DR. BROADDUS ON BAPTISM FOR REMISSION OF SINS.

There are few, if any, Baptist preachers in the United States of higher reputation for scholarship than Dr. John A. Broaddus, of the Theological Seminary at Greenville, in South Carolina. He had recently contributed a series of articles to the columns of the Religious Herald, conducted by Dr. J.B. Jeter, on the merits of the new version by the American Bible Union. In one of these he treats of “The Prepositions used with Baptize,” and makes it the occasion of the most ingenious, and at the same time the most candid, argument against baptism for remission of sins that has come under my eye at any time. This is the most vital question at issue between the Baptists and the Disciples, and until it is settled there is no probability of either union or fraternal co-operation between them. They must become convinced that we are right on this subject, or we that they are right, before full fraternity can exist. The question can not therefore be ignored, but the issue must be fought out till a coming generation shall find it a settled question. It is gratifying to see men of learning and candor take hold of the question; for by them alone can the real merits of the argument pro and con be exhibited. The readers of the Quarterly will therefore feel gratified that I lay the article of Dr. Broaddus before them, and invite them to examine it very carefully.

“For the Religious Herald.

“THE REVISED NEW TESTAMENT.

“THE PREPOSITIONS USED WITH BAPTIZE.

“In considering the changes made by the revisers in rendering the prepositions used with baptize, the following passages remain, which it is convenient to put together.

“Matt. iii., 11: ‘I indeed baptize you with water (revised version, ‘in water’) unto repentance.’ Mark i., 4: ‘John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance of the remission of sins.’ Revised version, ‘unto remission of sins.’ (Likewise Luke iii., 3.) Acts ii., 38: ‘Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.’ Revised version: ‘Repent, and be each of you immersed, upon the name of Jesus Christ, unto remission of sins.’

“It is certainly an improvement that the preposition (eis) should be in all these passages translated by the same word, unto. And this word comes nearer than any other to expressing the various senses which the Greek preposition (with its case) may in such [403] phrases convey. The preposition, strictly speaking, has the same force in these expressions that it has everywhere else, viz., that an object comes, or is brought, to be in, within, some other object or state. In Greek, the accusative case helps to express this. In English, having lost the case, we help ourselves by saying to in, or into. When used with some noun which does not denote a locality, but is figurative, expressing an ideal state, relation, etc., still eis has the same force, signifying that a person, or an action is, as it were, brought and put within the limits of this noun, restricted to this state, relation or object. From the very nature of the idea thus denoted, this form of expression will be most commonly applied to nouns expressing an aim, design, result, and the like. But it is not always so. Thus in Acts xxv., 20, Festus says: ‘And I, being perplexed in regard to (eis) the dispute about these things,’ etc. His perplexity is described as, so to speak, brought and put within the limits of the dispute about these matters, an idea which we express by such phrases as ‘with reference to,’ ‘regarding,’ etc. In Matt. xii., 41, Jesus says of the Ninevites that ‘they repented at (eis) the preaching of Jonah.’ Their repenting is, as it were, put within the limits of the preaching of Jonah, especially referring to that. But in what more precise sense? From the natural relations between repenting and preaching, it would be almost impossible to suppose that some persons repented in order that another man might preach. We could hardly imagine it to mean anything else than that they repented with reference to his preaching as the occasion, very well expressed in English by at. And when we look to the known facts of history, it becomes certain that such was the case, and such must be the meaning.

“How, then, are we to decide, in any such use of eis with some noun expressing a figurative state, relations, etc., what is the more precise idea intended to be conveyed? In three ways. First, from the natural relations existing between the person or action in question and the something to which it is thus restricted. Second, from the connection in which the statement stands, or the facts of the case as known from other sources. Third, when the subject-matter is theological, we must, of course, look also to the general teachings of Scripture, and ask which of the possible relations between this person or action and this noun is in accordance with the general teachings of Scripture on the subject involved. This last is but one application of the well-known rule that the meaning of doubtful or indefinite passages is to be determined by a regard to the general teaching of the Bible.

