elsewhere connected with the remission of sin; as in Acts 22, 16, and Acts 2, 88, “ Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins.” The meaning of the word, how- ever, depends upon its relation to the preceding clause. Ka@apicas may be connected with ἁγιάσῃ, and taken in the same tense with it. It then expresses the mode in which Christ cleanses his church. ‘He gave him- self for it that he might cleanse it, purifying it by the washing of water.’ In this case, if ἁγιάσῃ expresses moral purification or sanctification, so must xa@apicas. But if this participle be taken in the past tense, ac- cording to its form, then it must express something which precedes sanctification. The meaning would then be, ‘ Christ gave himself for the church, that he might sanctify it, having purified it by the washing with water.’* In this case καθαρίσας must refer to expiation or sacrificial purification, 1. 6. to washing away of guilt. The context is in favour of this view, and so is the analogy of Scripture. The Bible always represents remission of sin or the removal of guilt as preceding sanctification. We are pardoned and recon- ciled to God, in order that we may be made holy. Christ, therefore, having by his blood cleansed his church from guilt, sanctifies or renders it holy. In
* Participium Graecum καθαρίσας est praeteriti temporis, ac si dicas: Postquam mundarit. Verum quia apud Latinos nullum est tale partici- pium activum, malui tempus negligere, quam vertendo Mundatum per- vertere quod erat longe majoris momenti, nempe ut soli Deo relinquatur mundandi officium.
CHAP. v. vs. 26. 27. 321
either view we are said to be cleansed (whether from guilt or from pollution) by baptism. What does this mean? How does baptism in either of these senses wash away sin? The Protestant and scriptural answer to this question is, that baptism cleanses from sin just as the word does. We are said to be saved by the truth, to be begotten by the truth, to be sanctified by the truth. This does not mean—1. That there is any inherent, much less magic, power in the word of God as heard or read to produce these effects. 2. Nor that the word always and every where, when rightly pre- sented, thus sanctifies and saves, so that all who hear are partakers of these benefits. 3. Nor does it mean that the Spirit of God is so tied to the word as never to operate savingly on the heart except in connection with it. For infants may be subjects of regeneration, though incapable of receiving the truth. In like man- ner when the Scriptures speak of baptism as washing away sin, Acts 22,16; or as uniting us to Christ, Gal. 3, 27; or as making Christ’s death our death, Rom. 6, 4; Col. 2,12; or as saving us, 1 Pet. 3, 21; they do not teach—1. That there is any inherent virtue in bap- tism, or in the administrator, to produce these effects ; nor 2. That these effects always attend its right admin- istration ; nor 3. That the Spirit is so connected with baptism that it is the only channel through which he communicates the benefits of redemption, so that all the unbaptized perish. These three propositions, all of which Romanism and Ritualism aflirm, are contrary to the express declarations of Scripture and to universal 21