« PreviousContinue »
nothing strange, and might even be expected in writers so numerous and so various. Still, when I consider the extreme power of the usage which I have proved, when I find it clearly and decidedly, even in the eleventh century, I am inclined to believe that a general perception of the true sense was lost or not observed, till the Greek language itself sunk in the ruins of the Eastern empire; and that the present state of opinion has been produced by party spirit, and by the mistakes of learned men to whom the Greek was a dead language, and who, being familiar with the style and usage of classic Greek, as that which holds the earliest and primary place in the modern systems of education, have allowed it to expel the true spiritual and sacred sense of the word, and in place of it, to introduce a merely physical, and, too often, barren and profitless external act.
In opposition to this, the opinion of the Greek church is often alleged as decisive in favor of the meaning immerse. Being by name the Greek church, it is inferred that they must, of course, be good judges of the import of a Greek word. In reply to this, I would ask: Is modern Italian ancient Latin? If not, neither is modern Greek ancient Greek. That modern Greek resembles its parent stock, more than modern Italian does the Latin, I do not deny. But the resemblance is not such that the opinion of a modern Greek scholar, on a point like this, is worth any more than that of a modern German, Italian or English scholar. No man can form an opinion on this subject except by a study of the facts found in the ancient writers who exhibit the usage in question; and his opinion is worth most who most carefully investigates, compares, classifies and judges in view of the whole case. And if this be so, the opinions of the modern Greek church, unsustained by argument, ought to have no peculiar weight. Their proficiency in philological studies certainly does not exceed that of other European scholars, to say nothing of those of America.
The passage in 2 Kings 5: 14, is often alleged as decisive proof that Buntíča means immerse. The facts are these. The prophet commanded Naaman to wash seven times in Jordan,
. , spanrioato seven times. It is said to be universally conceded that sa means immerse only. I reply, it is not so conceded. Even Mr. Carson allows that it has passed to the sense to dye, without respect to mode. Why then could it not pass to the sense to wash, without respect to mode ? Scholars of the first emi
Sept ,ויטבל In obeying the command it is said .רָחַץ using
nence believe and affirm that it did. Of these it is enough to mention Suicer. He affirms that the word is here the equivalent both of ym and Bantico, in the sense to wash. Nor can it be disproved, for it is in perfect analogy with other known facts in language. Even if the sense immerse is here admitted, it only proves the coexistence of the secular sense immerse with the religious sense purify, and that in this case there was a desire to fix the mind on the mode of washing. Take a parallel
Mr. Carson admits the coexistence in Bónrw of the sense to dye and to dip. Suppose now an order to dye a cloth is given, and in narrating its execution, it is said, a man dipped it seven times in a dye-tub, and in each case púnic is used. Does the fact that it means dip in the last case prove that it does not mean dye in the first ? Cannot two different meanings of a word coexist even in the same sentence? Can it not be said, I drank out of this spring last spring ? How then could the use of the word puntíča to denote an act here, prove that it does not mean purify elsewhere? On neither ground, then, has the passage any force. For first, it cannot be proved that the word here means to dip; and secondly, if it could, it would be nothing to the purpose.
$ 28. It only remains that I adduce, as I proposed, a large amount of coincident facts, sustaining and giving verisimilitude to the whole.
1. The early and decidedly predominant idea of the rite was, that it was the appointed, and almost the only means of obtaining the remission of sins. How natural, now, that its name should indicate this idea. It does, if Bantiopòs is taken in the sacrificial sense xabagiquòs, but not if taken in the sense immersion. A proof that Bantuouòs is taken in the sacrificial sense is found in ts equivalents in Latin and Greek; remissio peccatorum, άφεσις αμαρτιών, αμαρτιών κάθαρσις, άφεσις πλημuelnuétor. These and similar phrases are used as the names of the rite, and are obviously mere equivalents of xabapiouos. Instances of this usage abound in Tertullian and Augustine; they occur also in Gregory Nyss. and other Greek Fathers.
2. The words with which Bantišw is interchanged, in giving variety to the style, and preventing the too frequent repetition
and chay hot iti od 4
1. The range
fundamental idea of the leading term to be retained ; or some one into which it easily passes, and with which it has a natural affinity. The class of words that has an affinity to the idea καθαρίζω, is very large. In Greek they are λούω, αγιάζω, αγνίζω, úvazervóo, etc. ; in Latin, purgo, mundo, emundo, lavo, abluo, diluo, eluo, perfundo; together with the nouns and participles derived from them, as lovzpòv, dyviouòs, etc., purgatio, lavatio, lavacrum, emundatus, ablutus, etc. The class of words that has an affinity to the idea immersion is small, as it is a mere external act. Now let three facts be noted. of equivalents, or substitutes for Buntito, is in fact large. 2. They are all of the class having affinity to malapito ; and there is a great readiness to pass into any mode of speech equivalent or analogous to it, or derivable from it. 3. There is no readiness to use equivalents of immersion, except in cases in which, for some particular reason, it is intended to give prominence to the form of purifying. Let any one read Augustine's controversies with the Donatists, and his various works on baptism, the works of Origen as translated, and any of the Greek Fathers who have written much on the subject, and he will easily find the same thing. It is impossible by a few quotations to give an idea of the impression produced by noticing such facts in passages of considerable extent.
