Observer, Dec. 1, '75.

"The Epistle

December 26. REVIEW THE MINISTRY OF JESUS.-Heb. ii. to the Hebrews is devoted to setting forth the GREATNESS OF CHRIST. He is shown to be greater (1) than the angels (ch. i. ii.), (2) than Moses (ch. iii. iv.), (3) than the Levitical priesthood (ch. v-x.)

The lesson belongs to the first of these three divisions.

How

I. SOLEMN CALL TO ATTENTION. ii. 1-4. The first chapter has spoken at large of Christ's Divine glory, hence the "therefore." The appeal is from the less to the greater, from the angels' messages to the words of Christ. The law was given (instrumentally) by angels (Gal. iii. 19; Acts vii. 53; Deut. xxxiii. 2; Ps. lxviii. 7). If it were a crime deserving punishment to turn away when angels spoke, how much more to neglect the voice of the Lord Jesus, declaring so great salvation! great, who can tell? CHRIST AS MAN ABOVE THE ANGELS. ii. 5-9. The world to come here means the same as "the kingdom of God," of which we so often read in the Gospels. Angels have nothing to do in establishing this. They sang of its coming, they watched it come, they ministered to Him who brought it in, but it was not put in subjection to them. One only is Lord in that kingdom, and He has attained this supremacy through His manhood (proved from Ps. viii.)"

CONCLUDING REMARKS.

During the year we have supplied in advance notes upon the International Series of Lessons. Had we been aware, when first announcing intention to do this, that a Monthly would be published in our own circle, for the same purpose, it is not likely that we should have entered upon the work; and, in view of the existence of that publication, we have not given to the work the contemplated space and attention.

There is also another particular in which we are disappointed. We urged the use of the International Lessons, on the ground of advantage derivable by all parties from access to the varied treatment of the lessons by the divers sects. This exchange of views we thought would produce very beneficial effects on teachers, parents, and churches. But the selection of lessons is anything but equal to what it might have been, and we cannot but conclude that our schools would have done better by choosing their own.

Under these circumstances our notes will not be continued. Those who have used, and continue to use, the International Lessons, can obtain help from the Teachers' Study, published by Richardson, 10, Warwick Lane; from The Hive, published by Stock; or from "Notes of Scripture Lessons," published by the London Sunday School Union, a month in advance. One penny being the price of each.

THE BAPTISTS AND BAPTISM FOR REMISSION.
(Continued from p. 375.)

AFTER giving a fair hearing to both sides, the Editor of " The Baptist" has closed the controversy. Mr. Norton has several letters of which we shall only reproduce his completion of the one inserted last month.

LETTER III.

DEAR SIR,-There are three other passages, besides the three already mentioned, in which baptism is expressly associated with the pardon of sins and salvation; they are Mark xvi. 16, Acts xxii. 16, and 1 Pet. iii. 20, 21. I hope that your readers will not be wearied if I offer a few remarks on these. The question whether baptism be part of the way of salvation made known in God's new covenant cannot be fully considered without referring to these passages.

Mark xiv. 16, in the opinion of Tischendorf and others, ought not to be considered a part of the inspired Word of God. The whole of this chapter, after the eightli verse, is wanting in some of the earliest and most accurate copies, and though that part of the chapter is found in many other copies, some of which are also very ancient, and though it was recognised as part of Scripture by Irenæus, a Christian writer of the second century, yet both external and internal evidence seems to prove

Observer, Dec. 1, '75.

that it was not written by Mark. There is no sufficient evidence that the person who added it was either himself inspired or wrote at the dictation of an inspired person, and some differences between the statements of this addition and what is said by the other evangelists are thought to justify doubt as to even the correct information of the writer. A passage which lacks decisive proof of inspiration cannot be fitly appealed to as proof of what the will of God is; but nevertheless Mark xvi. 16, may, for all this, express what is in perfect harmony with other passages which are undoubtedly inspired. The question whether it does so must be determined by passages the inspiration of which is certain. We must not rely on uninspired tradition, however ancient. Mr. McIntosh says, in "The Baptist" of October 1, that Mark xvi. 16 is 66 an incorrect paraphrase" of Matt. xxviii. 19. Proof that we speak correctly if we say, as Mark xvi. 16 does, that God has promised salvation to those who have trusted and been immersed, has, I think, been given in the three passages already referred to, which speak of the pardon of sins as the privilege of those who repent and trust, and have been immersed into the profession of repentance. Let us now look at two other passages and see if they do not also speak of salvation as promised to those who have repented, trusted, and been immersed.

