Appeal is made to the fact that John baptized “in Enon, near to Salim, because there was much water there.”—John iii, 23. Enon (Aenōn), is the plural form, a word which means a spring or fountain. In a few places it is translated, a well of water. But it signifies a flowing spring. The name, therefore, means, The Springs near to Salim. All attempts to trace a town or city of that name have failed; and the whole manner of John’s ministry and statements of the evangelists indicate him to have selected a retired spot, rather than a town or city, as the place of his preaching and baptism.
The phrase, “much water,” is not a correct translation of the original (polla hudata), which means, many waters,—that is, many springs, or streams. The phrase occurs nine times in the Greek of the Old Testament, and four times in the New, beside the place in question. It is never used in the sense of unity,—“much water,”—but invariably expresses the conception of plurality. In several places, it designates the waves of the sea in a tumult. Thus, Psa. xciii, 3, 4,—“The floods have lifted up, O Lord, the floods have lifted up their voice; the floods lift up their waves. The Lord on high is mightier than the noise of many waters; yea, than the mighty waves of the sea.” See, also, 2 Sam. xxii, 17; Psa. xviii, 16; xxix, 3; Isa. xvii, 12, 13; Ezek. xliii, 2; Rev. i, 15; xiv, 2; xix, 6. In these places the noise of many waters, is the sound of the waves, as they toss in the fury of a storm, or thunder upon the shore. Again, it is used to designate many streams, and even the rivulets which for the purposes of irrigation were carried through vineyards and gardens. Thus, “Thy mother was as a vine, and as a shoot planted by a stream, by waters; the fruit of which, and its sprouts were from many waters.”—Ezek. xix, 10. See, also, Num. xxiv, 7, and Jer. li, 13. In the last of these passages, Babylon is described as dwelling “upon many waters,” meaning, not the Euphrates, only; but the four rivers, Euphrates, Tigris, Chaboras and Ulai, and the many canals of irrigation, vestiges of which continue to this day, to which Babylonia was indebted for its fertility, and the city for its wealth and power. Compare Psalm cxxxvii, 1, “By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea we wept, when we remembered Zion.” In the text of John, the phrase coincides with the name of Enon, to indicate that the peculiarity of the place was a number of flowing springs. The bearing of these upon the question as to the mode of John’s Baptism is inappreciable; as, for the purposes of immersion, he did not need more than one.
But, we recur to the challenge, so confidently urged. If John did not immerse, why his resort to the Jordan, and to the “much water” of Enon? We reply by another question. Why did the Lord Jesus concentrate his ministry upon the shore of the Sea of Galilee? Why did he, after the close of his labors in that part of the land, take up his abode at that very “place where John at first baptized?”—John x, 40. A comparison of the evangelists shows that, as did John (Luke iii, 3), so Jesus began his ministry by journeying through the country and villages preaching the gospel. But, as his fame spread abroad and the concourse of his hearers increased, he was accustomed to resort to the shores of the Sea of Galilee and the slopes of the mountains which enclose it on the west. A comparison of the evangelists shows the sermon on the mount to have been uttered from one of those mountains. (Matt. v, 1; Mark iii, 7-13.) In the brief narrative of Mark, that sea is six times spoken of as the scene of his labors; and these are evidently mere illustrations of the habit of his ministry. Thus, the first such mention states that “he went forth again by the sea side, and all the multitude resorted unto him and he taught them.”—Mark ii, 13, and see iii, 7; iv, 1; v, 21; vi, 31-33; vii, 31; viii, 10. Here, he fed the five thousand men, beside women and children, with five barley loaves and two small fishes; and here, the four thousand, with seven barley loaves and a few small fishes. Afterward, when his ministry in Galilee was finished and he would preach in Judea, he found himself beset, before his time, by the machinations of the scribes and rulers. He therefore withdrew beyond Jordan, to “the place where John at first baptized, and there he abode, and many resorted to him, ... and many believed on him there.”—John x, 39-42, and Mark x, 1. It is evident that the facts here referred to were not casual nor fortuitous. They constitute one of the most prominent features of the story of our Lord’s ministry. It is also manifest that these and the facts concerning the places of John’s ministry belong to the same category; so that no explanation can be sufficient which does not account for all alike.
The Baptist theory is not thus adequate. They will not pretend that it was to immerse his disciples, that Jesus resorted to the lake and to Bethabara. We may, therefore, conclude that the explanation of John’s places of baptism is to be sought upon some other principle. A candid consideration of the circumstances will discover it; and customs peculiar to this country may confirm the solution. The assemblies that attended on the ministry of John and of Jesus were essentially similar to our camp-meetings, with the only difference, that the simpler habits of the people of Judea and Galilee rendered any preparation of tents or booths unnecessary. On one occasion we casually learn that the people remained together three days (Mark viii, 2); and the circumstances indicate that generally they were “protracted meetings.” For example, at one time, Mark states that “Jesus withdrew himself with his disciples to the sea; and a great multitude from Galilee, followed him, and from Judea, and from Jerusalem, and from Idumea, and from beyond Jordan, and they about Tyre and Sidon, a great multitude, when they had heard what great things he did, came unto him.”—Mark iii, 7, 8. Luke in one place speaks of “an innumerable multitude of people (tōn muriadōn tou ochlou, the tens of thousands of the throng) insomuch that they trode one upon another.”—Luke xii, 1. See, also, the descriptions of John’s audiences. In choosing the place for a camp-meeting, three things are recognized as of the first necessity. These are, retirement, accessibility, and abundance of water. Why these are essential, needs no explanation. As to the last, food may be brought from a distance; but if abundance of water, for the supply of man and beast, is not found on the spot, its use for such a purpose is manifestly and utterly impracticable.