“Now take the passage, ‘I indeed baptize you in water unto (eis) repentance.’ As to the natural relations between things, it is altogether possible, to a mind inclined to ritualism, to suppose that baptism should be performed in order that men might repent, as a [404] means of inducing them, or pledging them, to repent. But the facts of the case are here conclusive. John required men to repent, required a profession that they did repent, before he would baptize them. And it is more according to the general teachings of Scripture, as evangelical Christians understand it, to think that a ceremony was to be the method of avowing repentance than the means of securing it. When this is met by translating metanoia, not repentance, but reformation, we have only to say that such is not its meaning. Dr. George Campbell wished to get away from the common error that repentance is merely sorrow, and he went in the opposite extreme. This could be easily proven, but it is supposed that no man well acquainted with Greek would now question it. So when John speaks of his baptizing as performed eis, that is within the limits of repentance, the most common use of the preposition would lead us, at first sight, to suspect that repentance was presented as the end in view, the design, of the baptism; the natural relations between the two would admit of this as possible; but the facts of the case, as gathered from the connection and the general teachings of Scripture on the subject, lead us strongly to prefer the other possible relation, viz., that the baptizing referred to their repentance as its ground or reason.

“Again: take the phrase, ‘baptize * * * unto remission of sins,’ as above in Mark, Luke, Acts. The baptizing is described as, so to speak, brought and put within the limits of the remission of sins, specially confined to remission of sins. In what more precise sense? We should at first expect, because that is the more common use of eis with figurative nouns, that it would be in the sense of design or aim, in order to remission of sins. As to the natural relations between baptizing and remission of sins, such a thing is possible, and indeed very much in accordance with the general disposition of man, in every age, to make the spiritual depend on the external. Looking to the connection in which the statement is found, we find nothing to settle the question. We notice, to be sure, that it is not simply, ‘baptize * * * unto remission,’ but in every case repentance is mentioned also, ‘the baptism of repentance * * * unto remission,’ ‘repent and be baptized * * * unto remission;’ yet this is not conclusive against the interpretation stated, because the grammatical construction more naturally connects ‘unto remission’ with baptism or baptize, than with that and repentance or repent also. When we turn to our remaining means of determining, viz., the general teachings of Scripture, we find these decidedly and positively opposed to the idea that baptism should be the means of securing remission of sins, cutting at the root, as that idea would, of Paul’s great and favorite doctrine that justification, which includes remission, proceeds from faith, apart from works of law. [405]

“Grant, then, that to understand ‘unto remission,’ as in order to remission, would be following the most common use of the preposition; grant that it gives a perfectly possible sense, and one which mankind will readily adopt; yet, if such a view would bring us into direct conflict with the general teachings of Scripture on the subject, we must abandon it, if there be any other possible and natural relation between baptism and remission which is not liable to this fatal objection. Two such explanations are possible and appropriate. First, we may understand as in ‘repented eis the preaching of Jonah,’ ‘baptize eis repentance,’ that ‘baptize eis remission of sins’ presents this as the ground or reason of baptism. This is a less common sense of eis and the accusative, but it is an actual one, absolutely necessary in the first of the passages just quoted, and greatly the most appropriate in the other, and sustained by additional usage, as intimated above. Second, we may understand, ‘unto remission,’ as connected in the construction with repentance as well as baptism, and that remission of sins is the aim or design, not strictly of the baptism, but of repentance, which is commanded and expected shall be indicated and avowed by baptism. This view would correspond to the natural and common explanation of ‘he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.’ The second interpretation has the advantage of retaining the more common use of eis, and the disadvantage of connecting ‘repentance’ and ‘repent’ with ‘unto remission,’ which is perfectly possible, but, as already remarked, less natural to the grammatical construction; also of explaining that the baptism itself only represents or declares what it is really the repentance that secures; this, however, in a way parallel to the meaning of the commission.