Acts xxii. 16. Tischendorf's latest Greek text has "loose thyself from thy sins," instead of "bathe away thy sins." The difference consists in the omission of one letter, and, as he does not even refer to this alteration in his notes, it may be only a printer's error. He also has "His name instead of "the name of the Lord." Supposing "bathe away to be the true reading, these words must mean, receive pardon for thy sins; for the curse or penalty due on account of Paul's sins was put away when Christ died: Heb. i. 3; ix. 26. "Loose thyself from thy sins "must also mean, receive pardon for them. Either reading, therefore. leaves the meaning the same. God, by Ananias, commanded Paul to be immersed, as a step which was to precede God's assurance of pardon, and one which was to be taken with a view to enjoy that assurance. The words, "having called upon His name," show that prayer for pardon in the exercise of faith in God and in Jesus to grant it was to accompany baptism. Paul had already repented, and received the gift of faith in Christ; this is evident from his words, when arrested on his journey," What shall I do, Lord?" and from his obedience to the command of Jesus to go into Damascus that he might be told what to do. Yet Ananias did not tell Paul that the promise of pardon through Christ was at that time applicable to him; but, on the contrary, that he was to be immersed, in order that it might apply to him; he told him that immersion had to be added to repentance and faith in order to complete that state to which the promise of pardon was made. So that the passage makes baptism a part of the way of salvation.

1 Peter iii. 21. In this verse we have God's own declaration that " baptism now saves.' The Divine inspiration of these words is admitted. The only alterations which Tischendorf makes in the common Greek text of the verse, in order to conform it to the best authorities, are, that he substitutes "which" for "whereunto," and 'you" for "us." The word "which" may perhaps be an abbreviation (one which is sometimes found elsewhere) of " according to which." The word translated " the like figure" may be translated as an adjective agreeing with baptism, and the meaning may be-" in accordance with which, a corresponding immersion now saves you also." The translation adopted by the revisers of the American Bible Union is "Were saved through water; which, in an antitype, immersion, now saves us also." Dean Alford translates thus-" Were saved by water; which, the antitype [of that], doth now save you also, even baptism." Both of these two translations make "which" refer to water; so that water, as used in baptism, is that which, by these translations, is said to save. There is no means, so far as I know, of giving to the words their true or possible meaning which does not involve the declaration that baptism saves.

The common English version tends somewhat to mislead the reader. The words, "the like figure whereunto," may perhaps be supposed by some to mean that baptism is only a figure or symbol of salvation. But even that version does not say that baptism is only a figure; it, as well as the others, says that "baptism now saves What it implies by introducing the words like figure is, that Noah was saved by a figure, and Christians are saved by a figure. But Noah was saved, not by a figure, but by a fact-the ark; and baptism is said, in this passage, to save Christians, not by virtue of being a figure, but as the inquiry of a good conscience

us.

Observer, Dec. 1, '75

after God. The words "like figure" are not a good translation; but the English version unites to attest the fact that God, by His own Word, declares that "baptism now svves."

I can conceive how appalled some will be on reading such a statement as this. But what will they do? Will they refuse, even if they find on examination that God says so, to believe even God? If so, they become to that extent infidels; and there is more than enough of infidelity already without any contribution to it on the part of Baptists. But if they are prepared to receive whatever God says, they may recover from their alarm by observing that immersion is said to save only as the inquiry of a good conscience after God;" in other words, as part of the way of salvation, just as faith and repentance are said to save.

Cutland.

WM. NORTON.

Mr. McIntosh has two other letters, and four or five other writers have been heard, some of them more than once. We can only find space for two letters.

LETTER IV.

DEAR SIR,-Mr. McIntosh, of Edinburgh, in your issue of Sept. 17, says: “I only wish that the disciples would bring their special views of baptism to the light, that they may be candidly examined and dealt with." And as some of their special views have been brought forward by Mr. Thompson, they have been designated by Mr. McIntosh as "dangerous in the extreme."

With reference to Mr. M.'s views of baptism, I beg to state that they are entirely foreign to Scripture teaching, and, if his method of interpretation were accepted. it would only mystify it. He says: "Now what we have to determine is, is into to

be understood in the sense of in order to?" Mr. M. maintains it does not mean in order to, but that which is already accomplished; thus baptism into the remission of sins does not mean in order to, or for the remission of sins, but because they are forgiven," Now let us see if our friend's interpretation will hold good. Acts ii. 38: "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of the Lord Jesus, for the remission of sins." Mr. M. says, for (es) does not mean in order to or for remission of sins, but because the remission of sins was already accomplished. Now, to use Mr. M.'s own language, a more unwarranted and unfounded assertion I never met with. The preposition "for" sustains the same relation to repentance as it does to baptism. If, therefore, they were commanded to be baptized on account of their sins being forgiven, then they were commanded to repent for the same reason. Thus we have sinners forgiven without repentance as well as without baptism. Then, again, "This is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins" (Matt. xxvi. 28). If Mr. M.'s interpretation be correct, it follows that the Lord Jesus did not shed His blood to obtain the remission of sins, but on account of their sins having already been forgiven. Is Mr. M. prepared to receive this? No, indeed. I leave him then impaled on the horns of a dilemma.