The argument applies with double force to the thirsty climate of Judea. As heretofore stated, there are very few running streams in the land. The requisite supplies for the people in the towns and villages in which the population was concentrated were obtained from wells. There is scarcely a single perennial stream flowing from the west into the Jordan, in its whole course from the sea of Galilee to the Dead Sea. Its affluents are “mere winter torrents, rushing and foaming during the continuance of rain, and quickly drying up after the commencement of summer. For fully half the year, these ‘rivers,’ or ‘brooks,’ are often dry lanes of hot white or gray stones; or, tiny rills, working their way through heaps of parched boulders.”[106] In a word, the banks of the Jordan, the shores of the sea of Tiberias, and some such exceptional spots as The Springs near Salim, presented the only sites in Palestine in which the three requisites above indicated were to be found united. Suppose the multitudes that were gathered to our Savior’s ministry,—four and five thousand men, beside women, children and cattle; and those of John’s preaching were, without doubt, as numerous,—to have been assembled with an improvident forgetfulness of the prime necessity of water! The alternative would have been a vast amount of suffering and the dispersion of the assembly, or miraculous interposition. But this does not meet the case of John’s congregations; for “John did no miracle.”
It is plain that we need no immersion theory, to account for the places chosen by John and Jesus for fulfilling their ministry. The necessities of their numerous audiences were decisive, and were in harmony with the requirement of the law that the sprinkled water of purifying should be living or running water.
The principal remaining Baptist argument is derived from two expressions of the apostle Paul which are supposed to show by implication that baptism was administered by immersion. These are;—Rom. vi, 4,—“Buried with him by baptism into death;” and Col. ii, 12,—“Buried with him in baptism.” In our common English version as here quoted, there is a repeated neglect of the definite article, where it occurs in the original, which obscures the meaning. This defect being rectified, the first passage reads thus:—Rom. vi, 1-11. “What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we that are dead by sin live any longer therein? Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore, we are buried with him by the baptism into the 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: knowing this, that our old man (sunestaurōthē) was crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. For (ho apōthanōn) he that died is freed (dedikoiatai, is justified) from sin. Now, if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him.... For in that he died (tē hamartia) by sin he died once: but in that he liveth he liveth (tō theō) by God” (that is, “by the power of God.”—2 Cor. xiii, 4.) “Likewise“Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed by sin, but alive by the power of God, through Jesus Christ our Lord.”
In the present state of our argument, it might seem almost needless to discuss this passage. But this and the parallel text sustain relations to the subject, which clothe them with an importance in the discussion, such as attaches to no other Scriptures whatever. In them is contained and exhausted the entire evidence in behalf of the assumption that the form of baptism represents the burial of the Lord Jesus. Confessedly, that supposition, if not established by these two phrases of Paul, is without warrant anywhere in the Bible. But to prove the interpretation of the rite, they must of necessity, first, establish its very existence, which as yet is more than problematical. That they are not likely to prove adequate to the task thus laid upon them, will be apparent to the reader upon a moment’s consideration. It is evident, and admitted by all, that the immediate subject of discussion in them is the baptism of the Spirit, and not ritual baptism, in any form. If the latter is referred to, at all, it is by mere allusion. That, this is true, as to the text to the Romans, is indicated alike by the form of expression, “baptized into Jesus Christ,” and by the phenomena and results which are attributed to that baptism. It will hereafter appear that the two phrases, “baptized into Jesus Christ,” and “baptized into the name of Christ,” are those by which, in the Scriptures, the real baptism, and the ritual, are discriminated from each other. The one unites to the very body of Christ, the true, invisible church. The other unites to the name of Christ, and to that visible body which is named with his name. That it is of spiritual phenomena, and not of ritual forms, that Paul speaks, is moreover evident, from the purpose and tenor of his argument. His object is to repel the suggestion that free grace gives liberty to sin. His fundamental point in reply to this is, that God’s people “are dead by sin,” in such a sense that it is impossible they should “live any longer therein.” To prove this, is the whole intent of his argument. First, in designating the subjects of his statements, he uses phraseology which emphasizes the difference between a mere outward relation to Christ and the church, and that which is established by the baptism of the spirit. “Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ.” It is those who are truly one with Christ by a real spiritual union, and only those, whom he describes, and of whom he predicates what follows.
“Baptized into Jesus Christ.” This is the one only baptism of the passage, the effects and consequences of which the apostle proceeds to set forth. Or, are we here to recognize three baptisms,—into Jesus Christ,—into his death,—and into his burial? The first effect of the baptism into Christ Paul indicates by the phrase, “baptized into his death.” In the baptism into Christ, “by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body,” the body of Christ, “and are all made to drink one Spirit.” But it was by that Spirit that he offered himself without spot to God, and “died by sin,” it being the meritorious cause of his death; and that Spirit being in us by virtue of the baptism, will cause the same hatred of sin, and induce in us a sense of its demerit and condemnation, so that we can no longer live in it. Such is the meaning of the apostle’s expression, “baptized into his death,”—so united by the baptism into Christ, that as he died for sin to destroy it in us, so we will be dead to it in the same hatred and zeal for its destruction, inspired by the same Spirit. To intensify this conception, the apostle pursues the figure yet farther.—“Therefore, we are buried with him.”—How? By immersion in water? or, By any thing of which such immersion is a symbol? No. But (dia) through, or, by means of the baptism just spoken of; “the baptism into the death” of Christ. That the expression can not possibly mean any ritual form of baptism is certain every way. The illative, “Therefore,” forbids it. It shows the burial to be, not a physical phenomenon, real or ritual, but a consequence which, by virtue of the relation of cause and effect, logically results from something which either precedes or follows. But the boundaries in both directions are the same.—“Baptized into his death. Therefore buried with him, by the baptism into the death.” The baptism into Christ, by which we are baptized into his death, is thus the instrumental cause of the burial; a fact which utterly excludes any form of ritual baptism from the purview of the passage. But what is here meant by being buried with him? In order to an answer, it will be necessary to ascertain precisely who it is that dies and is buried with Christ. The answer comes promptly. “We are buried.” True; but the words are to be taken in the light of the apostle’s own interpretation. It is not we, in the entirety of our persons, but our old man, of which this is said. “Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.”—Vs. 6. It is, to signify the utterness of this death and destruction of the old man,—its obliteration out of our lives, so that we can not “live any longer therein,” nor “serve sin,” that the apostle represents it as buried, and hidden away in a resurrectionless grave. The old man buried, so that the new man may unimpeded “walk in newness of life.” In this doctrine and these words of the apostle, we have the very baptism which Dr. Conant admits to be expressed, “by analogy,” by the word baptizo;—“the coming into a new state of life or experience.” Into the conception of the passage, when critically appreciated, it is impossible to introduce the idea of immersion, in any congruous or intelligible relation.
