Nazareth in Galilee to the Jordan (at Bethabara, as we know from John), and was baptized there by John. In speaking of those from a short distance, whose walk was an easy task, not worth notice, he says, ἐβαπτίζοντο ἐν τῷ Ἰορδάνῃ ποταμῷ; using ev with the dative of locality. If Jesus had been a resident of the same neighborhood, his baptism might have been recorded in the same form. But his coming from a comparatively distant region, where less was known of John, and where there was no general movement towards him, demanded notice, and the preposition must be changed accordingly. He therefore writes: ἦλθεν ̓Ιησοῦς ἀπὸ Ναζαρὲτ τῆς Γαλιλαίας, καὶ ἐβαπτίσθη ὑπὸ ̓Ιωάννου, εἰς τὸν Ἰορδάνην. The Oev," came," required eis with the accusative. The ἐβαπτίσθη did not require it, any more than did ἐβαπτίζοντο, in the fifth verse. Apart from that long journey, the relation of the baptizing to the Jordan was the same in the case of Jesus as of the others, expressed by év with the dative. It was not the relation of motion into.

66

And this is the only mention of baptism in the New Testament in which the name of the element used is in the accusative with eis. In every other instance the complement of the verb is the local or instrumental dative with ev, or the simple instrumental dative without a preposition.

In another class of instances, where baptism is mentioned as a coming, or promising to come, or profession of having come, into some new relation or condition, eis with the accusative is commonly used, if not always; as eis μetavoíav, "unto repentance"; els apeow ȧμapтiv, " for the remission of sins"; els тò ovoμa, " unto the name," and the like.

Both idioms are illustrated in 1 Cor. x. 2: "And were all baptized unto Moses (eis Tòv Moüov), in the cloud, and in the sea (ἐν τῇ νεφέλῃ, καί ἐν τῇ θαλάσσῃ).” The idea that they came into a new relation to Moses is expressed by eis with the accusative — εἰς Μωϋσῆν. The idea that the cloud and the sea were the means by which this was done is expressed by ev with the datives νεφέλῃ and θαλάσσῃ.

It has been said that this passage describes a complete

immersion, as the cloud was over them and the sea on each side of them. This, if true, would be nothing to the purpose, as it would still be true that ev expresses the relation of instrumentality. But the comment is untrue, and even ridiculous. It represents them not as completely surrounded by water, but as in a tunnel open at both ends. And Paul does not say that they were baptized in or by the cloud and sea, as if cloud and sea co-operated in effecting one baptism. He speaks of two baptisms, " in the cloud, and in the sea and they certainly were not immersed in either. If the object were to describe one baptism, effected by the joint action of cloud and sea, the repeating of the preposition év would be such a grammatical blunder as Paul never commits.

In classical Greek Barrio may mean plunge, implying motion into the water; but when used in that sense, it imperatively requires, as its complement, eis with the accusative; as when Plutarch says, βάπτισον σεαυτὸν εἰς θαλάσσαν, "plunge yourself into the sea. But in such cases the whole meaning, including the idea of motion into, is not inherent in the verb alone, but in the verb and its complement.

We conclude, therefore, that the Greek verb Barrio, when not followed by eis with the accusative, cannot be truly rendered by any word or words signifying or implying motion to or into. The idea of motion into is not in it; and to translate it by any word which contains that idea is to introduce an idea into the translation which is not in the original Greek, and is therefore a false translation. The authors of our common English version were right in not interpolating that idea.

This argument does not settle the question whether John baptized by immersion. It only shows that the fact of immersion is not asserted in the words and phrases now under consideration. So far as this argument shows, it may be that the evangelists thought that question sufficiently settled by other proofs, or that they did not think it worth settling at all. On either of these suppositions, they would naturally write just as they did. But if it should be shown, by proof derived from other sources, that John and the apostles did

sometimes, or always, baptize by immersion, it would still remain true that these passages do not teach it, and cannot be so translated into any language as to teach it without introducing into the translation an idea not in the original, and that the faithfulness of our English version in these passages is fully vindicated.

ARTICLE VIII.

CHURCH CREEDS.