Again, according to Mr. M.'s notion of baptism, Paul's sins (Acts xxii. 16) were remitted the instant he believed, and, consequently, before his baptism. At that time his sins would have no existence whatever; hence there were none to be remitted, none to be washed away. And yet Ananias, the special messenger of God, is represented as saying unto him, "Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins." Did Ananias, I ask in the name of truth, command Paul to be baptized and wash away his sins when he had none to wash away? They had been washed away or forgiven as soon as he believed. When we view baptism as a condition on which remission of sin depends, we have no difficulty in understanding the language of Aranias. Paul's sins were not remitted before his baptism. Hence Ananias commanded him to be baptized and wash them away. But when he complied, then God, for Christ's sake, remitted them; and because remission of sins was made dependent on the baptism, the sins remitted are represented as being washed away in it. Mr. M. brings forward Matt. iii. 11 as an objection, and says, "If baptism into mean in order to, then baptism precedes and conducts to and inducts to repentance." Now, I maintain that Mr. M. has no hold here for his theory. The baptism of Jesus was into a new name-into a new relation to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. That of John was not. The baptism of Jesus must be preceded by repentance; that of John was in order to repentance. The persons baptized were brought into a state engaging a life of repentance.

Observer, Dec. 1, '75.

I will now give two passages to confirm what has been stated. to call the righteous, but sinners (es) to repentance" (Luke v. 32). that any should perish, but that all shall come to (es) repentance."

"I am not come "Not willing

Here there can be no doubt that the calling of sinners was in order to repentance, and it is also evident that God would have all men come to repentance-that is, into that state. Who, then will say that in this instance (Matt. iii. 11), es preceding repentance has a meaning directly opposite of its clear import in every other instance in which it occupies a like position.

The following rule is given in Lennie's Grammar:-" Into is used after a verb of motion, and in when motion or rest in a place is signified. Therefore to be baptized into repentance-baptism into the remission of sins-is to be brought into those states.'

He asks our attention " to the fact that nowhere does Jesus couple salvation with baptism." Now, I ask, did the apostles who were commissioned by Christ preach contrary to what He commanded? Or did they preach what they were commanded? If the apostles preached it, it is as binding as if Christ had preached it. The apostles preached what the Spirit taught them.

But I should like to ask Mr. M. if John iii. 5 has no reference to baptism. To what does it refer ?

Again, Mr. M.

says, "Nowhere in the Scripture, when the question, 'What must I do to be saved?' is the answer other than 'believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.'” Why, to my knowledge, there is only one place where the question is found; and to put that forward as argument, I think it is very weak.

It is different, says he, with respect to duty. What must I do? Then, according to Mr. M.'s view, they were already saved when this question was asked; and yet Peter, in reply, told them to repent, etc; thus we have them saved before repentance. The same with Paul. He was already saved, yet he was commanded to be baptized and wash away his sins.

Bridge Gate, Derby.

LETTER V.

SAMUEL JACKSON.

DEAR SIR,-I am constrained to ask you again to favour me by inserting a few words in reply to Mr. McIntosh's letter in your recent issue, in which he says some hard things about us, and, I am sure, misrepresents us.

The simple question at issue between us is, What is baptism for? Had Jesus any design in instituting it? It will be clear to all that He either had or He had not, that it either has a meaning or it has not. This incomplex question cannot be settled by the dictum of either of us, but only by a fair and full induction of the Scriptures bearing upon the subject. Mr. McIntosh admits "That there are passages, which, if interpreted literally, would seem at first glance to countenance these-our teaching-views nay, more, the ideas of the 'Disciples' are the logical sequence of the meaning attached to certain passages by some commentators who are directly opposed to their doctrines." That admission is worth much. For, while we do not pay over much regard to great names, it clearly shows that if we may not claim Mr. McIntosh himself as seeing with us, some men, who cannot be supposed to be favourable to us, have arrived at the same conclusion as we. But what saith the Scriptures? Mr. McIntosh says "that baptism is no part of the way of salvation." The Scriptures plainly declare that it is. Which shall we regard ? Mr. McIntosh seeks to escape the force of Mark xvi. 16, by denying "its genuineness." He is very free with his charges of "begging the question," assumption," and "sophistry." I beg to say he begs and assumes a good deal here. Suppose it were true that we must reject the closing part of Mark's Gospel, "the foundations would not be destroyed;" there are many more passages that more clearly teach what the relation of baptism to salvation really is. But it is not true to say every modern critic of any eminence rejects it; "it will be more correct if we reduce Mr. M.'s universal to a particular proposition, and say, 'some modern critics reject it." But some do not. I have lately read a criticism on this passage by Dr. Broadus, a Baptist of America, that satisfies me of its genuineness; and that it is not a paraphrase of any thing. But to proceed. No one questions the genuineness of Acts ii. 38; what is made of baptism here, by an apostle newly filled with the Holy Spirit? To Peter