The apostle illustrates his subject with another figure, which has been sometimes pressed into the service of immersion. “For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection.” It has been assumed that the planting of a tree is here associated with immersion in water (“buried by baptism”), as representing the burial of the dead. Thus, “the likeness of his death,” which was by crucifixion, is confounded with the form of burial of the dead. This is recognized by Dr. Carson, whose exposition of the figure is essentially correct. Of sumphutoi (“planted together”) he says,—“It might, I think, be applied to express the growing together of the graft and the tree; but this would be the effect or consequence of grafting, and not the operation itself. It denotes, in short, the closest union, with respect to things indiscriminately. There is no need, then, to bring either planting or grafting into the passage; and as neither of them resembles a resurrection, they should be rejected. When we translate the passage,—‘For, if we have become one with him,’ or, ‘have been joined with him, in the likeness of his death,’—we not only suit the connexion, to both death and resurrection, but we take the word sumphutoi, in its most common acceptation.”[107] This witness is true. The phrase has no reference to the form of ritual baptism, but to the intimacy of the union which that of the Spirit establishes. The two expressions,—“Baptized into his death,” and “Coplanted with him in the likeness of his death,” are coincident, meaning essentially the same thing. It is, however, a fundamental defect in Carson’s conception, that while he earnestly insists on the closeness of the union, by which Christ and his people are one, he fails to recognize the essential fact that it is effected by the baptism of the Spirit. In his conception and vocabulary, it is a “constituted union.” A ray of light entering his mind on this point would have transfigured his whole system.
But what means our being joined with Christ in the likeness of his death? Here and elsewhere, Paul explains abundantly. “He died by sin,” our sin, as being the meritorious cause of his death. “He was crucified through weakness,”—the weakness of his humiliation, under the law and the curse. (2 Cor. xiii, 4.) He died by the cross, the agonies of which he voluntarily assumed. And he lives again, by the power of God who raised him from the dead. So we also, if truly baptized into him, “are weak (en autō) in him, but we shall live with him by the power of God toward us.”—2 Cor. xiii, 4. We are weak in him, in a realizing sense imparted by his Spirit in us, of the desert and condemnation of sin, and of its prevailing power, which renders our emancipation from it a crucifixion of the flesh, the agonies of which we voluntarily incur. And we live with him, in the present life of the new man after his image, created by the baptism of his Spirit in us, as we shall finally live with him in the life of glory. Thus we are joined with him in the likeness of his death, and also of his resurrection.
From this analysis, it is evident that the assumption of allusion to a supposed ritual burial is wholly unnecessary to the exegesis of the passage. In fact, the supposition of such allusion is altogether incongruous and confusing to the argument of the place. (1.) The real baptism and its effects are the alone subjects of the discussion; and any exegesis which ignores this must lead to error. (2.) The burial of which the apostle speaks is spiritual, as well as is the baptism. The two are in no sense identical; but the one is, by the apostle distinctly and sharply discriminated from the other. The baptism is the primary cause, of which the burial is one, and but one, of the results. The baptism is the shedding upon us of the Holy Spirit of life in Christ Jesus. The burial is the putting away, and obliterating of the old man out of our lives. It follows, that in any parallel figurative or ritual system, each one of these spiritual realities must have its own analogue, as distinctly defined and discriminated, each from the other, as are the realities which they are designed to represent. And, in fact, such is the figurative system of the Scriptures, which represent the one by the figure of the outpouring of water, and the other by the burial of the dead. To interpret, therefore, a ritual baptism as symbolic of the spiritual burial, is as incongruous to the Scriptural conception, as would be the employment of the burial of the dead to represent the outpouring upon us of the Spirit of life. And to understand the apostle, by the expression, “buried by the baptism” to mean directly the spiritual phenomenon which the phrase designates, and at the same time to convey an allusion to a ritual baptism as being a symbol of the burial, is an absurdity which does violence to the whole conception, to the destruction of its propriety and significance. For, not only are the two thus sharply discriminated by Paul, but he attributes to each its own relations and predicates, and assigns to each its own place in the scheme of grace and in the argument which he states. To neglect, therefore, the distinction, and confound them together, as is done by the Baptist interpretation, destroys the whole logical force and sequence of the argument, and dissolves the connection between the premises and the conclusions.
Moreover, were it even allowable, as it is not, thus to confound things that differ, there still remains a point of difficulty in the way of the immersion exegesis which, for its removal, demands something more than the mere assumption which has heretofore been put in the place of proof. The apostle speaks, not of immersion, but of burial. “Buried with him.” That the two ideas are not identical does not need to be proved. Nor is the difference so slight that the one would readily suggest itself as a figure of the other. But in order to sustain the Baptist conclusions which depend on this language, it would be necessary to demonstrate that the rites of sepulture with which the writers of the Scriptures were familiar, and in conformity to which the body of Jesus was entombed, bore a resemblance to immersion in water, so close and manifest, that the one was a recognized symbol of the other. But there is certainly no such resemblance as to justify the gratuitous assumption that such a figure was employed; and of its actual use, the Scriptures contain not a trace.
Is it still insisted that, nevertheless, there is an allusion to the rite of immersion? Such an allusion must be supposed to shed light or beauty upon the presentation of the spiritual theme of the passage; or, it is an arbitrary impertinence. Let us then view the suggestion squarely, in the light of the realized observance, thus forced into critical notice. The theme of the apostle is the calm majesty and power of the Savior’s three days’ rest in the sepulcher, and of the silent and unseen mystery of his rising on the third day; and the tranquil energy of the same mighty power in the believer (Eph. i, 19, 20; ii, 1), by which he is quickened and raised up to the life of holiness. The figure which is intruded, to illuminate and adorn this conception, calls up before us the apprehension and haste of the ritual observance, and the agitation, the gasping and sputter of the dripping subjects of the rite, as they struggle up out of the “watery grave.” Is it possible to conceive that master of rhetoric, the apostle Paul, to have called up these, the essential and inseparable features of the rite of immersion, as a means of shedding light or beauty on his exalted theme?
