THE INTERPRETATION OF ROM. VI. 3, 4, AND COL. II. 12.

§ 29. Importance of a correct Interpretation of Rom. vi. 3, 4,

and Col. ii. 12.

THE Conclusion to which we have arrived by our previous inquiries is this: Purification is enjoined by a specific command, but no particular mode of purification is enjoined. Of course, any individual may be lawfully purified in the way that he prefers. No result can be more desirable than this, for none tends more directly to harmonize the church. It combines the two fundamental requisites for union, which are, 1, to take from no church anything which it desires, as to its own mode of purification; and 2, to authorize each church to regard the purification of others, though differing from its own, as valid. Who, that loves the harmony of the church, who, that regards the feelings and wishes of Christ, would not rejoice at an issue so auspicious? What can be more desirable than a union without sacrifice of principle, or loss of any valued practice? But this result secures all this; nay more, it would give to our Baptist brethren, not only the full enjoyment of all they desire, without diminution or loss, but add to it the sweet persuasion, that, on this point, all their Christian brethren are also right, and can, in like manner, enjoy the mode which they prefer. Thus all painful barriers to communion will at once be taken away, the middle wall of partition will fall, and all, in Christian love, will be united as one new

man.

In proportion then to the desirableness of this event, is the importance of a radical investigation and correct interpretation of

Rom. vi. 3, 4, and Col. ii. 12; for, next to the word Barri(w, these have been, and still are, the most serious obstacles to such a result. As I have before stated, our Baptist brethren regard these passages as an inspired exposition of the mode of baptism —as proving, irresistibly, that the rite is designed, not merely to represent purification from sin, but purification in a way significant of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, and of the death, burial, and resurrection of the believer with him; and although this signification of the rite was not seen by men, when it was first established, yet it was fully before the mind of God, and was finally and fully disclosed by the Apostle Paul. In this they are no doubt perfectly sincere, as they are also in the conviction that no mode of purification, devoid of this striking significance, is in accordance with the revealed will of God. Nor are they without authority for interpreting these texts as referring to the mode of the external rite. Indeed, the opinions of the Fathers, whatever they may be worth, so far as I have examined, are entirely with them. This explanation seems to have been adopted at a very early period. But it was most fully developed by Chrysostom; and undoubtedly his authority and eloquence, more than those of any other man, tended to give it currency in the East, whilst the influence of Augustine was equally decisive in the West. Besides, it is strongly sustained by the opinions of many modern critics. Of these, it is enough to mention Luther, Jaspis, Knapp, Rosenmüller, Doddridge, and Barnes-none of them Baptists by profession.

66

Of course we need not wonder that our Baptist brethren feel strong, and express themselves with confidence and even exultation, in speaking of these passages. Says Dr. Carson (p. 144), " I value the evidence of these passages so highly, that I look on them as perfectly decisive. They contain God's own explanation of his own ordinance. And in this, I call upon my unlearned brethren to admire the divine wisdom. They do not understand the original, and the adoption of the words baptize and baptism can teach them nothing. Translators, by adopting the Greek word, have

A

contrived to hide the meaning from the unlearned. But the evidence of the passages in question cannot be hid, and it is obvious to the most unlearned. The Spirit of God has enabled them to judge for themselves in this matter. Whilst the learned are fighting about Barril, and certain Greek prepositions, let the unlearned turn to Rom. vi. 4, and Col. ii. 12, etc." This may be taken as a fair specimen of the strength of feeling that pervades the whole body; and if so, it is plain that all hopes of union are fallacious, until the true interpretation of these passages is ascertained. Most cordially, therefore, do I unite with Dr. Carson in inviting, not the unlearned only, but all--learned and unlearned ―to turn to Rom. vi. 3, 4, and Col. ii. 12.

§ 30. Points at Issue-Principles of Reasoning.

Let us first present in full these remarkable and important passages of the word of God, and then endeavor to ascertain upon what points the interpretation of them turns. They are as follow : Ἢ ἀγνοεῖτε, ὅτι ὅσοι ἐβαπτίσθημεν εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν εἰς τὸν θάνατον αυτοῦ ἐβαπτίσθημεν ; Συνετάφημεν οὖν αυτῷ διὰ τοῦ βαπτίσ ματος εἰς τὸν θάνατον· ἵνα ὥσπερ ηγέρθη Χριστὸς ἐκ νεκρῶν διὰ τῆς δόξης τοῦ πατρὸς οὕτω καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐν καινότητι ζωής περιπατήσωμεν. Rom. vi. 3, 4. Συνταφέντες αυτῷ ἐν τῷ βαπτίσματι· ἐν ᾧ καὶ συνηγέρθητε διὰ τῆς πίστεως τῆς ἐνεργείας τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ἐγείραντος αυτὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν. Col. ii. 12.