“As to the choice between the first and second interpretations, Baptists are divided, and are likely to be, seeing that each view has advantages and disadvantages. A similar divergence of opinion exists with regard to ‘born of water and the Spirit,’ where, setting aside as unscriptural the ritualistic view, which makes baptism absolutely indispensable to salvation, some of us hold that there is in the passage no reference to baptism at all, while others understand ‘born of water’ as meaning baptism, but at once we proceed to show that this does not make baptism an invariable and indispensable condition of salvation. Upon the choice between two methods of interpretation we may consent to disagree, when the practical conclusion reached is the same.

“When speaking to truly devout persons, who hold that in the above passages ‘unto remission’ signifies ‘in order to remission,’ and who infer that there is no remission of sins until one is baptized, I should beg them to consider whether it is not dangerous and wrong to build a huge inverted pyramid of doctrine upon the merely [406] preferred interpretation of two or three passages, while in direct conflict with the general tenor of Scripture. The whole fabric of Campbellism rests upon these passages; and it must be shown, not merely that they may mean what is claimed by its advocates, but that they must have that meaning, or the structure has no solid foundation. That this can not possibly be shown is certain to my own convictions, and I trust has been made tolerably plain by the above imperfect statement.

“I repeat that the adoption of the revisers of unto throughout these passages is a decided improvement. Unto is probably derived from on to, and in Anglo-Saxon on was frequently interchanged with in. At any rate, unto is now quite commonly a better rendering of eis than into, where the noun has not a local, but a figurative sense. Other instances of it occurred in the article of last week.

“Greenville,S.C.
J. A. B.”

It will be observed that in this article the writer sets out by heartily indorsing the renderings of the preposition eis which appear in the Bible Union version. These are, specially: “I indeed immerse you in water unto repentance;” “John did baptize in the wilderness and preach the immersion of repentance unto the remission of sins;” “Repent, and be each of you immersed, upon the name of Jesus Christ, unto remission of sins.” The writer declares: “It is certainly an improvement that the preposition (eis) should be in all these passages translated by the same word, unto.” He does not seem here to have weighed very accurately the force of the term which he so highly approves. In the last paragraph of his article he endeavors to express the exact force of unto, and says it was probably derived from on to. It is more likely that the prefix un has here its usual significance of not as in unnatural, uncommon, etc.; and when prefixed to the preposition to, indicated an approach near to, but not quite to, an object. But waiving this, as immaterial to the present issue, and taking the criticism given as the correct one, we proceed to inquire whether it really suits the purpose of Dr. Broaddus as well as he seems to think. If the meaning of the preposition is on to, then the action of the verb preceding it must of necessity bring its subject on to the object. It is not on the object before the action; it is on it after the action, and it is brought on to its object by the action of the verb. In the case in hand, baptism is the action, and remission of sins is the object, while penitent believers are the subjects of the action. Now if the penitent believers are baptized on to remission of sins, they were not on it before baptism, but it is the baptism which has brought them on to it. The baptism takes place first, and the remission of sins is the point gained by the baptism, the platform on to which baptism elevates us. Nothing can be clearer than this. Yet this is precisely what the Disciples teach, and precisely what the Baptists do not teach, and what Dr. Broaddus does not believe. [407]

If, now, we take the other, and what I conceive to be the more probable meaning of unto, baptism unto remission would bring its subject close up to the enjoyment of that blessing, but not into it. It would leave remission of sins still unattained, after the baptism had been performed, instead of throwing it back, as the Doctor evidently desires, to a period antecedent to the baptism.

Such is the force of the chosen term unto, not only as it appears to the critical eye, but as it must forever appear to the eye of the common reader. So long as the common reader’s Bible declares that we are baptized unto remission of sins, so long must he feel, in spite of all learned explanation to the contrary, that baptism brings him to remission. There is far less ambiguity in this term than there is in the preposition for; it expresses the thought for which we contend almost to precision, while it is entirely irreconcilable with the interpretation adopted by the Baptists. The chief objection to it is the fact that it is unquestionably obsolete. Webster says of it: “It is not in our mother tongue, nor is it used in popular discourse, or in modern writings. It is therefore to be rejected as obsolete and not legitimate.” How the authors of the Bible Union version could reconcile it with one of their own rules of translation, which requires the ideas of the Scriptures to be expressed in the language of the present day, it is difficult to see; and how so discriminating a scholar as Dr. Broaddus should approve it I can account for only upon the well-known disposition of men to jump eagerly after any refuge from great distress and pain; for sure I am that every man who denies that baptism to a penitent believer is in order to remission of sins must very often feel seriously pained by the expressions on the subject which appear in the common translation.

