ind perceives it to derive and possess from the word? The nouns, verbs, adjectives, prepositions, &c. the parts of speech of which the word of God consists, are primary and ultimate principles in the christian religion. By these our faith, if it be true, was produced, and into them it must be finally revolved. These are the instruments of our thoughts, as they are the means of our faith, hope, and love in religion. In the investigation, therefore, of any subject of religion, the divine authority of God's word having been ascertained, all that we ought to be concerned about is to learn, by the correct rules of interpretation, the signification of the words and sentences in which it is revealed; and having done this, to be contented with it, and to cultivate and discipline our minds and affections by it.

There is another thing in which you and myself agree; that is, in the high estimation in which we hold Professor Stuart of Andover, whom you have deservedly described in your 3d Fxtra Harbinger, p. 25, as "one of the most learned and most renowned biblical critics now living on this continent;" on whose writings, with those of Michaelis of Gottingen, and Horne of Cambridge, in England, you profess to rely "to do more good to direct the generation to come in the correct interpretation of the words of the New Testament, than, perhaps, any other three men in Europe or America." [Mill. Harb. vol. 2, p. 490.]

From my great anxiety to possess the true meaning of Acts ii, 38. and to be able to reconcile the apparent discrepancy between what was said by Peter to the Pentecostal Jews, in reference to baptism and the remission of sin, as it appears in our common translation, and in your new one, with what occurred at the introduction of the gospel to the Gentiles in Acts x. and as explained in chapter xi. in relation to the same subject; I wrote to Professor Stuart to favor me with his interpretation of the Greek preposition eis, as it is connected with, and follows baptism. He was kind and obliging enough to comply with my request, and sent me his remarks, which I now present to you, and hope that they will conduce much to unite our views on the subject of discussion between us.

He observes, "The word baptize may be followed by a person or a thing, (doctrine) which has eis before it. In the first case, when it is followed by a person, it means, "by the sacred rite of baptism to bind one's self to be a disciple or follower of a person, to receive or obey his doctrines or laws." e. g. 1 Cor. x. 2. "and were baptized into (eis) Moses." Gal. iii. 27. "For as many of you as have been baptized into (eis) Christ, have put on Christ." Rom. vi. 3. "Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into (eis) Christ, were baptized into (eis) his death." 1 Cor. i. 13. "Were ye baptized into (eis) the name of Paul?" v. 14. 15. "I thank God that I baptized none of you but Crispus and Gaius, lest any should say that I had baptized into (eis) mine own name. 9 Or it means to acknowledge him as Sovereign, Lord, and Sanctifier. e. g. Matt. xxviii. 19. "Baptized them into (eis) the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Acts viii. 16. "Only they were baptized into (eis) the name of the

VOL. III.

26

Lord." Acts xix. 5: "When they heard this, they were baptized into (eis) the name of the Lord."

That name is used after eis, as it is in some of the above cases, makes no difference in the sense. In Hebrew, "the name of the God of Jacob defend thee," is just the same as "the God of Jacob defend thee."

-

2. A person may be baptized into a thing (doctrine)-so in Matth. iii. 11. "I baptize you with water into (eis) repentance:" i. e. into the profession and belief of the reality and necessity of repentance, involving the idea that themselves professed to be the subjects of it. In Acts xix. 3, we have "into (eis) one body," all in the like senseviz. by baptism the public acknowledgment is expressed of believing in, and belonging to, a doctrine, or one body. So in Acts ii. 38. "Baptized on account of Jesus Christ into (eis) the remission of sins;" that is, into the belief and reception of this doctrine; in other words, by baptism and profession, and acknowledgment of this doctrine, on account of Jesus Christ, was made."

Professor Stuart has rendered the word eis INTO in Acts ii, 38, as it is done in other places when connected with the ordinance of baptism; and as you have rendered the same word in Matt, xxviii. 19. in the new version, and which you have justified by the authority of Dr. Dwight. See Mill. Harb. vol. 2, No. 5, p. 239.

Mr. Erskine, a living author of reputation, makes the following observations: "I think any person, acquainted with the original Greek, will agree with me in translating Acts ii. 38, differently from our common version. It ought to be "Repent," or rather, "change your minds, and let every one of you be baptized into the doctrine of forgiveness of sins for Christ's sake." To be baptized into a doctrine is the ordinary phraseology of the New Testament. Matth. xxviii. 19. Rom. vi. 3. In Acts ii 38. The Greek preposition eis, which belongs to "the forgiveness of sins," and not that one, epi, which precedes "the name of Jesus Christ," is the preposition, which, in the Greek Testament, usually indicates the direct object of baptism; and thus even attention to grammatical accuracy will conduct us to the conclusion that the true reading is, "Baptized into the doctrine of forgiveness of sins for Jesus Christ's sake," and not "In the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins."

