The Religion of the Future. 319 amend what at first he may have considered perfectly legitimate.' If views like these are generally adopted, what then is to be the religion of the future? To this question M. Caro has given answer in that interesting paper on Madame Ackermann's poetry, from which we have already quoted. If, he says, the doctrines of physicists are the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, there will in the future be no feeling of aversion to Jehovah, such as we now have to Jupiter. For there will be but one philosophy, that of nature; one religion, that of nature; one poetry, again that of nature. Jehovah will disappear, and nothing remain but that gouffre défendu of Madame Ackermann, "around which our desires will be eternally wandering," and that Unknown of which Mr Spencer speaks so authoritatively. M. Caro is right: "If Tyndall's last word be indeed the last, Of Hope and Faith hence with each rag and tatter, Matter, the wise man's God: the crowd's-no matter." Dogmatism is characteristic of the science of the day; and a recklessness has taken possession of the leading physicists, before which everything is to give way. Tyndall himself has boastfully pointed to the time when "all religious theories, schemes, and systems which embrace notions of cosmogony... must submit to be controlled by science, and relinquish all thought of controlling it." That time, according to him, has now come. We may wonder at the audacity which has prompted this assertion, and regret, with the Spectator, "that cowardly subservience to authority which marks some would-be students of science." But there are many who will accept this mindless theory of the universe, because all religion, all responsibility, will be done away with. "Thought evolved from matter is thought without responsibility, man is necessarily sinless;" and conscience will raise its warning voice in vain. While the learned thus indulge in the wildest possible extravagances, there is provided for the masses an increasingly redundant supply of infidel and impure literature, 'We have quoted from the address as published in Nature immediately after delivery, and not from the pamphlet as altered by Professor Tyndall, after the various criticisms, Dr Duff drew attention to the fact some year or two ago, in his admirable address as Moderator of the Free Church General Assembly. It has been calculated that in 1851 more than 12,000,000 copies of infidel publications were issued from the London press alone; while the total annual issue of immoral publications, according to the Edinburgh Review of the same year, has been estimated at 29,000,000making therefore a larger aggregate than the total issues of the Bible, Tract, and other religious Societies. The perusal of these works by the lower classes, and the sensational stories scattered abroad by the wretched penny papers, contribute largely to spread infidelity and immorality among the masses.1 But the truth must prevail. Christianity has nothing to fear from these repeated attacks. With the lamps burning and the loins girt, the Church must wait for the coming of the Bridegroom. "The gates of hell shall not prevail against her.” The story is told, that about a hundred years ago a number of infidels met together in the magnificent saloon of Baron d'Holbach. The doctrines and the person of Christ were discussed; and every one of the assembled guests aimed his shafts of ridicule at the Christian religion. At length Diderot, one of the fiercest and most impetuous of the number, rose and said: 66 Excellent, excellent gentlemen! in all the world none will be found better able to combat traditional beliefs than you. But yet of all the evil we have meditated against that accursed book, the Bible, I challenge you all to compose a history so simple, and yet so dignified, as that of the sufferings and death of Christ—a history which, after so many centuries, still exercises such an influence." When these words had fallen from the lips of Diderot, an ominous silence took possession of the assembled infidels." 1 Popular demagogues in our day are trying very hard to uproot Christianity. As an instance may be mentioned what Christlieb calls the "blasphemous manifestoes of the Commune and the International.'" In La Libr. Pensée for October 1870, Gustave Flourens, a leader of the Red Republican party in Paris, wrote as follows:-"Our enemy is God. Hatred of God is the beginning of wisdom. If mankind would make true progress, it must be on the basis of atheism. Every trace of religion must be banished from the education of our children." (See Christlieb, Modern Doubt and Christian Belief, p. 139.) 2 This story is told by Stier in his Reden Jesu, and quoted by Van Oostersee, Voor Kerk en Theologie, i. p. 2. It was related to Hess in the last century. by an eye-witness. Salvation and Baptism. 321 And as we watch the course of events, we have no reason to fear. Another Armada may be sent to extirpate Christianity; but of this it will be said in future ages, as of the first, "Flavit Deus, et dissipati sunt." JOHANNES J. MARAIS. ART. VI.