We next call attention to the Doctor’s effort to state the exact force of the Greek preposition eis, of which unto is, in his estimation, so happy a translation. He says: “The preposition, strictly speaking, has the same force in these expressions that it has everywhere else; viz., that an object comes, or is brought to be in, or within, some other object or state.” Here again the Doctor is unfortunate; for this definition is as far from suiting his purpose as the definition of unto. For if the preposition eis, in the expression “be baptized eis remission of sins,” means that the object or subject baptized “comes, or is brought to be in, or within” the state represented by remission of sins, then again we have all taught that we ask. The party baptized is in, or within the enjoyment of remission, and it is his baptism that brought him within the enjoyment of this blessing. Nothing could suit us better. But the Doctor is a little loose in the application of his own definitions. In applying this one he uses this language: “Again, take the phrase, ‘baptize * * * unto remission of sins,’ as above in Mark, Luke, Acts. The baptizing is described as, so to speak, brought and [408] put within the limits of the remission of sins, specially confined to remission of sins.” There is something a little strange about this sentence. Why those ominous * * * between “baptized” and “unto remission?” Was the Doctor afraid to let the object of that transitive verb baptize show itself, and must he hide it with three little * * * ? If the noun men, or the pronoun you, had been in there it would not have been so easy for the Doctor to say, “the baptizing is described as brought and put within the limits of the remission of sins;” it would, on the other hand, have been too apparent that, according to his own definition, the men or persons baptized were described as being brought and put within the limits of remission of sins. This is what his definition certainly requires; for it declares the force of the preposition to be, “that an object comes, or is brought, to be in, within, some other object or state.” Now the person baptized, in this case, is the object, being the grammatical object of the verb baptize; hence, to make the sentence just quoted harmonize with the definition, it should read thus: “Again, take the phrase, ‘Baptize * * * unto remission of sins,’ as above in Mark, Luke, Acts. The person baptized is described as, so to speak, brought and put within the limits of the remission of sins.” Of course, he is brought and put there by baptism; for there is no other action mentioned in the case; and thus again the Doctor’s definition makes baptism precede remission, and bring the person baptized into the enjoyment of this blessing.

We now leave, for awhile, the definitions of our writer, and proceed to notice a statement which we must regard as a concession concerning the meaning of eis. He says: “When used with some noun which does not denote a locality, but is figurative, expressing an ideal state, relation, etc., still eis has the same force, signifying that a person or an action is, as it were, brought and put within the limits of this noun, restricted to this state, relation, or object. From the very nature of the idea thus denoted, this form of expression will be most commonly applied to nouns expressing aim, design, result, and the like.” Here we have the concession that when it is used with a noun not denoting a locality, it is still, from the nature of its meaning, most commonly followed by nouns denoting “aim, design, result, and the like.” That is, in the expression, “be baptized eis remission of sins,” the remission of sins would be most commonly understood to express the aim, design, or result of the baptism. This is, nor doubt, the deliberate judgment of Dr. Broaddus, and he, perhaps, feels that in stating it he ought to be looked upon as merely declaring a well-known fact, rather than making a concession. But regarded as coming from the party to which he belongs, it must be considered a concession; for it is the one rarely, if ever, made in the controversial writings or speeches of his brethren. He goes [409] even further in this direction than the words just quoted. After quoting in an abbreviated way the Scripture words about baptism for remission, he says: “We should at first expect, because that is the more common use of eis with figurative nouns, that it would be in the sense of design or aim, in order to remission.” This, then, is a full concession of the fact, that the sense “in order to remission of sins” is the most common sense of the preposition in such connections, and that it is what “we should at first expect” to be its sense in the passages under discussion. But the author’s concession extends still further than this. After stating that eis is not always used in this sense before such nouns, and stating two instances which he regards as exceptions, he proceeds to state three ways by which we are to determine in such cases, “what is the more precise idea intended to be conveyed.” He should have said, “what is the other idea intended to be conveyed;” for it is an entirely different idea, and not merely a more precise idea, that he contends for. Those three ways are these: “First, from the natural relations existing the person or action in question, and the something to which it is to be restricted. Second, from the connection in which the statement stands, or the facts of the case as known from other sources. Third, when the subject-matter is theological, we must, of course, look also to the general teachings of the Scriptures, and ask which of the possible relations between this person or action and this noun is in accordance with the general teachings of the Scripture on the subject involved.” These rules are not expressed as I would prefer to have them; but I will make no criticism on them, as they are sufficiently accurate to suit my present purpose.

