APPENDIX.

[NOTE A.]

The following pertinent remarks are from Dr. Samuel Austin's Rejoinder in his controversy with Mr. Merrill. "In beseiged cities, where there are thousands and hundreds of thousands of people; in sandy deserts, like those of Africa, Arabia, and Palestine; in the northern regions, where the streams, if there be any, are shut up with impenetrable ice; and in severe and extensive droughts, like that which took place in the time of Ahab; sufficiency of water for animal subsistence is scarcely to be procured. Now suppose God should, according to his predictions, pour out plentiful effusions of his Spirit, so that all the inhabitants of one of these regions or cities should be born in a day. Upon the Baptist hypothesis, there is an absolute impossibility that they should be baptized, while there is this scarcity of water, and this may last as long as they live." p. 41.

[NOTE B.]

The following remarks of Professor Stuart, on Rom. vi. 4, will be read with interest by every candid inquirer. "We have been buried with him, then, by baptism into his death; i. e. we are (by being baptized into his death) buried as he was, συνετάφημεν, where συν means like, in like manner with.

"Most commentators have maintained, that ovvstá¶nμɛ has here a necessary reference to the mode of literal

baptism, which, they say, was by immersion; and this, they think, affords ground for the employment of the image used by the Apostle, because immersion (under water) may be compared to burial (under the earth.) It is difficult, perhaps, to procure a patient re-hearing for this subject, so long regarded by some as being out of fair dispute. Nevertheless, as my own conviction is not, after protracted and repeated examinations, accordant here with that of commentators in general, I feel constrained briefly to state my reasons.

"The first is, that in the verse before us there is a plain antithesis; one so plain that it is impossible to overlook it. If now ovverάquer is to be interpreted in a physical way, i. e. as meaning baptism in a physical sense, where is the corresponding physical idea, in the opposite part of the antithesis or comparison? Plainly there is no such physical idea or reference in the other part of the antithesis. The resurrection there spoken of, is entirely a moral, spiritual one; for it is one which Christians have already experienced, during the present life; as may be fully seen by comparing vs. 5, 11, below. I take it for granted, that after us in v. 4, iyegovies is implied; since the nature of the coniparison, the preceding ós regon Xororós, and v. 5, make this entirely plain.

"If we turn now to the passage in Col. ii. 12, (which is altogether parallel with the verse under examination, and has very often been agitated by polemic writers on the subject of baptism,) we shall there find more conclusive reason still, to argue as above respecting the nature of the antithesis presented. "We have been buried with him [Christ] by baptism." What now is the opposite of this? What is the kind of resurrection from this grave in which Christians have been buried? The Apostle tells us: "We have risen with him [Christ,] by faith wrought by the power of God [τῆς ἐνεργείας τοῦ θεοῦ,] who raised him [Christ] from the dead." Here, there is a resurrection by faith, i. e. a spiritual, moral one. Why then should we look for a physical meaning in the antithesis? If one part of the antithesis is to be construed in a manner entirely moral or spiritual, why should we not construe the other in the like manner? To understand σvverάonuer, then, of a literal burial under water, is to

understand it in a manner which the laws of interpretation appear to forbid.

1

"Nothing can be plainer, than that the word σvvetάonuer, in Rom. vi. 4, is equivalent in sense to the word ἀπεθάνομεν in v. 8. It seems to be adopted merely for the sake of rendering more striking the image of a resurrection, which the Apostle employs in the other part of the antithesis. A resurrection from the grave is a natural phrase, when one is speaking with respect to the subject of a resurrection; see John v. 28, 29; comp. Dan. xii. 2. In accordance with this statement, the context does most plainly speak, both in respect to Rom. vi. 4, and Col. ii. 12. For in respect to Rom. vi. 4, the Apostle goes on in the very next verse, (as is usual with him,) to present the same idea which is contained in v. 4, in a different costume. V. 5 (which is a mere epexegesis of v. 4) says: If we have been homogeneous (ovuquτo like, of the same kind) with Christ IN HIS DEATH, then shall we be in his resurrection. The same idea and explanation is repeated in v. 8ἀπεθάνομεν—συζήσομεν, and the whole is summarily explained in v. 11: So reckon ye yourselves to be νεκροὺς μὲν τῇ ἁμαρτία, ζῶντας δὲ τῷ θεῷ. 'Exactly in the same manner has the Apostle gone on to explain ovuτaqέrtes in Col. ii. 12. In v. 13 he adds: You vengous in your offences. συνεζωοποίησε, has he [God] made alive with him [Christ] having forgiven us all our offences.