In your 3d note in the Appendix to your second edition of the New Translation, page 452-4, you have a number of remarks on the word eis, when used in connexion with the ordinance of baptism, which are in accordance with the criticism and observations of Professor Stuart and Mr. Erskine. As they illustrate and confirm what they have said, I will transcribe some of them.

You say, "By what inadvertency the King's translators gave eis IN, instead of INro, in Matth. xxviii. 19, and elsewhere gave it IN10, when speaking of the same ordinance, I presume not to say." And permit me to ask, can you say by what inadvertency or authority they gave the same word cis FOR, and Dr. Doddridge and yourself gave it in order to, in Acts ii, 38. in your translation, and elsewhere gave it into, as you have done, and maintain it ought to have been

done by the King's translators when connected with the same ordinance? Was not this owing to inattention to accuracy in translation, that was intended to correct the errors of the old one, in consequence of which much schism and strife have been produced within a few years past on the subject of baptism and remission of sin, and by which remission of sin, through the blood of Christ, by faith, has been thought to be suspended upon the act of immersion, without which a penitent believer cannot be pardoned, justified, converted, or saved? And may not inadvertencies like this, connected with wrong views of Christ's conversation with Nicodemus, have been the cause of the early errors and corruptions in the christian religion which began in the second and third centuries, relative to baptismal regeneration and remission; which, at a subsequent period, having been united with the notion of apostolic succession, produced many of the peculiarities which appear in the writings of Roman Catholic, Protestant, Episcopalian, and other authors?

ness.

In the note above quoted, you observe, that "to be immersed into the name of the Lord Jesus, was a form of speech in ancient usage, as familiar and significant as the expressions were when persons were said to enter into matrimony, to enter into an alliance, &c. And when we analyze these expressions, we find them all import that the persons are either under the obligations or influence of those things into which they were said to enter, or into which they were introduced. Hence those immersed into one body, were under the influences and obligations of that one body;" (and I would say, those immersed into the doctrine of remission of sin, were under the influences of that doctrine, through faith in Jesus.) "Those immersed into Moses assumed Moses as their lawgiver, guide, and protector, and risked every thing upon his authority, wisdom, power, and goodThose who were immersed into Christ, put him on, acknowledged his authority and laws, and were governed by his will; and those who were immersed into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, regarded the Father as the fountain of all authority, the Son as the only Saviour, and the Holy Spirit as the only successful advocate of the truth and teacher of christianity. Pagans, therefore, when immersed into the name of the Father, &c. renounced all the names that were worshipped by the Pagan world-all the saviours in which the Gentiles trusted-and all the inspirations and philosophy of which the heathen boasted. A woman, when she enters into matrimony, assumes the name of her husband, acknowledges him as her lord and master, submits to his will, and looks to him for protection and support. Just so they who are immersed into the name of Christ, assume his name, acknowledge him as Lord and Master, and look to him for support and protection. This view of the matter made Paul thank God when the Christians at Corinth were assuming different names, (one the name of Paul, and another the name of Apollos, &c.) that he had immersed few, or none of them, lest the report should get abroad that he had immersed them into his own name." . JAMES FISHBACK.

Lexington, Ky. Dec. 6, 1831.

REPLY TO JAMES FISHBACK.-No. 1.