By these three rules, our essayist tries the expression, “Be baptized eis remission of sins.” He first makes the concession last quoted above, that “we should at first expect, because that is the more common use of eis with figurative nouns, that it would be in the sense of design or aim, in order to remission;” and then he applies rule first, “As to the natural relations between baptizing and the remission of sins, such a thing is possible, and indeed very much in accordance with the general disposition of man, in every age, to make the spiritual depend on the external.” Thus we have the concession that our understanding of the disputed passages stands the test of the first rule; that there is nothing in the natural relation between baptism and remission to render it impossible that the former should be in order to the latter; and further, that such a connection between the two is very much in accordance with the general sentiment of mankind.

The same meaning is next subjected to the test of the second rule, and the result is stated in these words: “Looking to the [410] connection in which the statements are found, we find nothing to settle the question.” We, by no means, admit the full truth of this remark; but we certainly grant, what the writer fully concedes, that there is nothing in the connection or context of these passages to settle the question in his favor, and nothing opposed to its being settled in our favor. We are left, then, according to the writer’s own showing, to his third rule, as the only one that in his judgment forbids understanding baptism to be in order to remission of sins; that rule is, the analogy of Scripture teaching.

In order to make this last rule available to his purpose, the Doctor clearly perceived that he must show the possibility of attaching to the preposition eis in the disputed passages some other than that which he admits to be its more common meaning. This he undertakes to do by referring to two passages in which he thinks it must have another meaning. We will confine our attention, for the sake of brevity, to that one of the two which seems best to serve his purpose, and which he chiefly relies upon: “The Ninevites repented at (eis) the preaching of Jonah.” Here, by force of his second rule, he says: “We could hardly imagine this to mean anything else than that they repented with reference to his preaching as the occasion, very well expressed in English by at. When we look at the known facts of the history, it becomes certain that such was the case, and such must be the meaning.” We will not pause at present to question the correctness of this conclusion. Suppose it, for awhile, to be granted, and let us see how it will affect the argument.

We have, then, the general rule that eis in such connections commonly means, in order to. But we find that this particular case is an exception to the general rule; and we are compelled so to regard it, because the known facts in the case forbid the common meaning. All this being granted, what is proved? Why, merely, that in this passage eis has a certain unusual meaning. Every other passage is still presumed to have the common meaning, until something develops a different meaning in each individual case. That is, the proof that eis in some one instance does not mean in order to, does not prove anything at all in reference to its meaning in Acts ii., 38, and parallel passages. It would not at all be necessary to even mention this fact to such a man as Dr. Broaddus; but the same cannot be said of the majority of controversialists on his side of the question, and I mention with a reference to their mode of argument.

If there were any known historical facts connected with Peter’s command, “Be baptized for remission of sins,” to compel a departure from the ordinary meaning of eis, it must, of course, be admitted that some other meaning should be sought for. On the other [411] hand, if there are known historical facts which positively require the ordinary meaning of the term to be admitted in this passage, then it would imply a violation of all the rules of exegesis to hunt for any other meaning. I now proceed to show that this last is actually the case, and to this exhibit I invite the especial attention of Dr. Broaddus, and of all his brethren; for this is an aspect of the case which they have totally ignored in all the arguments I have yet seen or heard from their side of the house.

