« PreviousContinue »
that baptized persons were made clean. All this is plain, and forcible, and logical, if baptize means to purify, i. e., to expiate; on any other supposition it is of no force at all. For suppose that Moses did sprinkle the blood of a lamb on the posts of the doors, and suppose that it did make expiation, and thus purify the people and make them clean, it only proves that expiated persons were made clean; but how does it prove that immersed persons were made clean according to the law ? It does not, it cannot-and thus the sense immerse is excluded, and no sense but purify or expiate is possible. This, then, is the sense of the passage : "He who is expiated or absolved is made clean, both according to the law and according to the gospel. According to the law, because Moses, in order to make expiation, took a bunch of hyssop and sprinkled the blood of a lamb, and according to the prophet, this makes clean (adsperges me hyssopo et mundabor); according to the gospel, because he is made whiter than snow whose sins are forgiven. Supra nivem dealbatur cui culpa dimittitur. How clearly then does this passage exclude immersion as the meaning of baptism, and establish purification, or the remission of sins as its religious sense. The same sense we shall soon see in the formal definitions of Athanasius, Zonaras, and Phavorinus. It is seen no less plainly in another passage of Ambrose: “Unde sit baptisma nisi de cruce Christi, de morte Christi ?” vol. i. p. 356. “ Whence is remission of sins, except from the cross of Christ, from the death of Christ “ Ibi est omne mysterium, quia
pro te passus est. In ipso redemeris, in ipso salvaberis." “ There is all the mystery, because he suffered for thee. In him thou shalt be redeemed; in him thou shalt be saved." How beautifully all of this applies to the remission of sins. It is the remission of sins, it is not immersion, that comes from the cross and death of Christ. Hence, we need not wonder to hear him speak of expiation by the sprinkling of the blood of the paschal lamb as a baptism, for it was a remission of sins; and the sprinkling of the blood of the paschal lamb was the great type of the sprinkling of the blood of the Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world. Here then, beyond all doubt, expiation by sprinkling is considered as a baptism under the law, and is one of the diógopou Bánriquoi spoken of by Paul in Heb. ix. 10.
Nor is this the only case. Cyril of Alexandria, on Isa. 4:4, vol. ii. Paris, 1838, speaks of the sprinkling of the ashes of a heifer as a baptism. He denying the power of mere exter
nal rites to purify the soul, and says, βεβαπτίσμεθα μεν γαρ ουκ εν ύδατι γύμνω αλλ' ουδε σπόδω δαμάλεως-αλλ' εν πνεύματι αγίω και πυρί. “ We have been baptized not with mere water, nor yet with the ashes of a heifer, but with the Holy Spirit and fire.” This implies that externally there was a baptism by water; and therefore, just as clearly, that there was an external baptism by the ashes of a heifer. What was this? Let Paul answer : “ The ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh.” If any one should say there was a rite of washing or bathing connected with sprinkling ; I answer not in the case of the sprinkled person, as I have shown ($ 28, 11); and even if there were, still he was not immersed in or by the ashes of a heifer, and to this the word Banrico is here limited. Besides, Cyril, in a parenthetic explanation after sapóleos, evolves his own meaning too clearly to admit of denial-ερραντίσμεθα δε προς μόνην της σαρκός καθαρότητα καθά φησιν ο μακάριος Παύλος “We are sprinkled to purify the flesh alone, as says the blessed Paul.”
According to Cyril then, the sprinkling of the ashes of a heifer, was an external baptism, but it did not effect real and spiritual purification, any more than a mere washing in water. The sprinkling of an unclean person with the ashes of a heifer was, therefore, another of the dagógou Bonziouoi of which Paul speaks.