BROTHER FISHBACK,

Dear Sir-YOUR letters addressed to me through the Christian Messenger, on the principles of courtesy, call for a reply. Glad would I have been, however, had you not "waved for the present" the review of your letters signed Archippus. Nothing new has yet appeared from your pen, in the new series, as far as I have examined it. You do not appear to take a fair view of the point at issue. You choose rather to make the issue for me, than to meet me on the issue I have proposed. You say, "The essential point of difference between you and me is suggested in the following question: 'Is, or is not, the free favor of God, by which he justifies a believing sinner, or remits his sin, through the blood of Christ, suspended, according to the gospel, upon his being baptized in water?" You defend the affirmative and I maintain the negative side of this question." Such is your statement of the point at issue. Now let me tell you that I maintain the negative too. So we are both agreed! Because, mark me closely, I do admit that a person who believes the gospel, and cannot be im mersed, may obtain remission. So that I cannot take the affirmative and say remission is absolutely suspended upon being baptized in water. Now, Doctor, what comes of your point at issue? I never affirmed what you say I did affirm. Point me to the line that ever fell from my pen, which, in its connexion, affirms such a matter. But if you will have the point at issue, I will give it you in the form of a question. Is, or is not, the favor of God, by which he affords to the believer in the mission and sacrifice of his Son an assurance and the enjoyment of the remission of his former sins, according to the gospel, suspended, or consequent upon his obedience?" You deny and I affirm, unless you call faith itself obedience. But why seek to entrammel me with such questions, and not rather meet me upon my own propositions?

I cannot form such an opinion of your candor as to imagine you wish to treat me as a Quaker treated one of your Calvinian brethren on "faith alone." The Quaker asks, "What is faith?" "The belief of testimony, oral or written," was the reply. "And without faith there is no remission," adds the Friend. "No remission!" rejoins the Calvinist. "Well," says the Quaker, "you suspend the favor of God upon ink and paper-upon a printer's fingers-metallic types-or upon wind put in motion by some person's mouth; or, as "faith comes by hearing," on the tongue of a speaker and the fleshly ear of the hearer. What sort of grace is that which is suspended upon such contingencies?-upon flesh and blood, ink and paper, language and translations?-upon voices, tongues, and ears? I go for the spirit, friend. That is the true light and the true grace."

My dear sir, I am sorry to see you run into these ultraisms of reasoning upon the case absolute. Your mind labors under false impressions, if you are fighting against such phantoms. Please read again the documents in the letter of Epaphras, and in the reply in

the antecedent pages, which show what we have from the first taught on this subject.

The translation of Professor Stuart is very good, and the review of it by the Editor of the Christian Messenger is also very good, and shows how futile the comments made upon the import of the phrase "be immersed into the remission of sins." A critic on the text and a commentator upon the meaning of a translation, are two things as distinct as Greek and English.

But we have in our 3d Extra considered this matter fully, and shown that to be immersed into remission fairly implies that they were not in that, into which they had yet to come.

He that is in the house, needs not to go into it. To be baptized into a doctrine without being baptized into the thing set forth in the doctrine, is a metaphysical splitting of subtleties which we have no faculty so refined as to perceive, much less to comprehend.

With all due deference to Professor Stuart, and all other critics, I beg leave to remark, that although into is the literal, and common, and general meaning of eis, and will always make some sense; yet it cannot be always rendered into to do full justice to the original writers. Take a few examples:-Rom. xvi. 6. "Greet Mary, who bestowed much labor eis (into) us;" who labored much for us, I would say. 1 Cor. xvi. 1. "Now concerning the collection eis (into) the saints;" I would say for the saints. 2 Thess. i. 11. "We pray always eis (into) you;" we would say for you. Just so, Mark i. 4. "John did preach the baptism of repentance eis (into) the remission of sins;" for the remission of sins. Acts ii. 38. "Be baptized eis (irto,)" for "the remission of sins." These are a few specimens where for is much more in accordance than into, with our idiom in translating this preposition. "In order to" is still more expressive; and thus Parkhurst would have it sometimes translated. Rom. i. 17. and xvi. 26, From faith in order to faith-in order to the obedience of faith.

With an infinitive mood after it, it must be translated for, or in order to, which shows the great force which the Greeks sometimes put into this preposition. e. g. 1 Cor. x. 6. "For these things were our ensamples (eis) to, to the intent that;" in order that. 1 Cor. xi. 22. "Have you not houses eis (to) for eating in?" or in order to eat in. Ep. i. "That (eis) to, we should be to the praise of his glory;" in order to our being, &c. with many such like occurrences. From these, as well as the foregoing, it appears how much more congenial with the spirit of the context it is to render it for or in order to, than by into, and then to have to explain into by such arbitrary expositions as those resorted to by Messrs. Stuart and Erskine. But if any one will have it into, let him have it into the remission of sins; but he must not foist in the word "doctrine" to help him to explain into; for no authority can be adduced by any man, in Greece or out of it, to show that eis necessarily means doctrine in any writer dead or alive.

My dear sir, I wish you would have the goodness to inform us, in the most literal way you can, what you would have a person immersed for. Every rational being acts from motive; and what is the ar