by immersion. Against this supposition much use has been made of the fact that, by the Jewish mode of burial, the body was deposited on a shelf, in a cave or excavation made in a solid rock, and not lowered into a pit to be covered with earth as with us. Between such a burial and the submersion of the body in water the analogy seems very much forced. Now we know from Matt. xxvii. 60 that the burial of Christ, of which baptism is supposed to be an emblem, was of this sort. The most prominent idea, however, suggested by a figure drawn from the grave is that of corruption; and it would require very strong evidence to make us believe that an inspired Apostle would employ such a figure to describe the mode of administering an ordinance which is emblematical of purification. The incongruity is obvious when the supposed intention of the figure is present to the mind, and it is fitted to suggest almost any thought rather than the one intended. This is one reason why we are strongly of opinion that the Apostle employs no such figure. 3rd. Our interpretation preserves the uniformity of the passage, and carries us through the Apostle's argument; but the one against which we contend is defective in this respect. In close connection with our text, as well as in verse 20 of this chapter, the writer asserts that believers are dead, and dead with Christ. Now immersion is not drowning, and there is no necessary connection between immersion and death; but there is such a connection between death and burial. The rite of immersion, when judiciously administered, does not endanger the life, or even the health, of the individual; but the rites of burial are performed only when the person is dead. His burial in the grave implies his death. There is another expression in the context, however, which receives no illustration from the mode of interpretation against which we are contending. It is this: If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God." The union between Christ and believers admirably illustrates this injunction. In a passage already quoted the Apostle says that God hath raised us up together with Christ, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus.' That is, believers are crucified, dead, buried, and risen with Christ, and consequently their affections now have a natural tendency upwards to the place where he sits at the right hand of God. Their union with him is by faith, and he has ascended to heaven as their forerunner and advocate, to secure their presence hereafter in a mansion near his throne. No anti-pædobaptist writer whom we have consulted has ventured to extend the supposed figure of baptism to this point. Indeed there is obviously no resemblance resemblance between sitting with Christ in heaven and being dipped in water or taken out of it. Why, then, should we suppose the Apostle's illustration to be interrupted, not helped, by the introduction of a figurative allusion to the mode of baptism, when the subject of union to Christ, with which both pædobaptist and antipædobaptist writers must begin and end, carries us so admirably through the whole illustration? Having thus endeavoured to explain the meaning of this text, we now state the following doctrines contained in it : 1. That Jesus Christ was raised from the dead by the power of God. 2. That faith is necessary in order to our union with Christ and participation in the blessings he has purchased for us. 3. That the effectual operation of God is necessary in order that this faith may be produced. 4. That it is incumbent on those who possess this faith to profess it by receiving the ordinance of baptism. 5. That by faith in the crucified Redeemer the believer becomes dead to sin and carnal observances. 6. That by faith in the risen Redeemer he is raised to holiness and the active discharge of the duties of the Christian life. Among the legitimate inferences deducible from this text we may mention the following: Christ is our only 1st. We should call no man master on earth. master, and whatever in religion is not after Christ' cannot command our obedience. Christ is all to the Christian. buried and risen with him. We are 2nd. We ought to express our gratitude for the powerful operation of the Holy Spirit on our minds. If we have been raised to newness of life, we owe it to his powerful operation. 3rd. Our position as Christians demands that our lives be consecrated to the service of God. ON ON "INA AND THE FORMULA “INA HAHPN'OH. By the Rev. W. NIBLOCK, A.M. It is a matter of very considerable importance in Biblical exposition to settle the meaning of iva and iva λnpan as they are employed by the New Testament writers. Upon the way in which iva and iva λngen are interpreted depends whether certain announcements made in the Old Testament, and which have been very generally in the Christian world regarded as predictions, are prophecies at all. Some expositors suppose that va has two significations, the one denoting design, end, or intention; and the other sequence, effect, accommodation, resemblance, or illustration-the one called the telic, and the other the ecbatic use of the word. In some places they think the term is employed without conveying any notion of design or intention whatever. There is another class of critics who think that ive never signifies anything but design or intention; and while these critics acknowledge that the immediate agents employed in fulfilling the divine predictions may not act with any intention to accomplish them, yet God, they think, who superintends the volitions and actions of men, designed to fulfil his prophecies by means of their agency. These expositors, in the cases referred to, also think that the sacred writers (being accustomed to trace all events up to the Deity as the prime mover in everything) ascribe the intention which is wanting in man to the Divine Being, and that this design is expressed by the writers of the New Testament by the word iva. In order to make out the ecbatic use of iva, it must be satisfactorily proved that it is employed occasionally without conveying any notion of intention in any way whatever. It is I think manifest, if this cannot be established, that the ecbatic acceptation of va must be given up altogether. I am quite satisfied