All therefore we can infer from the above state ments is, that baptism by substitution had taken place among the Marcionites, and perhaps also among the Cerinthians and other smaller sects towards the end of the fourth century ; but that it existed between that period and the time when Paul wrote the above passage is wholly unsub stantiated. Is it possible to suppose that in the various quarters of the church of which we have any information, no notice whatever should have been taken either by a synodical decree, or by a contemporary writer within that period, of a cus tom, which, the earlier it existed, must have ap peared only so much the more offensive ? Is it not therefore evident that if it is found 30o years after wards, it was not a continuation of the primitive custom, but had arisen independently of the latter, either in imitation of it, or from a mistaken inter pretation of this passage ? The idea, then, that such a superstitious custom existed in the Corinthian community is devoid of all historical evidence ; and we must confess that the clearer the sense of the words becomes the more obscure becomes the thing itself.
The difficulties will still more increase, if we were to admit, with Olshausen, Riickert, and De Wette, that the apostle approved of the absurd practice in question, since he would thus be brought into contradiction with his own principles on the importance of faith and external works, which he developes in his Epistle to the Galatians. Even Ambrose (1. c.) had already correctly judged, when he said, Exempla hoc non factum illorum probat, sed fidem fixam in resurrectione ostendit.' In the words of Paul we discover no opinion of his own concerning the justice or injustice of the rite ; it is merely referred to as an argunientzint ex concesso in favour of the object which he pursues through the whole chapter (comp. r Cor. ii. 5). However much may be objected against this interpretation, it is by far more reasonable than the explanations given by other critics. The Corinthian community was certainly of a mixed character, consisting of individuals of various views, ways of thinking, and different stages of education ; so that there might still have existed a small number among them capable of such absurdities. We are not suffi ciently acquainted with all the particulars of the case to maintain the contrary, while the simple grammatical sense of the passage is decidedly in favour of the proposed interpretation.
2. Origen (Dial. contr. Marcion.), Luther, Chemnitz, and Joh. Gerhard, interpret the words as relating to baptism over the graves of the mem bers of the community, a favourite rendezvous of the early Christians. Luther says that, in order to
strengthen their faith in the resurrection, the Chris tians baptized over the tombs of the dead. In that case inr0 with genit. must be taken in its local sense, quite an isolated instance in the New Testa ment (comp. Winer, Grainnzat. p. 263). The custom alluded to, moreover, dates from a much later period.
3. The above-quoted passage of Epiphanius mentions also a view, according to which vexpol is not to be translated by a'ad, but mortally ill per sons, whose baptism was expedited by sprinkling water upon them on their death-bed, instead of immersing them in the usual way ; the rite is known under the name of baptism us clinicus, lectnalis. But few of the modern theologians (among whom, however, are Calvin and Estius) advocate this view, which transgresses not less against the words of the text than against all historical knowledge of the subject.
B. The interpretations which. suppose that the text steaks of general church baptism. To these belongs the oldest opinion we know of, given in Tertullian (1. c. comp. De Resurrect. Carn. 48) : Quid et ipsos baptizari ait, si non gum baptizan tur corpora resurgunt ?' According to this view kip is here taken in the sense of on account of and v€KpeDv in that of dead bodies, they themselves, the baptized, as dead persons. The notion which lies at the bottom of this version is, that the body possesses a guarantee for resurrection in the act of baptism, in which it also shares. The sinking under and rising is with them a symbol of bury ing and resurrection. Some of the Greek Fathers also favour this interpretation, and more especially Theodoret, who thus developes the notion : He who undergoes baptism is therein buried with his Lord, that having partaken in his death, he may become partaker in his resurrection also. But if the body is a corpse and rises not, why is it ever baptized ?' Chrysostom : Paul said, Unless there is a resurrection, why art thou baptized for corpses, that is, for mere bodies. For to this end art thou baptized, for the resurrection of thy dead body, etc.' The idea thus developed is by itself admis sible, and hannonizes well with the whole course of ideas pursued by Paul from ver. 19. The form of the sentence, however, becomes uncommonly harsh, because of the transition : else what shall they do who are baptized on account of the dead ? (on ac count of themselves, who are dead) ? Indeed, it is by far more jarring than Rom. v. 6, which is quoted as a parallel passage.