Col. ii, 9-13.—“In Him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power. In whom, also, ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ (suntaphentes autō en to baptismati), having been buried with him by the baptism, wherein also ye were raised up with him, through the faith of the operation of God, who raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, did he quicken together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses.” Here, in the phrase,—“the body of the sins of the flesh,” which is the reading of the common version, the critical editors unite in rejecting (hamartiōn) “of the sins,” which was undoubtedly a gloss inserted from the margin, in careless transcription.
It is evident that the doctrine and argument of the passage just examined from the epistle to the Romans, and this to the Colossians are essentially the same. In the former, Paul shows that the child of God can not live in sin;—in the latter that he ought to walk in Christ. The controlling motive of the apostle’s argument, here, is, to free his readers from the bondage of ritual ordinances and human devices of religion. He begins with the admonition,—“Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.”—vs. 8. To this, he again recurs as the conclusion of his argument.—“Therefore, if ye be dead with Christ, from the rudiments of the world, why as though living in the world are ye subject to ordinances, ... after the commandments and doctrines of men?”—vs. 20, 21. It is with a view to these things that the exhortation is written,—“As ye have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so, walk ye in him, rooted and built up in him, and established in the faith,” as contrasted with these traditions of men. Thus, as in the parallel plea to the Romans, so here, the determining idea is union with the Lord Jesus,—that spiritual union of which the baptism of the Spirit is the efficient and only cause. The dignity and glory conferred by it are emphasized by the declaration that “in Him dwelleth all, (plērōma) the fullness of the Godhead bodily.” In the person of Jesus, the Son is incarnate; the Father’s glory and power invest him, and the Spirit is his and dwells in him. “And ye are (peplērōmenoi) made full in him.” “Made full in him” by virtue of that mutual relation which Jesus describes;—“You in me, and I in you.”—John xiv, 20. Thus, made full, with all the graces of his indwelling Spirit, and so needing no recourse to the rudiments of the world. With this fullness of grace, the apostle then contrasts the coincident emptying of the old man. “In whom ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ.” Circumcision signified the cutting off and destruction of the corrupt nature derived by generation, the old man, through the blood and sufferings of the promised Seed of Abraham. This operation is here called “the circumcision of Christ,” as it is that spiritual reality of which ritual circumcision was the type. The apostle holds it up to view, as the substance, in contrast with the emptiness of the ritual shadow, against dependence on which he dissuades his Colossian readers. This circumcision of Christ he proceeds to explain farther. “Putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, (suntaphentes autō) having been buried with him in the baptism.” In the conception and argument of the apostle, emphasis rests on the definite article, which here, and in the parallel place, already examined, is ignored in the common English version, and in the Revised version. Paul’s aim in this place is to hold up the spiritual realities of the gospel in contrast with the emptiness of ritual forms. He coordinates “the baptism” with “the circumcision of Christ,” in producing the spiritual phenomena of which he is speaking. Or, rather, he postulates the baptism as the ultimate cause of the circumcision and its results. That, by the phrase, “the baptism,” he designates the same thing as in Romans vi, 4, is evident, as it is also that as in that place, so here, the baptism is not the burial, but is related to it, as the cause to the effect.—“Buried with him by the baptism.” How the baptism effects the burial, has been shown in that place. The distinction between the two, which is there so strongly marked, is in this passage equally clear and important; and the consequences there traced are here as legitimate and pertinent. The supposition of an allusion to immersion in water, in either place, is utterly groundless, and in both alike incongruous and destructive to the apostle’s conception and argument. Certainly, this place no more than the other necessitates recourse to the supposed rite of immersion, in order to a rational interpretation. And it is equally certain that at the touch of a discriminating exegesis the supposed allusion to such a rite vanishes utterly away.
The Baptist position rests on two assumptions. The first is, that baptizo means, to dip, to immerse, to submerge,—one or other of these, as the different advocates of the cause may select,—and nothing else. The second is, that on account of its resemblance to the laying of the body of Jesus in the sepulchre, the rite of dipping, immersion, or submersion in water was appointed as a symbol of his entombing. The first of these assumptions is essential to vindicate the mode in question, and the second to establish its typical significance. If baptizo does not mean as defined, or if that is not the only meaning, the whole immersion fabric falls to the ground. And if the second proposition is not established, the rite becomes an unmeaning absurdity.—On these vital points, the following are the results of the evidence thus far developed in these pages.
1. While the Scriptures everywhere, in the Old Testament and the New, are full of the doctrine of the baptism of the Spirit,—while the divers baptisms of the Mosaic ritual were unquestionably typical of it, and the prophecies abound in references to it under the figure of affusion—the sprinkling of water, and the outpouring of rain,—the rite of immersion does not pretend to any better evidence than is found in a definition of baptizo, which is now admitted to be erroneous, and a few expressions in the New Testament which are at best of questionable interpretation. Aside from these, it is foreign and uncongenial to the whole tenor of conception and language of the New Testament as well as of the Old.
2. Not to insist on the special conclusions of Dale,—the admissions of Dr. Conant, confirmed by the authority of Prof. Kendrick, prove that the word does not mean, to dip, to put in the water and take out again; but to put under the water, to submerge. The rite, then, consists in submerging the subjects. In that action the baptism is completed. There is therefore in it no symbol nor suggestion of the resurrection.
3. The elaborate researches of Dr. Dale, and the results established by the investigations of this volume, are confirmed by the distinct admission of Dr. Conant, that the primary is not the only meaning of the word. It not only means, to submerge, but also, “the coming into a new state of life or experience.” Thus, the citadel of the immersion position is definitely abandoned. The word is not limited to one meaning. The mere fact, therefore, that it occurs, in any given place, decides nothing as to the form of action expressed by it; since the question always arises,—In what sense is the word here used? a question which, in every instance, must be decided by evidence outside the word. Until so decided, any inference from the word is mere assumption.