The same Cyril, on Isa. 1: 16,“ wash you, make you clean," considers it as a command to baptize, and says, toūro xai ó πάλαι νόμος αυτούς ώς εν σκίαις διέτυπου, έφη γαρ, Νum. 8: 6, 7. “ This the ancient law imaged forth to them as in shadows, for he said, “ take the Levites and cleanse them, and thus shalt thou do unto them to cleanse them : sprinkle water of purifying on them,” &c. There is no immersion or bathing here. But sprinkling alone, είτα ποιόν έτι το ύδωρ του αγνίσμου διδάξει λέγων ο σοφώτατος Παύλος, Ηeb. 9: 13, 14. 6 What the water of purification is, the most wise Paul shall teach, saying : the ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh.” In this Cyril saw baptism imaged forth as in a shadow ; and this passage throws light on the preceding, and shows that in all the various sprinklings of the old law, he saw some of the diagógou Búntiquoi, of which Paul speaks.
Nor is this all. Tertullian speaks of the sprinklings and expiations of the heathen world, as the Devil's baptism, rivalling the ordinances of God. De Baptismo, p. 257. Paris, 1634. SECOND SERIES, VOL. IX. NO. I.
He first unfolds the purifying power of water (as we have seen he calls it a baptism on this ground), and then the various uses made of it by the Gentile world. " At the sacred rites of Isis, or Mithra, they are initiated by a washing [lavacro]; they carry out their gods with washings [lavationibus] ; they expiate villas, houses, temples, and whole cities, by sprinkling with water carried around. Certainly they are purified [tinguntur] in the Appolinarian and Eleusinian rites, and they say that they do this to obtain regeneration, and to escape the punishment of their perjuries. Also among the ancients, whoever had stained himself with murder, expiated himself with purifying water. In view of these things we see the zeal of the devil in rivalling the things of God, since he also practises baptism among his own people—cum et ipse baptismum in suis exercet. What can be found like this? The polluted one purifies (immundus emundat]. The destroyer delivers. He who is under condemnation, absolves others [damnatus absolvit). He will destroy, forsooth, his own work, washing away the sins which he inspires."
Tertullian here traces the purifier water through all its uses in the heathen world in purifying, whether by sprinkling, or in any other way, for absolution, or for cleansing. And he sums it all up as the Devil's baptism. Words, denoting sprinkling, or purification, or absolution, pervade the whole passage-as lavacrum, lavatio, aspergo, purgo, expio, abluo, emundo, absolvo, diluo. But no word occurs denoting of necessity immersion. Mr. Carson may refer to tingo. I know that he has said in his work on baptism, p. 78, “ Tingo expresses appropriately dipping and dying, and these only.” Mr. Carson says this with his usual accuracy. Ovid was of a different opinion. Speaking of the ocean in a storm, he says, videtur aspergine tingere nubes.—Metamorph. 11. 497, 498. Did. Ovid mean that the ocean seems to dye the clouds with spray, or to immerse them with spray? He means plainly to sprinkle them with spray. He also uses the expression, tingere corpus aquâ sparsâ. (Fast. 4: 790. See Gesner on tingo.) Does this mean to color or to immerse the body by sprinkled water ? And what mean the common expressions, tingi nardo, tingi Pallade, tingi oleo? Is oil a coloring substance ? or was it customary to be dipped in oil? We read of anointing with. oil, or of pouring oil on the head. Who has recorded the cụstom of dipping in oil? Hilarius too, on Acts 19 : 4, speaking
of a spurious baptism, says, non tincti sed sordidati sunt. Here the antithesis demands of us to translate, “ they were not purified but polluted.” Tingo, then, means to sprinkle, to wet or moisten, to wash, to purify-and in reference to baptism, this last is its appropriate sense. No word, then, occurs, denoting immersion. All kinds of purification and expiation are spoken of, including prominently those by sprinkling, and all are summed up as the Devil's baptism, i. e. the Devil's purification or absolution—and the closing contrast rests for all its force on assigning to the word this sense.
