be given instruction in scriptural morality is almost universal among public school teachers; but in view of the seeming intention of the Romanists either to control the schools or destroy them, if possible, there is much difference of opinion as to how this instruction should be given. Many sincere Christian teachers believe that really more effective work can be done if the reading of the Scripture "without note or comment" is not required, but that instead there be no rule, and the matter be left to their option. The effect of the exercise largely depends upon the teacher, one conducting it in such manner that the children will be reverently impressed by it, while another may cause them to look with contempt upon holy things.

As a class, school teachers are devoted to their work, and they regard with anxiety the possibility of the schools coming under the control of the Romish Church. They know, too, better than many persons who get more excited over the matter, the immense power of the Catholic vote in politics, This vote can be controlled as that of no Protestant Church can be, and for a time at least it can be used with powerful effect. And many politicians will yield to any demands in order to secure it for their personal benefit. It is not probable that the American people will permit it to retain power many years, but while its power lasts it may secure concessions and be granted favors that cannot be recalled. The school board of Cincinnati was in the control of the Catholics for several years, and the city is yet bearing the burdens then imposed in the interest of the Romish Church. There came, however, a reaction, and its power has been so weakened that a prominent educator of the city recently said that he believed if some teachers were to begin the reading of the Scriptures at the opening of the schools no objection would be made to it.

The strength of the Catholic opposition to the public schools should not be measured by the opposition to the Bible. Probably half of those who oppose its use are infidels and Protestants who do so to keep the hands of the Catholics off the schools altogether, and would gladly vote with others for an amendment to their State Constitution entirely prohibiting sectarian control of the public schools in any form or the sectarian distribution of the public funds. The American press

and people will protect this bulwark of our liberties from destruction.

It is possible, and, indeed, seems probable, that in most of the cities where the foreign element is in the majority the Bible will be permanently excluded from the public schools, or, at least, until immigration is restricted In that event it will probably be restored, as the children of the second and third generations from foreign parents become so imbued with American ideas of religion and morals that, unless atheists, they appreciate the importance of Bible instruction.

In some places, where the foreign element is not so strong, and where the Roman Catholics are yet able to influence the politicians, there is a disposition to compromise on the use of the Bible by the adoption of a volume of selections from the Bible that cannot reasonably be objected to by any Church or citizen who believes in the moral law as laid down in the Bible. Rev. E. D. Morris, D.D., LL.D., of Lane Seminary, Cincinnati, has prepared such a volume, which is used in several of the schools of Columbus, O., and in other places.

While it is not probable that the Catholics will secure control of the public schools, there are numerous evidences that they are making renewed efforts to do so. Former plans having failed, they are now seeking to get a foothold by leasing for parochial schools rooms in public school buildings made vacant by the withdrawal of Catholic children. They have done this not only in Pittsburg, and perhaps a few other cities, but it has come to light that they are pursuing the same policy in villages. The friends of the public school system must be constantly on the watch. Eternal vigilance is the price of this cheap defense of the Republic as well as of Liberty.

David & Thow from ногирон

ART. VII. BAPTISM FOR THE DEAD.

IN verse 29 of the fifteenth chapter of First Corinthians the apostle Paul, descending from the height of his argument in the five preceding verses, in which digression he had compassed with nervous thought the final cause of Christ's resurrection, turns directly to his opponents and addresses them with an argumentum ad hominem in the following words: 'ETεì Tí ποιήσουσιν οἱ βαπτιζόμενοι ὑπὲρ τῶν νεκρῶν; εἰ ὅλως νεκροὶ οὐκ ἐγείρονται, τί καὶ βαπτίζονται ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν—“ Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?" (Rev. Ver.)

The question which has been propounded again and again is: What did the apostle mean? As we all know, numerous theories have been submitted, but somehow they all seem to be either false to history or foreign to the logic of the apostle in this great chapter. Dr. Adam Clarke considered this verse to be the most difficult verse in the entire New Testament, and no one, we presume, will feel disposed to question this judgment who has ever attempted a solution of the passage, or in his researches has looked into the long list of opposing exegetes in Pool's Synopsis, or in other works, as Wolfe's or De Wette's or Meyer's Commentaries. That it is difficult, the number of different interpretations is sufficient evidence. The present attempt to elucidate the apostle's meaning, then, is not made in total ignorance of the peculiar difficulties to be overcome, nor of the failures of many learned and ingenious critics. It is not at all improbable, however, that greater difficulties have been forced by these very critics into the passage than can be found in the bare text itself.

