[NOTE 1]: *To prevent mistakes, I shall here transcribe a part of a note found in the Appendix to the second edition of the new version of the Christian Scriptures, p. 452: -

"I am not desirous of diminishing the difference of meaning between immersing a person in the name of the Father, and into the name of the Father. They are quite different ideas. But it will be asked, Is this a correct translation? To which I answer, most undoubtedly it is. For the preposition eis is that used in this place, and not en. By what inadvertency the king's translators gave it in instead of into in this passage, and elsewhere gave it into when speaking of the same ordinance, I presume not to say. But they have been followed by most modern translators, and with them they translate it into in other places where it occurs, in relation to this institution. For example: - l Corinthians xii. 13: For by one spirit we are all immersed into one body. Romans vi. 3: Don't you know that so many of you as were immersed into Christ were immersed into his death? Galatians iii. 27: As many of you as have been immersed into Christ have put on Christ. Now, for the same reason they ought to have rendered the following passages the same way: - Acts viii. 16: Only they were immersed into the name of the Lord Jesus. xix. 3: Into what name were you then immersed? When they heard this, they were immersed into the name of the Lord Jesus. I Corinthians i. 13. Were you immersed into the name of Paul? Lest any should say I had immersed into my own name. 1 Corinthians x. 1: Our fathers were all immersed into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. Now, in all these places it is eis, and en is clearly marked in the last quotation. They were immersed into Moses - not into the cloud and into the sea, but in the cloud and in the sea. To be immersed into Moses is one thing, and in the sea is another. To be immersed into the name of the Father, and in the name of the Father, are just as distinct. "In the name" is equivalent to "by the authority of." In the name of the king or commonwealth, is by the authority of the king or commonwealth. Now the question is, Did the Saviour mean that the disciples were to be immersed by the authority of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? If by the authority of the Father, for what purpose were they immersed? The authority by which any action is done is one thing, and the object for which it is done is another. Now, who that can discriminate can think that it is one and the same thing to be immersed in the name of the Lord, and to be immersed into the name of the Lord Jesus? The former denotes the authority by which the action is performed - the latter the object for which it is performed. Persons are said to enter into matrimony, to enter into an alliance, to get into debt, to run into danger. Now, to be immersed into the name of the Lord Jesus was a form of speech in ancient usage, as familiar and significant as any of the preceding. And when we analyze these expressions, we find they all import that the persons are either under the obligations or influence of those things into which they are said to enter, or into which they are introduced. Hence, those immersed into one body were under the influence and obligations of Moses assumed Moses as their lawgiver, every thing upon his authority, wisdom, were immersed into Christ put him on, and laws, and were governed by his will; to 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 advocate of the truth, and teacher of Christianity. Hence, such persons as were immersed into the name of the Father acknowledged him - as the only living and true God - Jesus Christ as his only begotten Son, the Saviour of the world - and the Holy Spirit as the only successful advocate of the truth of Christianity upon earth."