OUR seventh argument, in development and confirmation of the true meaning of baptizo, is derived from the words used in construction with it, as contradistinguished from all its rivals, raino, cheo, louo, and the prepositions, epi, en, eis, ek, apo, used in construction with them.

      We shall commence with epi, the word essential to the use of raino, rantizo, and that family. For the reasons already given, we are obliged, in positive laws and precepts, to take all the words in their primitive, proper, or common, and not in their figurative and peculiar significations. Epi frequently signifies on or upon; en, generally, in; eis, into; ek, of, out of, or from; and apo, from. But we have a shorter and more satisfactory way of ascertaining the use and import of these prepositions than the more common method of comparing all their occurrences: We take them and their principals together. For in this way there is less room for false and inconclusive reasoning, and the most illiterate may thus comprehend them. We shall illustrate this by taking raino, and its compound perirraino, and epi, together, and bapto and baptizo, with en and eis, as they are found in common usage. I assert, then, that for some reason raino and epi [153] agree together; baptizo and en also agree together; but raino and en, or baptizo and epi, so perfectly disagree, as never to be found construed in amity in any Greek author, sacred or profane.

      1. Perirranei epi ton katharisthenta, sprinkle the blood upon him to be cleansed, Lev. xiv. 7. 2. Perirranei epi teen oikian, sprinkle upon the house, Lev. xiv. 51. 3. Ranei epi hilasterion, he shall sprinkle it upon the mercy-seat, Lev. xvi. 14. This phrase occurs the second time in the same verse. Perirranei epi ton oikon, he shall sprinkle it upon the house; epi ta skeua, upon the furniture; epi tas psuchas, upon the persons. The same idiom is here found three times in one verse, Num. xix. 18. Again, in the 19th verse, Perirranei epi ton akatharton, he shall sprinkle it upon the unclean. Again, Ezek. xxxvi. 25. Rano epi humas katharon hudoor, I will sprinkle upon you clean water. In construction, then, with the person upon whom water is sprinkled, the verb raino is followed by epi; never by en or eis. A sprinkles water, blood, oil, dust, or ashes upon B; but never sprinkles B in blood, oil, dust, &c.: whereas, baptizo in such cases is followed by en and eis; never by epi. A immerses B, not upon, or with, but in water. This is a most convincing fact that baptizo, occurring eighty times in the New Testament, is never construed with epi, nor raino with en or eis. Baptizo is frequently construed with en and eis, and raino with epi; but they never interchange these particles. A shadow does not more naturally accompany an object standing in the sunshine, in this latitude, than does epi accompany raino, and en, baptizo, in the cases described.

      All this is equally true in the case of cheo, to pour. The object on which water or any thing is poured, is designated by epi; never by en. The thing poured or sprinkled always follows the verb to pour or sprinkle; the person is always preceded by upon. Neither of these facts ever occurs in the case of baptizo. In that case, the person follows the verb; and the material in which the action is performed is always preceded by en, expressed or understood. Hence, the uniform construction in the one case is, "I immerse B in water;" in the other case, the construction is, "I pour, or sprinkle water upon B." Not more clearly different are these two constructions in English than they are in Greek. Indeed, the object immersed is never governed by a preposition; the object sprinkled or poured is always governed by a preposition, [154] The actions, then, in the original are just as distinct as are the words baptizo, cheo, raino, and their respective constructions.

      Louo, to wash, is by some supposed to be identical with baptizo. They imagine that because baptizo is metaphorically rendered by louo, to wash, in a few instances, they must be identical in meaning. But such is not the fact. Baptizo is sometimes figuratively rendered by louo; but louo is never rendered by baptizo! Hence louo and baptizo, and their representatives, to wash and to baptize, are not convertible terms. But, in the definition of words, the word defined and the definition must in all cases be convertible, if the definition be a correct one. Hence, baptizo does not mean to wash, except by accident, metonymically. To one accustomed to read the New Testament with a critical eye, these are facts which clearly forbid such an assumption. For instance, louo and baptizo occur in the same sentence, and sometimes in the same clause of a sentence, in direct contradistinction. Thus, in the case of the jailer, Acts xvi.: "He washed their stripes and was baptized." And Ananias said to Paul, "Arise, be baptized, and wash away thy sins."

      It is not said, be washed, and then wash away thy sins. It does not say, "he washed their stripes, and was washed himself and all his family." These examples most satisfactorily demonstrate that the Apostles never used baptizo and louo, or immerse and wash, as convertible or equivalent terms. Baptism, is, therefore, not washing; nor washing, baptism; in virtue of the meaning of the original terms. Rantizo and louo are as inimical as baptizo and louo, for we find them standing in the same clause together. Thus, Paul--"Having your hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and your bodies washed with clean water." Sprinkling and washing are, therefore, as inconvertible as immersion and washing.

      The precision of the Greek language, and its uniformity in the use of words in general, and of some words in particular, is truly remarkable. The Greeks that spoke and wrote during the last three hundred years of the Jewish dispensation, had three words usually translated wash. These are, nipto, louo, pluno. They never, in sacred use, confound them. These three represent three kinds of washing, and, consequently, one of them is never substituted for the other. Nipto, I have found thirty-four times in the Greek scriptures of both institutions; pluno, seventeen times; and louo, twenty-five times. The first has respect [155] to the hands and feet; the second, to garments and to polluted persons and things; and the third, to persons and things, whether polluted or not. ¹ Bathing, the medicinal use of water, and cleansing from legal impurities, are set forth by louo. Hence Naaman, the leper, when commanded to bathe (louo), dipped himself in the Jordan seven times. I have never found epi in construction with nipto, louo, or pluno, any more than with baptizo. We find en, however, in construction with them all; because the hands, feet face, person, and garments might all be washed in some liquid, but not upon it.

      The congruity of things, therefore, calls for certain prepositions in construction with verbs of action; and these go very far to settle any thing doubtful in the acceptation of the principal word in any given passage. Now, as baptizo has frequently both en and eis construed with the liquid or material used in the ordinance, and raino and cheo never, follows it not that these prepositions demonstrate a meaning in these words wholly incompatible with each other, so far as action is concerned?

      It is as impossible either to pour or sprinkle a man into or in a river, as it is to immerse him upon it, or to immerse water upon him. It is, therefore, offering the grossest violence to all the laws of congruous construction to attempt to translate baptizo by sprinkle, pour, or purify; or raino and cheo by immerse, plunge, or overwhelm. The best lexicography, both of the principals and their usual retinue of particles and circumstances, peremptorily forbids such liberties. Concerning ek and apo, we shall say something in our next argument.

[CBAC 153-156]