Some interpreters (Adam Clarke, Rosenmüller, and Robinson among others) explain the verse by taking BanτióμEvoL in a metaphorical sense, signifying "immersed in sufferings," "overwhelmed in calamities," "a baptism of blood," etc. But (1) there is no term here denoting suffering, although Dr. Clarke says that "Barrieσ0a, to be baptized, was used to express being put to a violent death," and quotes in proof several instances of its use in that sense. That βαπτίζεσθαι, with indirect allusion to the sacred rite of baptism, as Robinson says

(N. T. Lex., sub voc.), may have that signification (Matt. xx, 22, 23, Mark x, 38, 39) is well understood, but none of the passages quoted by the famous exegete are parallel to this passage, nor are any of them suggestive of a similar meaning. Dr. J. F. von Flatt (Briefe Pauli an die Corinthier), after stating that Banтíčɛσ0αι may have the figurative signification "to suffer," "to be immersed in suffering," also refers to Mark x, 39, Luke xii, 50, and also quotes from Josephus de Bello Jud., 1. iv, c. 3, § 3, the words & ẞanтioaν THν пòλv. But the being baptized with a baptism, or the baptizing of a city, are altogether different ideas from being baptized for a thing.

2. The references to the figurative use of Bantiε00α in the above passages are made on the assumption that the apostle himself, in this passage, uses the term in that sense. But that he does so is the thing to be proved; it is the very question at issue. It is a canon of correct interpretation that a figurative signification is not to be attached to words the literal rendering of which makes good sense. Now, if we apply this rule to the passage in question we will see that there is no good reason why we should suppose that the apostle employed figurative language. If we do so interpret him we make him unnecessarily tautological, for in the very next verse (verse 30) he asks," And why stand we in jeopardy every hour?" The "we" does not indicate a distinction between the apostles and their helpers and the laity in the Church, nor between those of long standing in the Church and the oi ẞarrióμevo, those just coming in, for the new believers are in as much danger as the old members; nor does it refer to the apostle himself, for he afterward speaks of his own danger in verses 31, 32. The "we" includes the entire Church of Christ, the whole body of believers. Now, it is not at all probable that the apostle would say the same thing twice over in such immediate connection. On the contrary, the form of the question, "And why stand we in jeopardy every hour?" shows clearly that the idea of suffering or calamity is an entirely new element in the argument, and not one that has been used heretofore. "What shall they do who are being baptized for the dead?" and "Why do we stand in jeopardy every hour?" are the two arguments contained in verses 28, 30. That they are two and not one, and that they are not identical, seems clear enough.

3. Then, again, there is no reason to suppose that the apostle did not refer literally to the Christian rite of baptisın. The burden of the apostolic preaching was Jesus and the resurrection, and when men believed in the word which was spoken to them they were baptized into that faith. Hence the apostle could point to baptism, and as included therein the confession of faith, and most pertinently ask his opponents to define for him the significance or the value of baptism if there was no resurrection of the dead.

Other interpreters (as Alford, Hodge, Meyer) infer from the passage an allusion to a supposed fact that Christians sometimes presented themselves for baptism in behalf of believers who had died unbaptized. Thus Meyer:

It must have been something not wholly unusual in the apostolic Church, familiarity with which on the part of the readers is here taken for granted, that persons had themselves baptized once more for the benefit (vréo) of people who had died unbaptized but already believing, in the persuasion that this would be counted to them as their own baptism.*

De Wette is of the same opinion, and renders vпéρ τ☎ν vεkpwv by für die (anstatt der) Todten, instead of the dead. Olshausen also renders in like manner. For this view it would be difficult to find either well-grounded philological or historical proofs, or any proofs that, tested by the Scriptures, will be conclusive. It is altogether arbitrary, we think, to take for granted that the apostle wrote vrέp for dvrí. In all his writings Paul employs dvrí only seven times; but, after making all possible allowances for diversity of opinion, we number over seventy instances in which ép occurs in its regular sense. In Philem. 13 υπέρ is used for ἀντίπἵνα ὑπέρ σοῦ μoi Siakov, that he might minister to me for thee; but this use of huper is rare, its usual significance being for the sake of rather than instead of. There is no historical ground for the view adopted by Meyer and De Wette and Olshausen and many others. That such a superstition as vicarious baptism was practiced by some heretical sects at the close of the first century is no proof that it was derived by them from apostolic times, as is supposed by the above exegetes, who rely mainly upon two passages in Tertullian for this proof.

* Com., in loc.