that both Tittmann and Stuart have signally failed in their attempts to prove that ive has an ecbatic meaning-that the word has this meaning I am convinced has not yet been established by anybody. Reasoning à priori, one would be inclined to think, from the nature of language as a vehicle of thought, that words cannot have two meanings that have no connection with each other whatever; if this were the case, words would have no fixity of meaning at all. Words, as it appears to me, must have one primary and radical signification, and in all their secondary acceptations they must have a meaning analogous to their primary one. If this were not the the case, language would be quite unsettled; it could never be employed as anything like an adequate representation of the operations of the mind. But how the triliteral va can at one time be used to denote design and intention, and then again be employed without any idea of design and intention, I confess I am not able to understand. I cannot discover in the laws of language and of thought why va should have one meaning at one time and another directly different from it at another. 6 Πληρώθη is related to πλήρης, which is akin to our word full and the Latin plenus' and the Greek Théos; it signifies to fulfil, to accomplish or complete, and the translation of iva pen which we have in the Authorized Version of the Bible I believe to be the true one. It does not appear to me that there is any difficulty whatever in understanding the formula iva λngwon, except what interpreters make for themselves; and I am very much inclined to think that the ingenuity and learning that have been displayed, in some cases, in explaining this phrase have served no other purpose than to get rid of its obvious signification. Is there any difficulty in understanding this sentence?-George went to college that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by his mother respecting his future scholarship; and when a New Testament writer says that a certain thing was done that a prophecy in the Old Testament might be fulfilled, is it not manifest that the event which he records was intended to fulfil the prediction? Let us now examine a few passages of Scripture with a view to ascertain whether the word "va is used in a telic or in an ecbatic sense. In Matt. i. 18-22 we have a citation from Isa. vii. 14 respecting the conception and birth of our Lord Jesus Christ; and in the 22nd verse we are told that everything regarding the incarnation of the Saviour was done iva mangan, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son. Now the question is, whether in this place va must be understood in a telic or in an ecbatic sense; if it be interpreted ecbatically, then it follows that Isa. vii. 14 can have no reference to Christ at all. The evangelist must simply be regarded as saying that the conception and birth of the Saviour bore a striking resemblance to one of a similar nature recorded by Isaiah. The words of the prophet run thus: 'Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son.' This language cannot be made to apply to the prophet's wife, or to a young woman to whom the prophet was shortly to be married, because they mentioned. by the prophet was to conceive and bring forth in her virgin state. The words of Isaiah, I am humbly of opinion, must be regarded as referring exclusively to the virgin mother mother of our Lord and Redeemer Jesus Christ, and the particle va must be understood in its telic application. It is asked how could the birth of a child, that was to be born 740 years after the time of Ahaz, be a sign to him that the empire would not be dismembered at this time by the two kings that were combined against it, and given to the son of Tabeal (see Isa. vii. 6). It ought perhaps to be a satisfactory answer that the evangelist Matthew applies the prophet's words to the conception and parturition of the Saviour, and that Isaiah himself calls the very same event a sign. But in addition to this, it may be observed that the sign was not exclusively intended for Ahaz; it was also designed for the house of David, or for the whole population, or perhaps especially for the pious part of them. The king had wickedly refused asking a sign when it was offered by the prophet. To quiet the minds of the pious people of the kingdom of Judah the prophet reminds them that the sceptre should not depart from Judah until Shiloh come; that the Messiah was to descend from the tribe of Judah, and that their civil polity would be continued until the birth of the Saviour. The pious portion of the people would of course credit the prophet, and would feel assured that the kings who were confederated against them would not succeed in dismembering their kingdom and giving it to the son of Tabeal (see Isa. vii. 6). In the passage in Matthew above referred to, iva πλnpåîn must be understood as denoting that the conception and birth of the Saviour was intended to fulfil the prophecy of Isaiah (vii. 14). The telic use of "va however does not make the Evangelist say that the sole design of the conception and parturition of Christ was intended to fulfil the prophecy, but the fulfilment of the prophecy was one design of his incarnation. Matt. ii. 15 is another place that has been adduced to prove that va must be translated so that; it is a citation from Hos. xi. 1, where the prophet says, "When Israel was a child then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.' The Evangelist Matthew says in reference to this citation, that Joseph went into Egypt with Christ, and remained there till the death of Herod, iva πληρωθή το ρηθεν, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet saying, out of Egypt have I called my son. Now the question is, how must va be understood in Matt. ii. 15? whether must it have an ecbatic or a telic signification? Tittmann, in commenting on this portion of sacred writ, says, the words of the prophet are not the object of my present consideration, nor shall I now inquire whether they were originally used in reference to Jesus or the Jewish people, for it is quite certain that the end proposed by Joseph, and to be accomplished by staying in Egypt, was not the fulfilment of the prophecy.' In this rather positive VOL. III.NO. VI. 2 B |