νε

"There can be no real ground for question, then, that by ovuɛtúmquer, in both cases, is meant neither more nor less than by ourouer, vezool, etc. The epexegesis adάπθάνομεν, νεκροί, ded in both cases, seems to make this quite plain.

"The only reason, then, which I can find, why ovvɛTápnuer is preferred in Rom. vi. 4, and in Col. ii. 12, is, as has been suggested above, that the language may be a fuller antithesis of the word resurrection, which is employed in the corresponding part of the comparison. "You who were [dead] buried with Christ," gives energy to the expression.

(c)" But my principal difficulty in respect to the usual exegesis of ovverάonuer is, that the image or figure of immersion, baptism, is, so far as I know, no where else in Scripture employed as a symbol of burial in the grave. Nor can I think that it is a very natural symbol of burial.

The obvious import of washing with water, or immersing in water, is, that it is symbolical of purity, cleansing, purification. But how will this aptly signify burying in the grave, the place of corruption, loathsomeness, and destruction?

"For these reasons, I feel inclined to doubt the usual exegesis of the passage before us, and to believe that the Apostle had in view only a burying which is moral and spiritual; for the same reasons that he had a moral and spiritual (not a physical) resurrection in view, in the corresponding part of the antithesis.

Indeed, what else but a moral burying can be meant, when the Apostle goes on to say: We are buried with him [not by baptism only, but] by baptism INTO HIS DEATH? Of course, it will not be contended, that a literal physical burying is here meant, but only a moral one. And although the words, into his death, are not inserted in Col. ii. 12; yet, as the following verse there shows, they are plainly implied. In fact it is plain, that reference is here made to baptism, because, when that rite was performed, the Christian promised to renounce sin and to mortify all his evil desires, and thus to die unto sin that he might live unto God. I cannot see, therefore, that there is any more necessary reference here to the modus of baptism, than there is to the modus of the resurrection. The one may as well be maintained as the other.

"I am aware, however, that one may say: 'I admit that the burial with Christ has a moral sense, and only such an one; but then the language in which this idea is conveyed (ovμerάonuer,) is evidently borrowed from the custom of immersion.' In reply to this, I would refer to the considerations under (c) above.. The possibility of the usage I admit; but to show that the image is natural, and obvious, and that it is a part of Scripture usage elsewhere, is what seems important, in order to produce entire satisfaction to the mind of a philological inquirer. At any rate, I cannot at present think the case to be clear enough, to entitle any one to employ this passage with confidence, in a contest respecting the mode of baptism."-Commentary on Romans, p. 252-255.

[NOTE C.]

"It is very common,' says Dr. Wardlaw, "to speak of the Old and New Testament churches, as if they were quite distinct from each other; as if, when the latter was introduced, the former had been entirely removed, and succeeded by something totally new. But this is far from being the style in which the matter is represented, either in the Old Testament Scriptures, or in the New. In both, the ancient church is spoken of, not as annihilated, and succeeded by another, but as visited, comforted, purified, raised up, and gloriously restored from decline and corruption. If in some passages the idea of complete renovation appears to be suggested, we need not be surprised that such language should be applied to a change in the state of the church so remarkable,-to a revival so eminently glorious. The prosperity of the church in the latter days is represented by the "creation of new heavens and a new earth, so that the former should not be remembered, nor come into mind."—If such language is employed to elevate our conceptions and anticipations of that blessed era, we might surely expect terms somewhat similar to be used, in reference to the time when "God was to be manifested in the flesh," a light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of his people Israel."

"The fact is, that when the prophets of the Old Testament predict the calling of the Gentiles at the fulness of time, they represent them as brought in to the previously existing church, although in its renovated and remodelled state :-and when the prophets of the New Testament foretell the restoration of the Jews, it is under the idea of being brought in again to the same church from which, on account of their unbelief, they had been ejected."―Dissertation on Infant Baptism, p. 63,

[NOTE D.]

"I entirely agree," says Mr. Carson, "with those who consider this covenant (the covenant with Abraham) as having a letter and a spirit. For the accomplishment of the grand promise, that all nations should be blessed in