if he had on his side both common usage and strict grammatical authority, when he has proved and can prove neither one nor the other. The giving of his quotations from Scripture in some of which in would accord with the English idiom as well as with, without a single hint respecting the frequency with which it is used in what is universally known to be its genuine and primary meaning, is too much in imitation of Mr. Thorn. Whatever might be designed, the inevitable tendency of this, and of much more, is to deceive the ignorant and the unwary. happy to agree with him, that en hudati is in several places so contrasted with en pneumati as to require precisely the same construction. why does he add, "But baptism with, and not into the Spirit, is the plain and natural meaning of the second part of the passage; hence baptism with and not into water is the just and obvious version of the first" (p. 201). We cannot conceive why he thus misrepresents the Baptists, except from some Pædobaptist author who has done the same before him, whom he ignorantly follows, and thus both are brought more easily to the conclusion that "the water must be applied to the person, and not the person be put into the water" (p. 201). Who is the Baptist that has translated en pneumati, into the Spirit, or en hudati, into water? or has pleaded for such a translation? We affirm before the most learned, and before the men that have the least acquaintance with the Greek language, that "the plain and natural meaning" of en pneumati is neither with the Spirit nor into the Spirit, but IN THE SPIRIT; and that "the plain and natural meaning" of en hudati, is neither with water, nor into water, but IN WATER. Nothing but blinding prejudice could lead a good man, of the logical acumen of Mr. S., so to misrepresent his brethren, and to confound things which differ. But The Rev. D. Fraser asserts: "Whatever appearance of countenance the word baptizo, and the much water at Ænon, and that we are buried by baptism, may be regarded as giving to immersion, assuredly the prepositions give none; but, on the contrary, in the strongest possible manner indicate that baptism was administered by sprinkling" (On Bap., p. 36). The prepositions which, literally rendered, teach that John baptized in water, in the Jordan, into the Jordan, "in the strongest possible manner" indicate that baptism is sprinkling! But after these strong assertions it may be prudent, and of some importance, to adduce, in order to the more satisfactory illustration of our position, and proof of our truthfulness, what some others have written on this subject. In adducing these concessions we might acknowledge that some of our opponents are beyond our hope of convic tion. The learned and candid Presbyterian professor, Dr. G. Campbell, has before been referred to as charging our translators for rendering the above-mentioned phrases "with water" and "with the Spirit," instead of "in water" and "in the Spirit," with inconsistency, and with paying less deference to the Divine original than popish translators have paid to the Vulgate translation. These charges by Dr. C. may well lead us, as well as himself, to regret "that even good and learned men allow their judgments to be warped by the sentiments and customs of the sects which they prefer" (See before, pp. 122, 123). This undoubted primary meaning of en has led eminent Pædobaptists in some instances to correct the Authorized English Version when the translators have unnecessarily departed from it. Thus Dr. J. Brown, in his Analyt. Expo. of Romans, translates Rom. vi. 11, "in our Lord Jesus Christ." Dr. Wardlaw says: "The expression in Col. ii. 12, is 'buried with Him in baptism' (en to baptismati); yet in Rom. vi. 4, it is different: buried with Him by baptism into His death,' (dia tou baptismatos eis ton thanaton autou" (On Inf. Bap., p. 139). Hence 1 Cor. xvi. 14, where our version gives for en agape "with charity," is corrected to "in love," by Doddridge, Bengel, Wakefield, Hodge, Sharpe, Conybeare and Howson, and T. Lewin, not to mention more. Hence the repeated instances, and sometimes invariably, of in water as the rendering of en hudati in versions that preceded the authorized one. On similar passages so rendered, a similar correction is common. Hence Dr. J. A. Alexander: "Baptized with the Holy Ghost... With, literally in the Holy Ghost" (Com.; on Acts i. 5). Even though he preposterously leaps to the conclusion that, because the Spirit was poured out on the day of Pentecost and there was a baptism of the Spirit, therefore pouring is baptism. Meyer says: "En is, in accordance with the meaning of baptizo (immerse), not to be understood instrumentally, but, on the contrary, as in, in the sense of the element wherein the immersion takes place" (Com. on N. T.; on Matt. iii. 11). Dr. E. Robinson, in his lexicon under baptizo, gives hudati without the preposition, with water, in Luke iii. 16; Acts i. 5; xi. 16; but immediately adds: "Elsewhere with en hudati, IN water, Matt. iii. 11; Mark i. 8; John i. 26, 31, 33. Comp. Matt. iii. 6; en to Iordane." See also previous pages 120-122. The Rev. Jas. Hervey, addressing the Rev. J. Wesley, says: "I am ready to grant that places may be found where the preposition en must be understood according to your sense; [that is, with:] but then every one knows that this is not the native, obvious, literal meaning; rather a meaning swayed, influenced, moulded by the preceding or following word." "He will not allow the Greek preposition en to signify in; though I can prove it to have been in peaceable possession of this signification for more than two thousand years."-Letters to Mr. J. Wesley, pp. 26, 322. Also in connection with all these prepositions, as well as with all the other Greek words of which we speak, let the following rules of interpretation, which are quoted approvingly by Mr. Booth from Dr. Williams, not be overlooked, namely: "That similar renderings should be given to similar phrases in the same connection;-that we are to consider |