-Salvation and Baptism: An Excursus on We THE THE voluminous controversy which this passage has occasioned has not led to a satisfactory settlement of its exegesis. We have never met with any explanation of the apostle's words here which we could accept. We propose in this paper an exposition which commends itself to our own mind, and which we humbly hope students of the New Testament will consider not unworthy of attention. proceed upon the assumption that what an apostle has written was intended to be intelligible, and we argue that if there is confusion in our interpretation of his words, the fault must be ours, not his. If we hold less than this, how can we enter upon the study of his writings with any degree of confidence? The conflicting state of critical opinion on the verse before us is a sufficient justification of our attempt. Let us look for a little at a few of the interpretations which have been offered. In this survey we shall limit ourselves to what has been written on the first clause. The main fountain as to the misunderstanding of Peter's words is here. And we need do little more than quote certain translations which this clause has received. These will indicate with sufficient accuracy for our purpose the views founded upon them. It seems to have become very early a settled belief, that in this passage the apostle wished to compare baptism with something mentioned in the immediately preceding verse, and all interpreters have laboured since that time to make this comparison clear. No one hitherto appears to have been able to call in question the accuracy of this established belief. We hope to be able to prove that there is no comparison here made between baptism and anything mentioned in the preceding verse. This may seem a bold assertion, but we speak advisedly, and we hope the remaining portion of our paper will justify this boldness. But, meanwhile, let us make our proposed reference to published expositions. The Vulgate translation is," Quod et vos nunc similis formæ salvos facit baptisma." This is simply unintelligible, the quod reminding us of the absurd use of which often occurring in the speech of the uneducated. Erasmus was justified, after quoting this version, in adding, "Græca plus habent lucis." Zeger translates, "To which a similar baptism also now makes us safe." Not to mention other objections to this translation, it implies that a baptism of some kind or other has already been spoken of. But no one requires to be told that no such subject has been mentioned in the preceding context. Castalio's translation is intelligible, but is not a correct version of any Greek text extant: "In like form, baptism also now saves us." Knatchbull reads the two last words of the preceding verse along with our text thus: "By water also baptism, which is the antitype (of the ark of Noah, wherein eight souls were saved), doth now save us." But this translation would imply that it had been said in the preceding verse that Noah and his family were saved by water. This would not be so, either in sound or sense, if you removed the expression in question from the preceding verse, and prefixed it to the twenty-first. But, further, the words, di daros, whatever meaning we assign to them, belong so evidently to disownav, that it would be an act of violence to read them in any other connection. But, once more, this translation makes baptism the antitype of the ark. Grammatically, this is impossible; but how can the resemblance between the two be made out logically? Dr John Brown says, "The words may be rendered with perfect accuracy, which was a type or figure of the baptism which saves us." We hope we shall not expose ourselves to the charge of want of respect for a name we revere, when we say we cannot admit the accuracy of such a rendering. It contains nearly as many errors as words. No Greek text ever heard of warrants such a translation. It arbitrarily alters the collocation of the apostle's words, as well as makes havoc of the rules of syntax. It reads baptism as in the genitive case, and calls in from the region of fancy another which, in order to complete a fictitious sense. If we are permitted to take such liberties as this with the Word of God, we may make it teach Salvation and Baptism. 323 anything we please. Alford's translation is as little intelligible as any we have yet mentioned: "Which, the antitype (of that) is now saving you also." If any of our readers can make sense out of this, or can construe it according to the rules of English Syntax, all we can say is, that we envy them their ability. Is it possible that correct expositions can be built upon such translations? ύμας The question of textual criticism must be disposed of before we proceed further. What are the actual Greek words which we have to expound? What did Peter write? It is plain that we can make no satisfactory progress till this question is settled. A good deal of the diversity of translation exhibited in the preceding paragraph is due to variation of text. Did Peter writeor, and uas or uas? These are the alternative readings upon which we have to decide. There is a great preponderance of authority in favour of . No editor now ever dreams of accepting any other reading. There is more doubt whether we should read iuas or nuas. It is gratifying, however, to think that, whichever of these we accept, the meaning is not materially affected, nor is the grammatical construction interfered with. The three best Codices, however, -the Sinaitic, the Vatican, and the Alexandrine-read pas. We therefore accept Alford's text. This is the text accepted by such men as Lachmann, and Buttmann, and Tischendorf. There is hardly any room for suspecting its perfect accuracy. We read then as follows, giving, however, for reasons which will afterwards appear, another than the ordinary punctuation : ὃ καὶ ὑμᾶς αντίτυπον νῦν σώζει. Βάπτισμα οὐ σαρκὸς ἀποθεσις ῥύπου ἀλλα συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς ἐπερώτημα εἰς Θεὸν, δι ̓ ἀναστάσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, x... And we translate thus: " Which also now saves you an antitype. Baptism is not a putting away of the filth of the flesh, but a good conscience's request to God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ," &c. Our readers will observe that this translation is, in some respects, new. The first clause is made to contain an assertion not hitherto ascribed to the apostle. Our rendering is, however, quite literal, and our only wonder is that it should never have been thought of before. We have been compelled to adopt the above punctuation, in order to make it possible to translate without violating the rules of Greek Syntax. The construction of the first clause is naturally completed with the |