The facts of the case are these: When Peter reached a certain point in his sermon, some of his hearers were “pierced to the heart,” and cried out, “Brethren, what shall we do?” At the moment, then, in which Peter used the words in question, these persons were suffering intense agony on account of the sins of which they felt themselves guilty. This is simply undeniable. Their sins had not, then, at this moment, been remitted; for when men’s sins are remitted, it is conceded on all hands, and by none more readily than by the Baptists, that the heart is at ease. While, then, their sins are still unremitted, Peter says to them, “Repent, and be baptized (eis) for the remission of sins.” Now, it is utterly impossible to conceive that eis here means “in regard to remission as the occasion” of the baptism, with the further thought that the remission preceded the baptism. This is not only impossible for the reason above given, but for the further reason that it would make Peter command men to repent who were already pardoned; thus placing repentance as well as baptism after pardon. Unquestionably, the remission of sins was contemplated as a point yet to be attained, a blessing yet to be secured; and I feel certain that Dr. Broaddus will unhesitatingly admit that when eis is used in such a connection, it can not possibly have any other meaning than in order to. Even if we take the Doctor’s own rendering of eis in the speech of Festus, and read, Repent and be baptized “in regard to” remission of sins; it is still in regard to a blessing contemplated as future at the time of repentance and baptism, and therefore the only regard they could have to it is that of an antecedent to a subsequent event.

I know it is sometimes alleged, that, notwithstanding all this, the parties immersed on that occasion did enjoy pardon before immersion; and in proof of this is adduced the statement, that “as many as gladly received the word were baptized.” But every observant reader readily perceives that the word received gladly was not Peter’s sermon, which had pierced them to the heart; but the word of his answer, which had assured them of pardon and the gift of the Holy Spirit on terms so accessible. Theirs was not the gladness of pardoned sinners, but the gladness of the convict in his cell on hearing that the governor is ready and [412] willing to pardon him as soon as he will sign a solemn compact to keep the peace and obey the laws in the future. Here, then, we plant ourselves on the actual facts of the case, and challenge the world to meet us here in close and unflinching combat.

But I must not omit some other matters in the Doctor’s article. After trying the common meaning of eis in the disputed passages by the first two rules, and finding in them no reason to depart from it, he condemns it by the force of the third rule. He says: “When we turn to our remaining means of determining, viz., the general teachings of Scripture, we find these decidedly and positively opposed to the idea that baptism should be the means of securing remission of sins, cutting at the root, as that idea would, of Paul’s great and favorite doctrine that justification (which includes remission) proceeds from faith, apart from works of law.”

I must here state one serious objection to the Doctor’s rule, and one to his method of applying it. First, the rule is not correctly stated. Instead of looking to the general teaching of Scripture on the subject involved, to correct our ideas of a particular passage, we must rather look at other special statements of the Scriptures, and see whether any one or more of these are irreconcilable with the passage in hand taken in the usual sense of its words. If so, a modification must be sought, but not otherwise. To appeal to the general teaching, is to appeal to vague notions of our own. There is no general teaching not made up by individual statements, and these must be individually compared.

Second, in applying his rule, instead of referring to the general teaching of the Scripture on the subject involved, he departs from his own rule by referring in a most general way to teachings on another subject. Now the subject involved is the relation of baptism to remission of sins; and the Doctor’s appeal is to Scripture teaching on the relation of justification to works of law. It is true, as he remarks, that justification includes remission, or rather, implies it; but Paul’s argument on justification contemplates it with reference to the law of Moses, and the law which the Gentiles had written on their hearts, and not to the positive ordinances of the Christian church. Even here, if we were disposed to enter into the argument, we might show that Paul teaches nothing inconsistent with the position that baptism introduces the penitent believer into the benefits of the death of Christ; but Dr. Broaddus himself must admit that Paul’s doctrine is not necessarily inconsistent with the position that remission of sins is enjoyed after baptism, not before. Let justification be by faith, and, if you please, by faith alone; still it might possibly be so arranged that the believer enjoys it after baptism, and not before.