4. To re-establish the crumbling structure of immersion, the prepositions avail nothing; since they are as congruous to the supposition that the rite was performed by affusion.
5. The many waters of Enon prove nothing to the purpose; since abundance of water was necessary to John’s congregations, had he made no ritual use of it whatever.
6. Equally futile is appeal to Paul’s “buried by the baptism,” as the imagined allusion is unnecessary to the interpretation, incongruous to the argument, and destructive of the distinctions which the apostle draws, and the conclusions which he deduces.
7. As to the remaining argument, from the baptism of the eunuch, we shall see hereafter, that while the facts recorded decide nothing, they create a presumption which distinctly indicates affusion.
Thus, the rite in question,—foreign to the whole style of the Old Testament, its ritual and prophecies, and equally so to the language and doctrines of the New,—is left without a vestige of evidence, anywhere, whether as to mode or meaning, even in those particular words and passages which have been the reliance of its advocates.
Paul was yet in the meridian of his strength, and the most active period of his ministry, when he wrote to the Thessalonians that “the mystery of iniquity doth already work,”—the mystery out of which was to be developed “that Wicked, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming.”—2 Thes. ii, 7, 8. There is nothing more remarkable, nor more humiliating, in the history of the church than the rapid defection from the simplicity of the gospel which is apparent in the early remains of patristic literature. The transition from the apostles and evangelists in the New Testament, to the writings of the fathers, is like that from the splendor of the noonday sun to the deepening twilight of the evening. It was the precursor of “the black and dark night,” by which the gospel was obscured for so many ages, and which still enshrouds the churches of Rome and the East in a mantle of gloom. Of this defection, the all-powerful cause was a false and mischievous interpretation of the Scriptures concerning the relation of the covenant of Sinai to the new covenant. They were interpreted as teaching that the visible church and its ordinances under the New Testament economy, was the antitype of the Levitical church and institutions,—that the rites and ceremonies of the latter were the shadow, of which the ordinances of the Christian church are the substance. Hence the Christian ministry became a priesthood, ministering better sacrifices and more effectual purifyings than those of the Mosaic ritual; for in their hands and by virtue of their consecrating prayers, the Lord’s supper became a propitiatory sacrifice of the very body and blood of the Lord Jesus, and baptism administered by them became a spiritual regeneration,—a purging of the conscience,—the true baptism foreshadowed by the “type baptism” of the Old Testament. Thus, Didymus Alexandrinus, having quoted Ezek. xxxvi, 22,—“I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean from all your sins;” and Psa. li, 7,—“Sprinkle me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow;” says,—“For the sprinkling with hyssop was Judaic purification; which is continued by them to the present time; but ‘whiter than snow,’ denotes Christian illumination, which is baptism. And Peter, that he may show in his first epistle, that if baptism, which was formerly, in shadow (en skia) saved, much more that which was in reality (en alētheia) immortalizes and deifies us, wrote thus;—‘Antitype baptism now saves us.’”[108] So Ambrose, as already quoted, says of the Psalmist,—“He asks to be cleansed by hyssop, according to the law. He desires to be washed, according to the gospel. He who would be cleansed by typical baptism was sprinkled with the blood of a lamb, by means of a bunch of hyssop.” Of the doctrine of baptism, as thus conceived, Tertullian says,—“All waters in virtue of the pristine privilege of their origin,[109] do, after invocation of God accomplish sanctification; for the Spirit immediately comes from heaven and rests upon the waters, sanctifying them by his own power; and they being thus sanctified, therewith acquire the power of sanctifying.”[110] Derived from this is the modern doctrine of baptismal regeneration, according to which, it is only in and through the baptism of water that the renewing grace of the Spirit is imparted to men.
It is manifest that if this doctrine be true, baptism is the “one thing needful;” and the church of Rome, and ritualists everywhere are right in the unanimity with which they reduce the preaching of the word to a secondary place, and count the progress of the gospel by the numbers who have been subjected to the life-giving rite. If it be true, then water baptism should be the theme of the New Testament; and the apostles and Christian ministry must have been commissioned and sent forth, not to preach the gospel; but to baptize. What says the Word of God on these points?
1. As to the gospel commission, and the instructions connected therewith, we have accounts from each of the four evangelists. John confines himself almost entirely to those, of such supreme interest, which Jesus uttered at the table, the night of the betrayal. Matthew, Mark, and Luke record the essential facts which occurred after the resurrection. The first thing that presents itself in examining these accounts is, that of baptism, as connected with the last instructions given the apostles, neither Luke nor John say one word. Thus, if the doctrine in question be true, these two evangelists are guilty of leaving out of their record the very heart and essence of the whole matter. This is the more remarkable, if we consider the character of the writers who are thus chargeable. Did we forget the Spirit which guided their pens, it is yet impossible to imagine that Luke, “the beloved physician,” disciple, and companion of Paul, can have been unaware of the just proportion to be preserved in his narrative; so as to ignore a matter important as this. Or, John, the kinsman of Jesus, the beloved disciple, who in the privilege of a perfect confidence and love, lay on his bosom, and who received from the cross the legacy of the stricken mother,—John was not ignorant of the mind of his Master, on a subject like this, upon which depend the whole results of the work of redemption. The silence of these writers was not inadvertent, and it is fatal to the theory in question. What they do not report can have no place among the essentials of the plan of salvation. It still, however, remains to account for their silence respecting the ritual ordinance of baptism; which, apart from the unwarranted theory in question, all agree to be of divine authority. To this point we will return hereafter.
If, now, we turn to the other evangelists, the record of Matthew is as follows: Matt. xxviii, 16-20. “Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them (eis to honoma), into the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and lo! I am with you alway even unto the end of the world.” Here, it can not be pretended that there is any thing to countenance the idea of baptismal regeneration. The administering of the rite is enjoined on the apostles. But no hint is given of its being necessary to salvation; and no such stress is laid upon it as to imply such necessity.
