« PreviousContinue »
absolutely impossible. Though I by no means admit the justice of this demand—because hundreds and thousands of senses are daily admitted on evidence far less ample than that already given, and to admit the necessity of such proof to establish a meaning would subvert all principles of sound philology-yet, as the materials for such proof exist, it seems appropriate here to present them.
$25. To perceive fully the force of these, it is necessary to notice, 1. The source whence they are derived, which is ancient usage, as it regards the baptism of blood: 2. The cases to which they relate, which are two; (1) the bloody baptism of Christ ; (2) the bloody baptism of the martyrs: 3. Their views in relation to this subject. They apply the word baptism merely to the act of making an atonement by shedding blood, even where no one is spoken of, either as sprinkled by it, or immersed in it, and when the only external act spoken of is totally at war with the idea of immersion. In cases of this kind, no sense is possible but xabaotouds, which is the established sacrificial term for an atonement, as I have already shown, § 12. Let us then begin with the case of our Saviour, of whose bloody baptism they so often speak. He shed his blood for sins, and this is called xabapiouos in the word of God. Heb. 1: 3. Now, if they call the mere act of shedding his blood a Bontioua, it is totally impossible that it should be taken in any except the sacrificial sense, xabapouòs. But in Origen, Hom. 7, on Judges 6, occurs a long passage on the baptism of blood, in which this very usage of language occurs. Speaking of Luke 12: 50, he says:
“ Pertendit enim nostra probatio non usque ad verbera solum, sed usque ad profusionem sanguinis pervenit. Quia et Christus, quem sequimur, pro redemptione nostra effudit sanguinem suum, ut inde exeamus loti sanguine nostro. Baptisma enim sanguinis solum est, quod nos puriores reddat, quam aqua baptismus reddit. Et hoc ego non præsumo, sed Scriptura
refert. dicente domino ad discipulos: Bantismum habeo bantizari
external act spoken of is outpouring ; and surely, to call this an immersion is absurd. Here, then, an impossibility of the sense immersion is clearly proved. 4. But, give to baptisma the sense xafaqquòs and all is harmonious and plain; for an outpouring of blood is a xabapiouos in the sacrificial sense, i. e. an atonement. In Heb. 1:3, καθαρισμός ποιησάμενος των αμαρτιών ημών is applied to Christ in this very sense. Let now the passages from Chrysostom, Gregory Naz., and Theophylact be re-examined, and carefully compared with this. § 21:2, 3. Those from Chrysostom and Theophylact both relate to the baptism of blood, and refer to passages in Matthew and Mark, parallel in sense to that in Luke, to which Origen refers—Mark 10:38,39, Matthew 20: 22, 23. So that their usage of Benziouos to denote xafagiouós, is certainly and undeniably the same with that of Origen. By Gregory Naz. this same sacrificial sense is just as clearly extended to the baptism of water ; for he says: “ He did not need purification, i. e. forgiveness of sins, who taketh away
the sins of the world.” Two points are now perfectly established. 1. Βάπτισμος has the sacrificial sense xabagiquos. 2. In the description given of the rite by Gregory Naz., not only are xabuiga and xúOdpois used in the place of Bantico and Buntiopos, but they are used as perfectly synonymous. Here, then, a flood of light is thrown over the whole subject, not only as it regards the baptism of blood, but of water also; and we may now consider it as indisputably proved, that Burritw is a perfect synonyme of xcinpito, in the sacrificial sense.
With this compare the argument in § 8, and see how every position there assumed is irresistibly verified and sustained. Not only in the days of John was xabagiquos regarded as a synonyme of puntiquos, but the same usage is found running down, in a stream of light, for many centuries. Indeed, it goes beyond the period commonly assigned to the Fathers, even as low as the eleventh century.