But the objection to the Doctor’s mode of applying his rule is, that [413] he does not appeal to the passages in which the exact subject involved is the subject of discussion. Let him appeal to such passages as the speech of Ananias to Saul, the declaration of Peter that “baptism now saves us;” such statements as that we are baptized into Jesus Christ and into his death. Such facts as that in every known case when persons were baptized, and their joyous feelings indicated, they always occurred after baptism, never before. In all the places where the relation between baptism and remission of sins is mentioned or alluded to, there is perfect harmony with the usual meaning of eis in the speech of Peter. Dr. Broaddus knows full well that there is not one discordant note; and we confidently affirm that on no subject treated of in the whole Bible can he show that there is more perfect harmony than on this. By all the rules, therefore, by which this learned writer would test the obvious meaning of these celebrated expressions of Scripture, he has tested them, and they stand the test perfectly in what he himself admits to be the meaning which we should expect to find in them.

I have already shown that the criticisms upon the passage quoted from the speech of Festus, and the remark of Jesus concerning the Ninevites, can not affect the meaning of the passages in dispute. I believe that the Doctor is wrong in his interpretation of both those passages; but as it would prolong this article beyond what I wish to enter fully into that discussion, and as they were referred to only to show the possibility that eis might have some other than its common meaning, not to prove that it has such meaning in the disputed passages, I pass them by for the present.

To another passage which the Doctor quoted for the same purpose I feel constrained to devote some space just at this point. It is the familiar passage, “I baptize you eis unto repentance.” He very clearly shows that the facts of John’s ministry, particularly the fact that he “required a profession that they did repent before he would baptize them,” preclude the supposition that he baptized an individual in order that he might repent. For this reason, he concludes that eis must here have some other meaning. Now here we must insist upon the primary law of exegesis, that a word shall have its ordinary meaning, unless there is something to really require a different meaning. If the terms eis and repentance can both retain their usual meaning here, and yet yield a sense in perfect harmony with the context, and with all other Scripture statements, it is perfectly undeniable that this is the sense which should be attributed to them. Let repentance, then, be repentance; and let eis be in order to; then let it be John’s object, as it manifestly was, to declare, not the effect on an individual of baptizing him, but the general design of his baptism as an institution affecting the conduct of his contemporaries, and we have a sense perfectly unexceptionable. It is this: that the [414] general object of John’s baptism was to induce the Jews to repent, and thus prepare them for the Lord. This object was manifestly effected in this way: All who believed in John as a prophet felt it their duty to be baptized in obedience to the God who sent him; but they could not be baptized without repentance; thus the baptism indirectly led to repentance; thus he baptized in order to repentance. He practiced a baptism requiring repentance to precede it, in order that those who wished to be baptized might repent. It was in order to repentance, because no man could receive it without repentance, and repentance was the one great change among the people which he was sent to produce by preaching and practicing his baptism. So far, then, from this passage requiring some unusual meaning to be attached to eis or to repentance, it never can be made to yield a clear idea except by allowing each of these terms in its usual import.

There are several other matters in the Doctor’s article which I would love to discuss, especially the exceedingly vague and untangible conception he is compelled to form of the passages in dispute; a conception which certainly can not find a close fitting-place in such a mind as his, and lie down there like a settled conviction; but absolute want of time, and perhaps of space, compel me to desist. If any words from me could have any influence with Dr. Broaddus and his intelligent and candid brethren, I would beg them, as one who respects them highly, and would be willing to co-operate with them fraternally in the spread of the truth, to re-examine this whole subject de novo, and in doing so to divest themselves as nearly as possible from all the shackles of party prejudice and early training. God grant that all the Lord’s people may still study his word, and still discuss like brethren their differences, till they shall understand it correctly, and thereby understand it alike.