3. Those which assume an ellipsis in the verse. 4. Those which turn on the explanation of twv v€Kpu)v, the dead. 1. The simplest and most natural interpretation takes the word bap- tize in its ordinary sense. ' What do they do who allow them- selves to be baptized in the place of the dead ? ' This supposes that the custom of vicarious baptism, as afterwards practised by the Cerinthians and Marcionites, had already been intro- duced into Corinth. Among those heretical sects, if a cate- chumen died before baptism, some one was baptized in his name, in order that he might be enrolled among Christians and receive the benefit of the ordinance. The objections to this in- terpretation are, that the. practice was superstitious, founded on wrong views of the nature and efficacy of baptism. 2. That there are no traces elsewhere of the prevalence of vicarious baptism before the second century. 3. That it was universally condemned by the churches as heretical. 4. That it cannot be supposed that the apostle would refer to such a supersti- tious custom without condemning it. These objections are in a measure met by the following considerations : 1. Paul, so far from intimating any approbation of the custom, distinctly sep- arates himself from its abettors. He does not say, ' What shall we do ' — ' What shall the^ do.' It was something with which he had no fellowship. 2. That this method of arguing against others from their own concessions, is one which the apostle frequently employs. 3. That when his mind is full of a partic- ular subject he does not leave it, to pronounce judgment on things incidentally introduced. Thus, in chap. 11, 5, when treating of women speaking in the church unveiled, he ex- presses no disapprobation of their speaking in pubhc, although he afterwards condemned it. A still more striking example of the same thing is to be found 10, 8, where he speaks of the Corinthians " sitting at meat in an idol's temple," without any disapprobation of the thing itself, but only of its influence on the weaker brethren. Yet, in 10, 14-22, he proves that the thing itself was an act of idolatry. 4. That the entire disap- pearance of this custom in the orthodox church, although other superstitious observances not less objectionable soon prevailed, is probably to be referred to the practice having been forbid- den by the apostle as soon as he reached Corinth. This may have been one of the things which he left " to be set in order when he came," 11, 34. 5. The state of the church in Cormth, as disclosed by this epistle, was not such as to render the adoption of such a custom by a portion of the people, incredi-
15