BY REV. ENOCH POND, D.D., PROFESSOR IN BANGOR THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

IN all ages, Christian churches must have had creeds. As every Christian who believes anything has a creed, so every society of Christians which holds any articles of belief in common must have a common creed. Where there is no creed, a profession of faith cannot, in the nature of things, be made. Faith in what, if nothing is believed? And if anything is believed, then, of course, there is a creed.

A creed is as necessary to a church as the truths of the gospel are to the individual believer. As Christian piety cannot exist but in connection with some Christian truth, no more can a church exist without a professed reception of the gospel. The truths of the gospel are the basis on which it stands, the substance which it holds, the means, the aliment by which it is nourished and sustained. Without some truth to feed and rest upon, the church would vanish into nothing.

The churches of the apostles undoubtedly had a creed. It may have been a short one at first; it may not have been reduced to writing. But there was a creed, else those who joined these churches could have made no profession of faith at all. Martha professed her faith, and recited her creed, when she said: "I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world" (John xi. 27). And the eunuch did the same, when he said: "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God" (Acts viii. 37). These

creeds may have been as full and as satisfactory at the time and in the circumstances when they were uttered as was the Athanasian creed three hundred years afterwards. Paul speaks to the Romans of " the form of doctrine which he had delivered unto them," and exhorts Timothy to "hold fast the form of sound words which he had received"; referring, in both cases, to a virtual creed.

I have said that the creed of the apostolic churches may not have been formally written at the time; but this is a point of small importance. Nothing was written at the first; the New Testament was not all written until the last apostle was just about to leave the world. But the creed of the church was written at a very early period. The Apostles' Creed, socalled, is a very ancient document, though not written by any of the apostles. This was soon followed by other creeds, as occasion called for them. There was the creed of Irenaeus, of Origen, of Tertullian, of Lucian the martyr, and of the churches of Jerusalem, of Alexandria, and of Antioch. These were followed by the creeds of the General Councils, which were of high authority at the time, and in some places are so still.

There have been various objections to church creeds, chiefly by those who, secretly or openly, have departed from them, and are afraid of them. It has been said that they are made to take the place of scripture, and become, what the Bible should be the standard of faith. But this is not true. A written creed must never be substituted for the scriptures. Indeed, we doubt whether it ever has been. It is rather regarded as a concise expression of what is deemed to be the sense of scripture. It is not itself the standard of faith, but a transcript, an epitome, of that infallible standard which God has given us in his word.

It is said, again, that church creeds are an infringement upon Christian liberty. Individuals must assent to them, or they cannot be admitted to the church. Christian liberty would be encroached upon, if a church should undertake to impose its creed upon others. But this is never done; at 1 See Bingham's Orig. Ecc. Book iii. chap. 2.

least, it never should be. The church does not impose its creed, but merely proposes it for consideration, leaving those to whom it is submitted at full liberty, either to accept it and walk with that particular church, or to reject it and walk somewhere else. And is not this liberty enough? To attempt or desire a greater liberty would be to encroach on the liberty of others.

It is still further objected to creeds, that they are brought forward and professedly adopted where they cannot be understood. Persons in humble life, and even children, are made to stand up and express their assent to the more profound and mysterious doctrines of the gospel. And may not the same objection be urged against adopting the Bible as our creed? Who will pretend to understand all the profundities of scripture? Yet those who urge this objection. against creeds are commonly willing to accept the Bible, and insist that this is creed enough.

The creeds of our churches, instead of making the truths of scripture more mysterious and incomprehensible, are designed to connect and simplify them, and make them more plain; so that where the Bible is understood the creed can be with greater ease.

A creed properly constructed should do little more than state the plain facts of scripture, avoiding all connected inquiries and difficulties. And, as simple facts, these statements in general can be understood. The child of ordinary capacity can understand it, as a fact, that there is but one God; while neither the greatest philosopher nor the profoundest theologian can grasp all that is included under this grand idea. The child may understand that somehow we are sinners in consequence of our first parents' transgression; but it has puzzled some of the wisest heads to make plain the precise nature of this connection. And so of many other doctrines. Let our creeds set forth the truths of scripture as facts, to be received as facts, without discussion or much explanation, and there will be little ground of complaint as to their abstruseness or mystery.