way

of convenience. There are two circumstances particularly mentioned in this baptism.

First, their going into the water.

Second, Philip's baptizing the Eunuch.

The first is the pivot upon which the system of immersion turns; namely, "Philip and the Eunuch went down into the water." It is from this fact, that the immersion of the Eunuch is inferred. For, when we demand proof for immersion, they do not refer us to the fact of Philip's baptizing the Eunuch; but to the circumstance of their going down into the water. The reader is, therefore, requested to keep this circumstance singly in view; and he will have it as much affirmed of Philip as it is of the Eunuch; consequently his immersion will be proved as strongly as that of the Eunuch. For, if A. should affirm that W. and X. went both down into the water, certainly B. could, with as much propriety, infer that W. was immersed, as C. to infer that X. was immersed.

But the Baptists reply that Philip baptized the Eunuch. This, however, is deserting their argument. For the argument is, "Philip and the Eunuch went both down into the water;" therefore, that is, because they went down into the water, the Eunuch was immersed. However, if they will desert their argument, and refer us to the fact that Philip baptized the Eunuch, their request shall be granted, and it affords us an incontrovertible demonstration, that they are conscious of an inability

to defend their supposition from the circumstance of going into the water. We are,, therefore, willing that they shall have recourse to Philip's baptizing the Eunuch. But before they can receive any aid from this fact, they must first prove that baptism means immersion exclusively, and that the Eunuch could not be baptized in any other way. way. And this they cannot do, unless they prove that the term baptism is improperly used by the Holy Spirit. And should they attempt this, they would not succeed well with those who regard the authority of the Holy Spirit, and understand what he has said to the churches. Thus we see that they stand divested of their argument, and we are not so guilty of a quibble as they at first supposed.

But it is asked, Why did they go into the water for baptism? This is just as we said, first ask, and then infer. Besides, the question assumes for a fact, what is not granted, namely, that they went into the water for baptism, whereas they might have gone into it, merely for convenience. Hence let us also assume the right of inference, and say that they just stepped into the water, in order to obtain it more easily. To say the least of this inference, it is as well supported by this passage as it now reads, as that of the Baptists, if not better.

But it is not granted that they did go into the water. It must be observed that Philip and the Eunuch were both in the carriage, it was therefore necessary that they should get out of the carriage and

go down to the water; and this is all that can be proved that they went only to the water. For, thus it may be rendered, "They both descended to the water." Mr. M. is very positive and bold in his assertion that they did go into the water. But this is no surprising thing; for, when his arguments fail him, he must have recourse to confident assertion-he has no other way to sustain his system. And I do assert, in defiance of his criticism, that it cannot be proved that they did so much as wet their feet in the water. The whole weight of the argument rests upon the Greek preposition EIS, which, all who know any thing of Greek, know to be differently rendered in different places. Although Mr. Merril knows this assertion to be true, yet he says it is not a "literary" one. I will briefly notice his remarks upon it, that the reader may see how his cause labors. "It is, therefore, not a very literary declaration, for any one to assert that Greek prepositions which occupy a particular station, and express a particular relation in a Greek sentence, may, when the sentence is translated, be themselves translated into one English preposition as well as into another."* Thus, he will not allow that "Greek prepositions-in a Greek sentence, may be translated into one English preposition as well as into another, when the sentence is translated."

Now let us compare what he says with what he

*Go. Ch, Vin. p. 140.

does. "With regard to the one," namely, the bap tism of the Holy Spirit, "every Greek scholar, who has attended to the subject, knows that it might be more literally rendered baptism ry the Holy Ghost, than WITH."* which he says is not literary. He has translated a Greek preposition "into one English preposition as well as another." This privilege he finds very convenient for himself in one page, and therefore assumes it; but in the very next, he finds it inconvenient, and hence he sharply reprimands it, and refuses to grant it to another; and well he may, for should he grant the privileges he takes, his system of immersion would soon be immersed. Surely, that cause must labor greatly, which cannot be supported without such inconsistencies.

Here he has done that very thing

The passage to which he refers is in Mark i. 8. "He shall baptize you EN with the. Holy Ghost.” Now I do assert, that "every Greek scholar, who has attended to the subject," does not "know that it might be more literally rendered baptized in the Holy Ghost, than WITH." For, the Greek preposition EN used in this place, is often used to express, by the word following, the means, or way, by, or in, which any thing is done. unto you EN with a rod?"

Thus: "Shall I come Now, according to Mr.

M. this passage would read thus: "Shall I come to

* Gos. Ch. Vin. p. 139. a 1 Cor. iv. 21.

you in a rod ?" Who sees not the absurdity of such rendering?

Although the "radical signification of EN is in;" yet it is not always used in this sense by the Holy Spirit, who certainly knew how to select words to express his meaning. It is frequently used to express the means, way or instrument, by or in which an action is performed. And so was it employed by John the Baptist. Hence the passage is properly rendered, "He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost."

It has been remarked that the "preposition EN is more than a hundred times in the New Testament rendered at—and in a hundred and fifty others, it is translated with." It is sometimes rendered by, as in 1 John v. 6. Jesus came EN by (not in) water and blood. Here EN is used to signify the same thing with DIA, which denotes the instrumental cause by, or the manner in which a thing is done.

Again, if it be not a "literary declaration for any one to assert that Greek prepositions-may, when the sentence is translated, be themselves translated into one English preposition as well as into another." Why did Mr. M. make or "assert the declaration ?"" An A. M. ought not to make a declaration which he knows, and publicly declares, is "not literary." If "a Greek preposition which occupies a particular station and expresses a particular rela

* See Buck's Theological Dictionary.