Mark records the language of Jesus on another occasion. Mark xvi, 14-16,—“He appeared to the eleven, as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall he damned.” Here, is no more of baptismal regeneration than we have found in Matthew. Emphasis is, indeed, given to baptism, by the connection in which it is introduced. But at the very point on which all depends the evidence gives way. “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not—shall be damned.” Thus explicitly Jesus utters sentence of perdition against unbelief. But he as explicitly omits baptism from mention on that side of the alternative, and thus expressly limits the condemning sentence to unbelief. Either this language is designed to represent baptism as important but not essential; or, it is a snare which must take men at unawares, and involve them in danger of destruction from ignorance of the necessity of the rite. Here then is no baptismal regeneration. The same inference follows from the silence of the other evangelists on this point. The eleven were all present and heard these words. If they were meant to imply baptismal regeneration, they were of the very highest moment. They could not, therefore, be ignored, but must have been the very center and controlling principle of all their writings and teachings. And yet, the other gospels ignore them; and the epistles are equally silent. It is, therefore, certain that the apostles did not understand the expressions, in the supposed sense. The true principle of harmony for the interpretation of all these facts will be presented in another place.
2. If now we examine the position of the great apostle of the Gentiles, we shall find him give place by subjection to this doctrine,—no, not for an hour. His is an independent testimony; for he was not with the eleven under the personal ministry of Christ. It is also fuller than any other; running through his thirteen epistles. First, we find that it was not his habit to baptize the converts of his own ministry; and that, upon principle. He says to the Corinthians,—“I thank God that I baptized none of you but Crispus and Gaius; lest any should say that I had baptized in my own name. And I baptized also the household of Stephanas. Besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. For Christ sent me, not to baptize, but to preach the gospel.”—1 Cor. i, 14-17. He moreover states the reason of his special devotion thus to the preaching of the gospel,—because “it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.”—v. 21. Here be it observed, the apostle speaks of preaching, not abstractly considered, but in immediate contrast with baptism. He does not baptize; but preaches, because preaching is the means which God has chosen for the salvation of men through faith. Thus, baptism is, in the plainest terms denied the place assigned it by the theory in question. But the evidence is even more direct and conclusive. To these same Corinthians whom Paul thus reminded that he had not baptized them, he addressed a second epistle, in which he distinctly asserts that through his personal ministry the Spirit of God had been given them and new life wrought within them. “Ye are our epistle written in your hearts,[111] known and read of all men; forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in the fleshly tables of the heart.” He goes on to assert his ministry to be “of the new covenant; not of the letter, but of the spirit; for the letter killeth; but the spirit giveth life.”—2 Cor. iii, 2, 3, 6. It needs no words, here, to show that thus the apostle overturns the very foundations of the theory of baptismal regeneration. Paul did not baptize the Corinthians. But he ministered to them the Holy Spirit of life and grace,—the true baptism of which he speaks so largely in his epistles.
It is not necessary to go farther in tracing the doctrine of Paul on the subject. He is everywhere consistent with himself as thus presented. It is however worthy of express notice that in his three epistles to Timothy and Titus, in which he sets forth the qualifications and duties of “the man of God,” he does not once name or allude to the ordinance of baptism. Had the apostle believed the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, it is not possible that he could have been thus silent. But what need is there of thus inferring the sentiments of Paul? His favorite doctrine, excludes and condemns this theory as an intrusive heresy. “Being justified by faith, we have peace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ.”—Rom. v, 1. “By grace ye are saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God.”—Eph. ii, 8. “O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you?... This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law or by the hearing of faith?”—Gal. iii, 1, 2. How is it that by no accident does he ever say,—“by the hearing of faith, and by baptism?” It is almost needless to add that the other apostles in their writings are in perfect accord with Paul. In fact, ritual or water baptism is not once named in their epistles. The word, itself, occurs in them all only once,—in the statement of Peter respecting “antitype baptism,” which has been already examined. If the apostles and evangelists are true witnesses as to the mind of Christ, the doctrine of baptismal regeneration is contrary to his teachings and subversive of the gospel.
This heresy is to be regarded with peculiar detestation and abhorrence because of the disparagement which it does to the sovereignty and glory of Christ’s baptizing scepter. In any and every form of it, it divides the work of grace between Christ and the human administrators of the empty sign. It subordinates and limits the sovereign exercise of his saving power to the discretion of their wisdom and will, to the measure of their fidelity and ardor of their zeal. Whom they baptize,—upon them his grace may be bestowed, and upon them only.
We shall not examine in detail all the Scriptures which are appealed to in support of this theory. There are two which are the chief reliance of its advocates, an examination of which will be sufficient. If not in them, the doctrine is not to be found in the Bible. They are, John iii, 5, and Eph. v, 25-27.
Said Jesus to Nicodemus,—“Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he can not enter into the kingdom of God.”—John iii, 5. Dr. Pusey asserts that “The Christian church uniformly for fifteen centuries interpreted these words of baptism; on the ground of this text alone, they urged the necessity of baptism; upon it they identified regeneration with baptism.” If the position thus maintained by the churches of Rome and the east for so many centuries be the truth, it presents the Savior, the apostles and evangelists, and the Scriptures written by them, in a most extraordinary light. In the very beginning of his ministry, in a private interview with the Jewish ruler, Jesus imparts to him this doctrine, on which confessedly the salvation of every man depends. But, from that hour, neither he nor his apostles ever name it. In his public instructions to the people,—in his private interviews with his disciples,—in those particular and assiduous teachings by which, as his own ministry drew to a close, he put them in possession of his whole mind concerning their ministry and the world’s salvation (John xv, 15), he is persistently and entirely silent on this vital point. “Still,” says Dr. Pusey, “the truth in holy Scripture is not less God’s truth, because contained in one passage only.” The principle is sound; but its application here is a mere begging of the question. That question is, What mean these words? And the above axiom is no more true, and much less pertinent to the present occasion than is the rule of interpretation laid down by Paul. “Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith.”—Rom. xii, 6. An interpretation which takes a passage out of all congruous relation to the rest of the Scriptures, and overturns the very foundations of the faith therein set forth, is false. And such is the interpretation in question. The circumstances and connection indicate the true meaning of the passage.