$26. But let us look once more at this same usage, not only in the case of Christ, but also of the martyrs who followed his steps. In order to do this the more clearly, let us for a moment consider the feelings of the early ages as it regards martyrdom. The following points are here to be noticed. 1. The religion of Christ began with a solemn act of martyrdom—even that of the Son of God. 2. Christ knew that multitudes of his disciples were soon to be called to endure the same fate. 3. Both by his example and also by his spirit-stirring words, he provided great and powerful motives to excite his disciples to meet death, in its most terrific forms, without weakness or fear. 4. These motives were not only effectual to produce the desired result in multitudes of instances, but the minds of the early Christians were so deeply affected and so highly excited on this subject, that soon they went even to the extreme of undue
eagerness for such a death. 5. This disposition was increased by a false construction put on the words of Paul: “I am ready to be offered.”—2 Tim. 4: 6. “ Yea, and if I be offered up,” etc.Phil. 2: 7. Also on the words of Christ: “ Can ye be baptized with the baptism wherewith I am baptized ?” which, as we have shown, they understood as: “ Can ye be purified with the purification wherewith I am purified ?" and regarded as an inquiry, whether they were ready to be purified in their own blood, as he was in his. See, in the preceding passage of Origen: " loti sanguine nostro.” Hence they ascribed to the death of a martyr a kind of atoning power, and spoke of it as a καθαρισμός or βάπτισμος, in the sacrificial sense. 6. This purification was supposed to avail especially for the martyr; so that, if he had never been purified in water for the remission of his sins, they were remitted by his purification in his own blood. Hence, the universal idea of a bloody baptism was, that the martyr was purified, or purged from sin, by his own blood. 7. It was also supposed, that the deaths of martyrs had a purifying power in behalf of others. Now the correctness of these views is not the question. They were evidently false. Our only inquiry is : In what language were they expressed? And the answer is as before και βαπτίζω and βάπτισμα are freely used to denote the act of purifying, or purging from sin by the shedding of blood; and that in such circumstances, all attempts to introduce the idea of immersion are vain. Origen, on John 1: 29, speaking of Jesus, the Lamb of God, says: “ Et sane hujus victimæ cognatæ sunt cæteræ, quarum notæ sunt legales : per cæteras vero victimas huic victimæ cognatas, effusiones intelligo sanguinis generosorum martyrum ;” and after a few lines he adds: “Quæ purgant eos pro quibus offeruntur.” Again, in his notes on Matthew 20:22, 23, he says: “ Quod autem quis in passione remissionem accipit peccatorum baptismus est.”
He assigns this reason: “Si enim baptismus indulgentiam peccatorum promittit, sicut accepimus de baptismo
aquæ et spiritus, remissionem autem accipit peccatorum, et qui martyrii suscipit baptismum, sine dubio ipsum martyrium rationabiliter baptismus appellatur.” Here note, 1, the expression “martyrii baptismum.” Now, as martyrdom is not a fluid, so immersion in it is impossible; purification by it is the only possible sense. 2. Previously, as we have seen, he has said of Christ, profusionem sanguinis baptisma nominavit. Here he conveys the same idea in other words, when he says, “Martyrium baptismus appellatur.” 3. He gives us express reasons for this use of terms. The martyrs are victims like Christ; like his, their death has an atoning or purging power, and because of this power their death is to them a baptism, i. e., a purification. Indeed, had Origen designed to give a concise definition of the sacrificial sense which I have assigned to the word Benriquos, he could not have been more exact. antem quis in passione remissionem accipit peccatorum baptismus est.” Because any one through his suffering receives the remission of sins, it is a purification-a xodupiopòs-a Boatiquos. It is not called a baptism, because the martyr is immersed, for in fact he is not. This is not even thought of; it is totally out of the mind. But it is so called simply because, by suffering, by effusion of blood, he secures the forgiveness of sin. But that effusion of blood, which secures the forgiveness of sins, is always called xa0apiouòs, and never an immersion, because in fact there is no immersion in the case. An expiatory offering is never called an immersion. The making an atonement by blood is never called the making of an immersion. He who pardons through blood is always said to purify, to purge, to cleanse by blood, but never to immerse by, or with, or in blood. Now, though the idea that the blood of martyrs has an atoning or purging power is false, yet it does not in the least diminish the force of the argument. We are inquiring how Origen expressed his belief that the blood of martyrs was a purgation from sin, and not whether his opinions were correct. In perfect accordance with these ideas, Chrysostom says of the martyrs in the hour of death," that they have the Spirit copiously,” that “their sins are taken away,'' that “there is a wonderful purifi
because, after it, the martyr is polluted no more (ov ponúvera). The same ideas are also found in the writings of Augustine, and in those of his antagonists, thus proving themselves to be the prevailing ideas of the age. See his De Civitate Dei, lib. 13. cap. 7, also lib. 2. cap. 23, contra literas Petiliani, where Petilianus uses the expression:
“Similes Christo martyres, quos post aquam veri baptismi, sanguis haptista perfundit," i. e., whom their own blood, as a purifier, cleanses or washes. So far indeed was this idea carried, that, as we have seen, the purification by blood was even more desired than the purification by water, though to this also they attached an exaggerated, and almost miraculous power. Nor have I found any evidence that the passages in Luke 12: 50, Mark 10: 38, 39, Matt. 20:22, 23, were ever understood by any of the Fathers in the sense either of immersion or overwhelming. They seem universally to have referred them to the baptism of blood, and to have taken the words Béntiquos and Buntíča in the sacrificial sense—to purify. Now I do not think that in these passages the words have that sense.
I regard them as instances in which the word is used in the sense to overwhelm with cares, and agony of body and mind, as illustrated in 9 4 and 5 10. But this only shows how deeply fixed and strong was the usus loquendi for which I contend ; for it was so powerful as even to overrule the true sense, in cases where the word obviously departs from the sense to purify. And if it was sufficiently powerful to force the sense to purify on the word, even when it does not belong there, are we to suppose that it was not powerful enough to retain it, in instances where all the facts of the case show that it truly belongs? In view of these facts, which are a small part only of those which might be adduced, I am utterly unable to resist the conviction, that to purify, was clearly, and so far as I have observed, universally the religious sense of the word Pontica among the Fathers.