Harbinger, Dec. 1. '67.

weary the reader and the discussion create unkindly feeling. For this we are sorry because we see no ground for such feeling and have no fear of such results. Differences which keep bodies of believers apart must be investigated or they will ever remain and their evil results also. But the little contained in his concluding remarks must be noticed. His words are-"You asked me to say, in Scripture language, what baptism is for; and when I said I wished you to do as much for me, at the same time stating that it must be the one thing, as you yourself had put it, and nothing else, you reply that baptism never stands alone in Scripture. Then why did you ask me for that, and nothing else? I, of course, knew well enough that there was such a passage as the one you quote, but that does not contain, and I knew it did not, the answer as you requested me to supply it. Does not that seem a little disingenuous?" Certainly not! For we never said a word about "baptism and nothing else." If I ask a man the purpose for which he puts a ball into his rifle I expect he will tell me that he does so in order to kill. But does he imply in so answering that the ball alone is for that purpose? I might not mention powder, but he knows that I include whatever is essential to give the bullet effect. So here I ask about the design of baptism having in view, though not naming, all that is requisite to render that baptism valid-viz-faith and repentance.

are

In alluding to the rule-" That whenever two or more acts conjoined," &c., our friend says "Your own canon of criticism is exactly adapted to close the whole question, by making it cover the entire ground which you wish to оссиру. But I cannot allow you to take for granted as much as is assumed there, seeing that there is a great deal more involved in such an arbitrary rule than would be safe

to yield without the most substantial proof." Now, it is of no use to abuse the canon, nor can it be set aside by saying that "it is adapted to close the whole question." Let our friend find an exception to the rule, either in the Bible or in the entire range of literature, and then we shall withdraw it. But till that is done it does close the "question by showing that our Baptist's friends in this particular are in the wrong. "Most substantial proof" is demanded. Certainly! And the demand is answered in the fact that no exception to the rule can be produced. But failing to set aside the rule our friend claims to reject it on the ground of a supposed consequence. He says- I suppose you mean to imply that remission of sins is not granted to any one without baptism." Now we imply nothing of the sort. What we both imply and affirm is this-God under this dispensation commands sinners to believe, repent and be baptized, that he promises to all who comply in these three items the remission of sins-that though He has not shut himself up so that he cannot save without them He has left us no authority to preach less or otherwise than these three as in order to pardon. The question is not what God can and may in some instances dispense with, but what is his revealed and ordinary plan.

That He may in

some instances dispense with baptism (that is where it cannot be had) We no more doubt than that in certain other cases he may dispense with faith, as in the case of infants and idiots who, not having power to believe, cannot exercise faith, and who most certainly will never be condemned for the want of it.

In the next place our friend wrote

"I presume you mean to imply that it is your belief remission of sins is not granted to anyone without baptism. It may be as well, though, for you to know that eis, rendered for in the passage you

quote, (Acts ii. 38), does not necessarily mean in order to, but unto, or in relation to. The exact import, consequently, must be sought for by a comparison of other passages with it." Certainly it is "well for us to know "anything we don't know concerning eis, and, in regard to anything our friend can teach us, "the smallest contribution will be thankfully received," but he must take care that it is of reliable material. To render eis by unto will not help his case, for as "sickness unto death" is sickness terminating in death, and as a journeying to London terminates in London and does not follow the being in that city, so repentance and baptism unto the remission of sins go before and terminate in that remission. As to "in relation to." If our informant think it as well we should know that eis is so accommodating that the action to which it refers may be an antecedent to the result named but that, at the option of the reader, it may indicate exactly the opposite and stand as a consequent of that result, we beg to hand the small contribution back as bad coin, only fit to be nailed to the counter, to warn others who may carry similar counterfeits. Of course we remember that base coin is sometimes tendered by persons who do not suspect its quality. But it may be well to state a thing or two that we have learned in regard to eis. First then from a Baptist authority. Dr. J. A. Broaddus, Prof. of Exegesis in the Baptist College, Greenville, S.C. This preposition, strictly speaking, everywhere has the same force, viz. that an object comes or is brought to be 'in' within' some other object or state." Dr. Harrison (on Greek prepositions) intimates that "when eis is added to the action or motion of the verb, or to any substantive idea, that may imply these, and regard is had to the accusative case following," the effect is "to represent the subject