That Nicodemus, although perhaps lacking in courage, was an honest inquirer after the truth, is evinced by the circumstances of this interview and by his subsequent history. He came by night, for fear of the Jews. He came not to cavil but to be taught, as appears alike from his own language and the manner of Christ’s dealing with him. John had been for some time causing the land to ring with his warning cry; and men’s hearts were in expectation because of it and his baptism. After this interview of Nicodemus with Jesus, we incidentally learn that in connection with Christ’s preaching his disciples also baptized. And their baptism was assuredly of the same intent as that of John,—to prefigure the office of the Baptizer with the Holy Ghost. We may, therefore, conclude that their baptism was from the beginning associated with Christ’s ministry. Of these facts, a man of the rank and intelligence of Nicodemus, and in his state of mind, could not be ignorant. He therefore comes for instruction as to the way of salvation. At the beginning of the interview, he places himself definitely at the feet of Jesus, as a disciple to be taught of him. “Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God; for no man can do these miracles that thou doest except God be with him.” To an application thus so precisely in accord with Christ’s own testimonies as to himself and his miracles (John v, 36; x, 25; xiv, 10, 11), he responds by entering directly upon the question which was agitating the ruler’s heart,—that great question,—How to be saved? “Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he can not see the kingdom of God,”—that kingdom of which the cry then was, “The kingdom of heaven is at hand.” The figure of the new birth was strange to Nicodemus; for, while the doctrine of renewing by the Holy Spirit is familiar to the Old Testament writers,—the figure of a new birth is not found in them. He therefore asks,—“How can a man be born when he is old” Here evidently the ruler views the matter as of practical and present interest to him personally. “How can I, Nicodemus, at my age, be born again?” The purpose of Jesus, in using this new illustration was thus accomplished. Old truths in new forms often develop a power which otherwise they lack. Jesus therefore, now answers, by a figure, familiar to his hearer, in the Old Testament Scriptures, and in the baptisms of John and of Christ’s disciples, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he can not enter into the kingdom of God.”
From this view of the connection and circumstances, it is evident that the passage is to be interpreted in the light of the Old Testament, and of the baptisms administered at the time of this interview, several years before the ascension and day of Pentecost; and not by any thing peculiar to the time subsequent to that event. But it is an essential feature of the theory of baptismal regeneration, that it holds the New Testament church to have this eminent advantage over that of the Old Testament, that the grace of regeneration is peculiar to the former, and to the ordinance of baptism as administered subsequent to the ascension of Christ. But the words of Christ to Nicodemus were no abstract setting forth of phenomena of grace to be enjoyed by the church in a coming time, but an explanation of the way in which the ruler must be saved, then and there, under the old economy. Viewing it in this light the following are the facts essential to the exposition of the passage.
1. The figure of metaphor was especially congenial to the Hebrew mind. To its abundant use, the Scriptures are largely indebted for the energy and clearness with which the profoundest thoughts are there presented. “Lord, thou hast been our dwelling place in all generations.”—Ps. xc, 1. “Moab is my wash pot.”—Ps. lx, 8. “In the hand of the Lord, there is a cup, and the wine is red; it is full of mixture; and he poureth out of the same; but the dregs thereof, all the wicked of the earth shall wring them out and drink them.”—Ps. lxxv, 8. “Unto you that fear my name shall the sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings.”—Mal. iv, 2. Who would imagine the necessity of pausing to explain that these expressions are not to be understood literally?
2. Among these metaphors, no one was more familiar to the Jews than that of water, signifying the Holy Spirit. “I will pour water upon him that is thirsty and floods upon the dry ground. I will pour my Spirit upon thy seed and my blessing upon thine offspring.”—Isa. xliv, 3. This figure has been already illustrated abundantly in these pages. It is only here important to emphasize the fact that upon it the whole significance of John’s and the Old Testament baptisms depended,—which were, at that precise time, so earnestly pressed upon the attention of the Jews.
3. This very figure was repeatedly used by our Saviour in the course of his ministry. To the woman of Samaria he says, “thou wouldst have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water.... Whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him, shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him, shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.”—John iv, 10, 14. Again, “In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink. He that believeth on me, as the Scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.”—Ib. vii, 37, 38. It is, moreover, to be remarked that both of these places occur in the same gospel of John in which is found the interview with Nicodemus. Nor is it without significant bearing on the present point, that in the Revelation, by the pen of this same writer, the metaphor of water is conspicuous, in this same sense. “The Lamb ... shall lead them unto living fountains of waters.”—Rev. vii, 17. The Lord Jesus says,—“I will give to him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely;”—Ib. xxi, 6. John sees the “pure river of water of life clear as crystal proceeding out of the throne of God and the Lamb;”—Ib. xxii, 1. And the volume of revelation closes with the invitation,—”Let him that is athirst come, and whosoever will, let him take of the water of life, freely.”—Ib. 17.
4. The Greek conjunction, kai, (“and,”) does not always express addition; but sometimes indicates an expository relation between two members of a sentence, and is equivalent to, even, to wit, namely. Thus,—“For blasphemy, even because that thou being a man makest thyself God.”—John x, 33. “Hath made us kings and priests unto God, even his Father.”—Rev. i, 6. “A golden cup, full of abominations, even the filthiness of her fornications.”—Ib. xvii, 4. “But ourselves, even we ourselves, groan.”—Rom. viii, 23. “God, even our Father.”—Phil. iv, 20. Three of these examples being from the writings of John again illustrate his style. It is evident that the phrase in question may be translated thus;—“Except a man be born of water, even of the Spirit.” In fact, such must have been the sense in which it was understood by Nicodemus. (1.) The phrase is professedly explanatory. It is in reply to the perplexity of Nicodemus, at the primary statement of Jesus,—“Except a man be born again,”—an expression the meaning of which is abundantly illustrated, in all parts of the New Testament. (2.) The explanatory clause thus introduced, having performed its office, immediately drops out of the discourse, which subsequently dwells upon the new birth of the Spirit alone. “Except a man be born of water, even of the Spirit, he can not enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. The wind bloweth where it listeth, ... so is every one that is born of the Spirit.” It is impossible to account for the manner in which, after the one explanatory phrase, the water is thus ignored and excluded, upon any other supposition than that by which it is viewed as an interpretation of the previous expression, a metaphor for the Spirit. (3.) The fact that in the circumstances, it was impossible for the ruler to have understood the language in question as referring to a water baptism, which, upon the theory of baptismal regeneration, was not to be administered until after the day of Pentecost; and that he was therefore shut up to regard it as a metaphor, rendered explanation necessary, if that theory is true. The absence of any explanation makes it certain that such was not the meaning of Jesus.
