that the apostles, in referring to the death of Christ, employ terms which convey the idea of expiation. He says: "The use to be made of this in the argument is that, as the apostles found the very terms they used with reference to the nature and efficacy of the death of Christ fixed in an expiatory signification among the Greeks, they could not, in honesty, use them in a distant figurative sense, much less in a contrary one, without due notice of their having invested them with a new import being given to their readers. In like manner, the Jews had their ex

piatory sacrifices, and the terms and phrases used in them are, in like manner, employed by the apostles to characterize the death of their Lord; and they would have been as guilty of misleading their Jewish as their Gentile readers had they employed them in a new sense and without warning, which, unquestionably, they

Dr. Hodge, in his Way of Life, expresses the same view.

To all this I cordially subscribe. The apostles found in use among the people certain terms which conveyed to their minds the idea of expiation. They used those terms, and evidently in that sense. honest men they could not do otherwise without giving information of the fact. So reasons the accom

* Richard Watson's Theological Institutes, vol. ii., p. 151.

As

plished Richard Watson. Very well. The same apostles found the term baptizo fixed in its meaning, and that meaning was "to immerse." Could they, then, "in honesty," employ it to denote "sprinkle" and "pour" without notifying their readers of the fact? Dr. Watson being judge, they could not. "Unquestionably," they never intimated to Jew or Gentile that they used the word in a new sense. Now, I insist that Methodists ought either to admit the validity of this argument in reference to baptizo or reject as inconclusive the reasoning against Socinians. It is to be remembered, also, that those who say that the scriptural meaning of baptizo differs from its classic meaning must prove it; the burden of proof is on them. If they say it means "to sprinkle," let them show it; if they affirm that it means "to pour," let them establish this signification. If Dr. Beecher can do anything for his "purification theory," let him do it. Baptists occupy a position which commends itself to every unprejudiced mind. They say that baptizo, among the Greeks, meant "to immerse," and that John the Baptist, Christ, and the apostles used it in the same sense and just as the people understood it.

I think it has now been shown that the classical meaning of baptizo is "immerse," and that it is perfectly gratuitous to assert that its scriptural meaning differs from its classical import.

SECTION IV.

The design of baptism furnishes an argument in favor of the position of Baptists.

In the ordinance of baptism there is a profession of faith in Jesus Christ, as we may learn from Eph. iv. 5: "One Lord, one faith, one baptism." The term "Lord” in this passage, as is generally the case in the Epistles, refers to Christ. He, having died and risen again, is presented in the gospel as the Object of faith and the Author of salvation. Faith is a trustful acceptance of Christ as the Saviour. On a profession of this "one faith" in the "one Lord," the "one baptism is administered. Baptism is therefore a profession of faith. Take away the "one Lord," and the "one faith" becomes vain, for there is no object of faith; and the "one baptism" is vain also, for there is no faith of which it is the profession. If we transpose the terms of the passage, we see that the transposition is ruinous. If we put faith before the Lord, and baptism before faith, we invert the inspired order. If changed, the order is virtually abolished.

Of baptism it may be said that it represents the burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. This we learn from the following passages: "Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are bur

ied [Greek, were buried] with him by baptism into death; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection;" "Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him, through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead;" "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), by the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (Rom. vi. 3, 4, 5; Col. ii. 12; 1 Pet. iii. 21).

It is clear from these passages that baptism has a commemorative reference to the burial and resurrection of Christ. The two ordinances of the gospel symbolically proclaim its three great facts. These facts, as Paul teaches (1 Cor. xv. 3, 4), are that Christ died, was buried, and rose again. The Lord's Supper commemorates the first fact; all are agreed in this view. At his Table the disciples of Christ are solemnly reminded of his death. They weep over him as crucified dead. In baptism they see him buried and raised again, just as they see him dead in the sacred Supper. Baptism is therefore a symbolic proclamation of two of the three prominent gospel facts-the burial

and the resurrection of Christ. These facts are infinitely worthy of commemoration, and they are properly commemorated when the ordinances of the New Testament are observed according to their original design. This by the way.

Baptism also expresses in emblem the believer's death to sin and resurrection to "newness of life." In "repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ" there occurs a spiritual death to sin, followed by a spiritual resurrection to a new life. These two facts are emblematically set forth in baptism. Hence the absurdity of baptizing any who are not dead to sin. We are baptized into the death of Christ. We profess our reliance on his death for salvation; and we profess also that, as he died for sin, we have died to sin. As burial is a palpable separation of the dead from the living, so baptism is a symbolic separation of those dead to sin from those living in sin. As a resurrection from the dead indicates an entrance into a new sphere of existence, so baptism, in its similitude to a resurrection, denotes an entrance upon a new life. Dr. Chalmers, therefore, in his lecture on Rom. vi. 3-7, remarks that we "are conceived, in the act of descending under the water of baptism, to have resigned an old life, and in the act of ascending to emerge into a second or new life." There is an emblematic renunciation of "the old life," and there