of the action or motion as brought within the circumscribed space, class or category, state or circumstance, named by the noun in the accusative." But Baptist Minister, notwithstanding, would have us to know that eis in Acts ii. 38 expresses the relation of baptism to a remission of sins previously received! Our reply is twofold— first, that there cannot be produced a single instance in the whole of the New Testament in which eis is used to express the ground or reason of an action, and second-that the signification of the words "For the remission of sins" is fixed by their use in another place. Our friend says, "We are distinctly told that the remission of sins is through the blood of Christ." But how does he know that we are told this?

We are as distinctly told that the remission of sins is through repentance and baptism. Look at the two statements

"This is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many,

FOR (EIS) THE REMISSION OF SINS." Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ,

FOR (eis) THE REMISSION OF SINS." In the Greek, as in the English, the words of the Saviour stating that his blood is shed "for the remission of sins "are precisely the same as those in which Peter declares the design or purpose of baptism—word for word. Yet in the one case we are "distinctly told" that the blood is shed for (in order to), the remission of sins, while in the other case the same words tell us nothing distinctly. Now the difference between Baptist Minister and us is that finding these words in both texts he accepts the one in its plain grammatical acceptation and rejects the other as unmeaning, while we take them both and submit to what they say without setting over them our own previously formed opinion, designated "the analogy of the faith." Taking the two statements together, we have FOR (OR IN

Harbinger, Dec. 1, '67.

ORDER TO THE remission of sinsTHE BLOOD OF CHRIST,

REPENTANCE,

BAPTISM.

"But how can this be?" cries one. "The statement is contradictory. If the blood is for remission, baptism cannot be !" Our reply is "How can you talk so absurdly?" Who does not know that a series of causes may combine to a given end, and that while some may be meritorious and others not, yet each may have been constituted necessary to securing that end in the appointed way? The case stands thus

CAUSES OF SALVATION:

1. Moving Cause LOVE OF GOD. 2. Procuring Cause BLOOD OF CHRIST. 3. Qualifying Cause FAITH

AND

RE

teaching of the Bible a rule for settling the meaning of a Greek preposition. It will be as well for him to know that in so doing he is violating a rule of interpretation that covers the whole ground and admits of no exception, viz: "Nothing shall be elicited from a text but what is yielded by the fair grammatical explanation of the language. We happen to have at hand the following testimony on the point

ERNESTI, "The system of deducing the sense of words from the matter, is altogether fallacious: the matter ought rather to be deduced from the words and from their sense rightly investigated."

MELANCTHON "Scripture cannot be understood theologically, unless it be understood first grammatically."

LUTHER. "We must not make God's word mean what we wish: we must not bend it, but allow it to bend us." "The knowledge of the sense can be derived from nothing but the knowledge of the words."

"Neither Theology

BRETSCHNEIDER. nor Philosophy ought to exercise any influence upon the operations of an interthe logical propriety of the sense, as dispreter. An interpreter is not to consider covered by the Historic dogmatic process, but must leave all such considerations to the dogmatic theologian. He is not to shrink from apparent inconsequence or inconsistency in the sense which he has satisfactory hermeneutical reasons for giving to the text."

Here the subject must be left. We wish our kind friend had gone into it fully by the aid of sound recognized principles of interpretation, as then we doubt not he would have found himself in a region of light and harmony, most agreeable to him, notwithstanding he has at present some little dread of people who see no difficulty in certain portions of Scripture which are confessedly difficult to him. ED.

DIVISION

IN

"I have tried to convince some here that the New Testament leaves no room for division and have been answered in reply that it does, by the statement of Paul Mark those who cause division and avoid them,' also that Paul and Barnabas parted company, and that the greater the

CHURCHES.

number of Churches the more effectually the Gospel will be spread. Brother King what do you think of this? I have quoted the admonition of Paul, 'Now I beseechi you brethren by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ that ye all speak the same thing and that there be no division among