5. The author of this narrative had, already, in the beginning of his gospel given an account of the manner of regeneration, which must be accepted as governing the whole of his subsequent record on the subject. “As many as received Him to them gave He power to become” (exousian genesthai, “gave He the prerogative of being”) “the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name; which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.”—John i, 12, 13. Here, it is not sufficient to say that baptismal regeneration is ignored. It is absolutely excluded. The born of God are described in terms both exclusive and inclusive, by the phrase, “As many as received him, ... that believed on his name.” These, all of these, and none but these, were born of God. The addition of baptism makes this no more sure; nor does its absence affect the result. As many as receive Christ,—As many as believe on his name, to them it is given to be the sons of God.
It is evident that the record of the interview with Nicodemus, all of which may be read in two or three minutes, is a mere abstract of leading points of our Savior’s discourse. The intent of the words in question may be thus expressed. “You do not understand how a man can be born again. But you are familiar with the rite of baptism, and you are acquainted with the Scriptures of the prophets, and the interpretation which they give to that rite as a symbol of the renewing work of the Holy Spirit. It is that of which I speak. Except a man be born of water, even of the Holy Spirit, who is the true water of life, he can not enter into the kingdom of God.”
To the Ephesians, Paul thus writes. Eph. v, 25-27. “Husbands love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church and gave himself for it; that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word; that he might present it to himself, a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.” It is asserted that here baptism with water, and its effects are described. The “washing of water” is the baptism, “the word,” is the formula of the ordinance and unblemished holiness, the effect. But
1. The subject of Paul’s discussion is the relation of husband and wife, and the reference to the church is incidental, and by reason of the analogy of the subjects. The conception which runs through and controls the passage is that of a bridal, and each particular of the language is suggested by this conception. Thus, in the phrase, “a glorious church,” rather “a church gloriously adorned” (compare Luke vii, 25, “gorgeously apparelled,”) the apostle seems to have had in his mind (Psa. xlv, 3),—“The king’s daughter is all glorious, within; her clothing is of wrought gold.” So, the washing of water is expressly stated to be in order to his presenting her to himself “not having spot or wrinkle.” The immediate reference, therefore, of the language is to the washing and decking of the bride, before marriage; and the original of the whole conception is to be found in Ezekiel xvi, 9-14. “Then washed I thee with water; yea, I thoroughly washed away thy blood from thee, and I anointed thee with oil. I clothed thee also with broidered work, and shod thee with badger’s skin, and I girded thee about with fine linen, and I covered thee with silk. I decked thee also with ornaments, and I put bracelets on thy hands and a chain on thy neck.” It will hardly be pretended that in this language of the prophet, the washing with water implies any mixture of the natural element with that process of grace which is there described. And that the prophet and the apostle refer to the same thing is manifest. There is no direct allusion in the passage to ritual baptism. The water is the familiar metaphor of the Spirit, and the washing is the expression for his renewing and sanctifying influences on the soul.
2. The assertion that (rēma) “the word,” here means the formula of baptism, is an assumption, wholly indefensible. In the first place, there is no formula of baptism ordained by Jesus, or recognized or used by the sacred writers. Of this, the evidence will hereafter appear. Moreover, in the New Testament, and especially in the writings of Paul, the word in question, rēma, is invariably used in the sense of the testimonies,—the doctrines,—the word of God,—the gospel. Thus, the angel said to the apostles,—“Go, stand and speak in the temple, to the people, all (ta rēmata) the words of this life.”—Acts v, 20. Peter tells the house of Cornelius,—“That word (rēma) ye know ... how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power,” etc.—Ib. x, 37, 38. Paul, in this very same epistle, tells the Ephesians (vi, 17) that “the sword of the Spirit” “is the word (rēma) of God.” And Peter declares that “the word (rēma) of the Lord endureth forever; and this is the word (rēma) which by the gospel is preached unto you.”—1 Peter i, 25. No word in the Scriptures is of a more unequivocal meaning than this.
3. The interpretation of rēma as meaning the baptismal formula, is a recognition of the unquestionable fact that “the word” is made by the apostle the instrumental cause of the sanctifying. Literally translated the passage reads,—“That he might sanctify it,—having purified it by the washing of water,—by the word.” Thus, the word is the instrument of the sanctifying, and the parenthetic clause states the figure by which the analogy of the bride is sustained. The sanctifying and the purifying are the same spiritual phenomenon, the one phrase being conformed to the idea of the church, the other to that of the bride. And, whether the common English version be accepted, or the construction of the original be literally followed, as above, the result remains the same, that “the word” is distinctly stated to be the instrument of the process described by the two words, “sanctify” and “cleanse.” In what sense the word is sanctifying, let Jesus testify. “The words (ta rēmata) that I speak unto you” (literally, “that I have spoken unto you,” that is, in his preceding discourse), “they are spirit, and they are life.”—John vi, 63. “Now ye are clean, through (tou logou) the word that I have spoken unto you.”you.”—Ib. xv, 3. “Sanctify them through thy truth, thy word (logos) is truth.... And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also may be sanctified through the truth.”—Ib. xvii, 17, 19. “Chosen unto salvation, through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.”—2 Thes. ii, 13. The word is the means and the Spirit the efficient author of grace.