Upon these passages two distinct questions may be raised.

I. Is the BAPTISM of the believer here spoken of, external? II. Are the BURIAL and RESURRECTION of the believer here spoken of, external ?

I here assume the following positions or principles, the first of which has been already proved, and the second of which is so obviously true as to need no proof.

1. The philological question, as to the import of Bawlikw, neither depends upon the interpretation of this passage, nor is af fected by it. Each stands upon its own ground, and must be de

cided by its own evidence. And if it were proved that external

baptism, burial, and resurrection are here referred to, it would only prove, that, under a command to purify, they did in fact purify by immersion. And we must still translate the passage: “We have been buried with him by purification into his death"-not by "immersion" into his death. For we have already shown that, as a religious term, Salige does not mean to immerse, but solely to purify. In other words, we could prove immersion, &c., only by the word bury, and. not at all by the word baptize.

2. As the baptism is, so is the burial. That is, if the baptism is external, so is the burial; and if internal, so is the burial. We are buried by the baptism spoken of,Συνετάφημεν αυτῷ διὰ τοῦ βαπτίσματος, etc. Rom. vi. 4. And an external baptism cannot produce an internal burial, nor can an internal baptism produce an external burial.

§ 31. Position to be proved-Sources of Evidence.

We now proceed to consider the two questions above stated. In answering them, three positions have been taken :

1. The baptism into Christ is external, and of course the burial and resurrection.

2. The baptism is external, but the burial and resurrection are internal.

3. The baptism, burial, resurrection, etc., are all internal, and the passage does not refer to the external rite at all, nor derive any of its language from it; but the language would have been just as it is, if the rite had been administered by sprinkling alone, or even if there had been no external rite. Itul

The third is the position which I intend to maintain; and it is obviously the direct antagonist of the first, the usual position of the Baptists, and also of the Fathers and others. The second is an intermediate position, advocated by Wardlaw, Prof. Stuart, and others, but, as I have indicated above, inconsistent with itself; because, if the baptism is external, so must be the burial and the resurrection. It is on this ground that Prof. Ripley reasons, and I think conclusively, against Prof. Stuart. "This opinion"

(that the burial is internal), he says, "seems effectually opposed by the circumstance that the burying is performed by baptism, an external rite." p. 86. And all, who admit that the external rite is here spoken of, must, it seems to me, be inevitably driven to Prof. Ripley's ground. But, believing as I do, that the external rite is not meant, and that the external interpretation of this passage is not only false, but injurious to the cause of truth and holiness, I shall proceed to state the evidence which seems to me to overthrow the first position, and to establish the last. My leading arguments may be arranged under the four following heads: 1. Evidence from the logical exigencies of the passages, from the course of the argument.

i. e.

2. Evidence from the usus loquendi, as to spiritual death, burial, resurrection, &c.

3. Evidence from the congruity of the interpretation, with the general system of truth.

4. Evidence from the moral tendencies and effects of each interpretation.

§32. Argument from the Logical Exigencies of Rom. vi. 3, 4.

Let us then consider, 1, the course of the argument, and 2, the logical exigencies of Rom. vi. 3, 4. We shall consider Col. ii. 12 by itself. The argument involves three points:

"What

1. An objection stated in the form of a question, v. 1: then ? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?” Does not the doctrine of the free forgiveness of the greatest sins, by the abounding grace of God through Christ, lead to this result? Or, to put it in the form of a positive objection, the doctrine of the forgiveness of sins by free grace, tends to relax the power of motives to holiness, and to encourage men to live in sin.

How shall we, who are dead Here Paul speaks in the name

2. A reply, v. 2: "God forbid. to sin, live any longer therein?" of all who are really forgiven, and virtually asserts, that all, who are in fact forgiven, are of course dead to sin, and cannot live any longer therein. Implying, of necessity, that the system