66

66

Observer, Dec. 1, '75.

it was something vastly more important than it is to my friend. He had preached to the assembled thousands and convinced them of sin in crucifying the Messiah; pricked in their heart, they cry out to him, and the rest-"What shall we do to be saved?" Mr. M. makes a distinction between this case and that of the jailor, Acts xvi.; but it has no foundation in fact, as the context of both places clearly shows. It was a seeking in both instances to ascertain duty, with a view to the same blessing, forgiveness. Let us carefully analyse Peter's reply. He commanded two things and promised two. Commands (1), Repent-they had believed; (2), be baptized. Promises (1), "remission of sins;" (2), "the gift of the Holy Spirit." That is a plain statement, and to the unsophisticated mind it is clear enough. Now, if Peter commanded them to "repent" before they could be forgiven, he commanded them to be immersed with the same end in view. The same preposition (es) that relates repentance to remission, relates baptism to the same blessing. But Mr. M. makes it all symbolical, if I understand him. I would have him beware of what such a treatment of Scripture reduces him to. Here is a more serious con. sideration. Was the shedding of the blood of Christ symbolical? or, was it for a symbolical blessing it was shed? The same words, εις αφεσιν αμαρτιών, are affirmed as the result of Christ's blood-shedding (Matt. xxvi. 28); as are affirmed as the result of repentance and baptism-with faith understood-(Acts ii. 38). If it is "symbolical" in the latter is it not necessarily so in the former? I humbly think it is. This criticism applies equally to Rom. vi. 3, and Gal. iii. 27, "Baptized into Jesus Christ," "Baptized into Christ." If it is only symbolically "into Christ," "into His death" we come by baptism, then, it is only similarly we enter Him by faith. There is no escape from this conclusion; and if it were true there would be an end to all reality in forgiveness of sins.

Mr. M. says, 66 The new birth is exclusively a spiritual act." The Saviour said, John iii. 5, "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God." Jesus declares it to be not exclusively a spiritual act; it is of water, also, whether it be baptism or not-this, however, is the most natural interpretation-and it beautifully harmonises with what is said (John i. 12); that such as believed in Him-Jesus--had the power, right, or privilege (margin) to become sons of God. They were not sons by believing, but only thus gained the right to become such; to be sons they must be "born of God," verse 13. We do not interpret John iii. 5, "Except a man be baptized and converted he cannot enter the kingdom of God." We teach no such medley; nor the perverse error of "baptismal regeneration." But does Mr. M. not know that we do not? I think he might have known at any rate. Is it "baptismal regeneration" to teach that men must have "changed hearts," before they are baptized? We trow not. It is one thing to teach that error and quite another to teach, as Paul does (Eph. v. 26; Titus iii. 5). We tell men earnestly that unless they have been begotten again, (1 Cor. iv. 15; James i. 18), to be baptized will avail them no more than it did Simon (Acts viii).

Mr. McIntosh thinks Matt. iii. 11 quite "providential," and that it ought to settle the dispute; and that it is "avoided" by us: and when forced upon our attention met by "sophisms." I will endeavour to be more honest. First, let me say it has not been "avoided," for Brother D. King, of Birmingham, wrote an article on the very subject, which was published in the Millenium Harbinger fifteen or sixteen years ago. But suppose I admit the full force of eus here, and say "into repentance," or even "in order to," what has Mr. M. gained? Nothing; for it must ever be remembered that this repentance pertained to the preparatory work of John the Baptist, as did his preaching and baptism. This is a sufficient answer to my friend, and obviates his objection.

Just a word to P. Hutton, who appears in another column of your issue. The same passages that prove baptism to be part of the way of salvation, prove that no man can be "assured of pardon" without fulfilling all that is commanded to that T. THOMPSON.

end.

Mr. McIntosh says: "That it is matter of congratulation that the Disciples have found so able an advocate of their views (as Mr. Norton), as whatever can be at all fairly urged in their support has been advanced