3. When it is desired to speak definitely of immersion as an act, Bantiopòs is not generally used, but notádvois ; and for immersion, avdovois. See Suicer on these words. Why is this, if pantiguos never means any thing but immersion ?
4. On the other hand, in the Apostolic Constitutions, Can. L., the expression rola Bantioueto ulas uvítems occurs, in which toia Banríquara denotes three acts of immersion, but not the name of the rite; for in trine immersion, three immersions are necessary to one purification. And if the expression were derstood to mean three purifications, the idea would be false; for three immersions make but one purification. Lest any misunderstanding should arise, a note was deemed necessary by Zonaras, informing the reader that Bantiquara here means this care to explain and to state that Bantiquara in this caseÉvraữoa—means immersions, if it never has any other meaning? But if its common meaning is purification, all is plain. We
e see too the use of the word xarodvors. It was univocal : Bantiguos was equivocal, and in its common religious sense denoted purification.
From this case in the Apostolic Constitutions, and from the closing remarks on paaričo in 2 Kings 5: 14, the following general principles may be derived, which will be of great usein a critical investigation of the meanings of this word in the Fathers. 1. In speaking of baptism, the two senses, immerse and purify, are sometimes both used. 2. They are applied to the rite in different ways, and for different ends. Taken in the sense of purify, Pantico denotes the real import of the rite and the thing enjoined, and is used in the sacrificial and religious sense ; but when it denotes the act of immersion, it is not used to denote the real import of the rite, nor in the religious sense, but simply to denote a physical act, i. e. a mode in which purification may be performed. For example, suppose an ancient bishop to have ordered a priest to purify, i. e. baptize a man. The priest obeys and immerses him three times according to the principles of trine immersion; and in describing this trine immersion, uses the word Buntićw in the sense of immerse. Here both senses of the word are used in relation to the same rite. In the first instance it is used in the sacred sense of purify, in the second, in the secular sense to denote a mode of purifying. 3. Whenever Bantiquata is used with the numeral three, in describing a single baptism, of course it is used in the secular sense, as the name of an act; because in such a case, the purification is but one, whilst the immersions are three. 4. To prove the existence of the secular sense as indicating the mode of a religious washing, does not disprove the existence of the religious sense as the name of the rite itself. This shows the fallacy of all arguments based on 2 Kings 5: 14. 5. To guard against the ambiguity produced by applying the same word to the rite in two senses, zarádvois was used to denote immersion, leaving to Búntigua the religious sense of purification.
5. Although immersion was deemed of immense importance, yet its necessity was never defended on philological grounds ; and leave was conceded to sprinkle in extraordinary cases, on such grounds as plainly show that they did not feel bound by the import of the word. Hear Cyprian : “Neque enim sic in sacramento salutari delictorum contagia, ut in lavacro carnali et seculari sordes cutis et corporis, abluuntur, ut aphronitris et cæteris quoque adjumentis et solio et piscina opus sit quibus ablui et mundari corpusculum possit. Aliter pectus credentis abluitur, aliter mens hominis per fidei meritum mundatur." Notice now that this whole passage, designed to prove that a man may be baptized by sprinkling, depends for its force entirely on assigning to the word the sense of purify. His argument in brief is this; the power of baptism to purify from sin, does not depend on the quantity of water used, but upon the internal faith of the person baptized. “In baptism,” he says," the pollution of sin is not washed away, as the pollution of the body and skin is washed away in an external, physical bath, so that there is need of saltpetre (or nitre, see Jer. 2: 22), and other auxiliary means, and a bath or a pool, in which the body can be washed and purified. Far otherwise is the breast of the believer washed; far otherwise is the mind of a man purified from sin by the merits of faith.” From all this he inferred that a man might properly be baptized, if necessary, by sprinkling. But how could he do this if he knew that the command was not to purify but to immerse? On this ground all such reasoning would be vain. Any one could have replied : “ The command is not to purify, but to immerse ; and you cannot immerse without immersion ; and sprinkling is no immersion at all.” But such an idea does not seem to have entered Cyprian's mind. To him plainly the only command was a command to purify. The word baptize does not indeed occur ; but evident synonymes of it are used, as abluo and mundo. I know not how we can obtain stronger testimony to the prevailing opinion of the age than this; and it is the stronger because indirect and undesigned.
6. In explaining the similitude between baptism and the sal, vation of Noah in the ark, also between baptism and the passage of the Israelites through the Red Sea—1 Pet. 3: 20, 21, and 1 Cor. 10: 1, 2-Noah and the Israelites are not looked on as immersed, but merely as purified, or saved ; and that too by the same element which overwhelmed and destroyed the enemies of God. They even go so far as to speak of the wicked as im.