Nor was this idea of the Devil's baptism rivalling God's, peculiar to Tertullian. It is found also in Justin Martyr and Ambrose. After describing Christian baptism, Justin says, xai το λουτρόν δή τούτ' ακούσαντες οι δαίμονες διά του προφήτου κεκηρύγμενον ενήργησαν ραντίζειν εαυτούς τους εις τα ίερα αυτών Řni Baivortes. “The dæmons hearing of this washing, or purification, proclaimed by the prophet, caused those entering into their temples, to sprinkle themselves.” He then mentions that they also used an entire washing of the body in certain cases. If the dæmons aimed to rival God's purification, they would naturally use sprinkling as well as bathing, for the Jews used both. But if they were merely trying to imitate God's immersion, why did they use sprinkling at all ? Clemens Alexandrinus, as we have seen, takes the washing of hands by Telemachus and the Jews, as a baptism. And Justin as plainly regards sprinkling as part of the Devil's baptism.
Ambrose, taking a general view of Jewish and Heathen absolutions, thus sums up the whole matter-vol 2, p. 355.
Multa sunt genera baptismatum-sed unum baptisma clamat Apostolus. Quare? Sunt baptismata gentium, sed non sunt baptismata. Lavacra sunt, baptismata esse non possunt. Caro lavatur non culpa diluitur, immo in illo lavacro contrahitur. Erant antem baptismata Judæorum alia superflua, alia in figura. In order to translate this passage, we must notice that it is a contrast of ineffectual purifications with real purifications, i. e., remission of sins. I translate it thus :
“ There are many kinds of purifications; but the Apostle proclaims one purification. Why? There are purifications of the nations, but they are not purifications, i. e., remissions of ·sin. Washings they are—purifications, i. e., remissions of sin they cannot be. The body is washed, but sin is not washed away, nay, in that washing sin is contracted. There were also
purifications of the Jews: some superfluous, others typical.” Any one can see that the sense of this whole passage turns on assigning to baptismata in the second member of the antithesis, the sacrificial sense of xabapiopòs i. e., absolution, or forgiveness of sins. The purifications of the Gentiles were not purifications for this reason; they did not wash away sins. This is a good reason for denying to them the name purification in its highest sense. But it is no reason for denying that they were immersions. They could be immersions, whether they remitted sins or not-but they could not be real purifications unless they remitted sins. If any one wishes to feel the full force of this, let him try to translate the passage, and use immersions instead of purifications.
“They are immersions, but immersions they cannot be.” Why not? “They are washings, immersions they cannot be." Why not? “The body is washed, but sin is not washed away; nay, in that washing it is contracted.” But how does this prove that they are not immersions? It proves that they are not purifications. With immersions it has nothing to do. The sense purify is then fully and incontrovertibly established.
§ 54. Passage from Proclus.
Let us now look at a beautiful passage in Proclus, which presents this import of the word to the mind in various relations, and with the clearness of a sunbeam-p. 280. Rome, 1630. It is in an oration on the Epiphany, and is an expansion of the ideas contained in the reply of John to Christ: I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? In expanding this question, the fathers took great delight, and their expansion always turned on the idea, how can the polluted purify the pure ? How can one, under condemnation, acquit his judge ? zās rohuňow Barrioni ge ; πότε πυρ υπό χόρτου καθαίρεται και πότε πηλός πλύνει πηγήν και πως βαπτίσω τον κριτήν ο υπεύθυνος και πώς βαπτίσω σε δεσπότα και μωμην ου βλέπω εν σοι. τη κατάρα του Αδάμ ουχ υπέπησας αμαρτίαν ουκ εποίησας. . Πώς βαστάσει η γή ορώσα τον τους αγγέλους αγιάζοντα, υπό ανθρώπου αμαρτωλού βαπτιζόμενον ; πως σε βαπτίσω δεσπώτα τοις εκ γένεσεως μολυσμούς ου προσομιλήσαντα ; πώς oύν εγώ κατάρρυπος άνθρωπος αγνίσω Θεόν ;! Θείν αναμάρτητον; βαπτιστής απέστειλας δεσπώτα, ου παρήκουσας ToŨ gov npooráyuaros. I have abbreviated this passage somewhat, and yet, because of its beauty and varied use of language,