§ 52. Cases. Clinic Baptism. Purifying Agents.

Did he then take up Dr. Carson must say

In Routh's Reliquiæ Sacræ, vol. iii. p. 48, occurs a passage from Nicephorus, describing a clinic baptism, or' drolavsiobas προσδόκιμον ὄντα τὸ ὕδωρ αιτήσαι λαβεῖν ̓ ὁ δὲ καὶ ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ κλίνη ή ἐκεῖτο περιχύθεντα δῆθεν ἐβάπτιζεν. "So that he, expecting to die, asked to receive the water, i. e. baptism. And he baptized him, even upon his couch upon which he lay.' couch, man and all, and immerse them? yes, if it is possible—and is it not? But stay, there is still another word, regixúOsvra, which expressly defines the mode. It is by affusion! So then we have at length reached the mark, and immersion is pointedly excluded, unless affusion or sprinkling is immersion. And now Dr. Carson's labor is all lost, and it will be doubly and trebly lost on his own principles, before I am through, for cases equal or superior to this in strength, abound. Will Dr. Carson say, that the phrase, siye xg Tò TOIOÛTOV BάTTIOμа ¿voμásai, follows? It does, indeed, and implies a doubt of the propriety of calling such a transaction a baptism; but could there be any doubt of the utter impropriety of calling it an immersion? Is it, indeed, doubtful, whether pouring or sprinkling is immersion ? Let Dr. Carson look at his own canon, and can he doubt ? What then was the doubt? Whether such a transaction was a real purification, or remission of sins. This was the point on which doubt existed, as the question proposed to Cyprian, and his answer alike imply. The common mode of purifying, i. e. remitting sins, was by immersion. In the case of those who were in danger of death, another mode was used—all confessed that it was another mode. Did this, could it raise the question, whether two modes, by the confession of all totally unlike, were yet so nearly alike, that the name of one could be applied to the other? Or did it raise this question, whether the new mode was in fact effectual to absolve from sin, that is, was it an effectual purification, or remission of sins? It did, and Cyprian decided that it So then, no sense but purification is possible in this case.

was.

"He, expect

So that this is the true translation of the passage: ing to die, asked to receive the water, and he purified him by affusion, even upon the bed upon which he lay-if, indeed, it is proper to call such a transaction a purification." All my so-called ciphers are, therefore, at once restored to their full and true value.

The expression, “asked to receive the water," seems singular. Its singularity will cease when we consider another usage of the fathers. They were accustomed to call water itself a baptism. So they called blood a baptism. On what ground? On the same ground on which Christ is called our sanctification and salvation, because he sanctifies and saves us. On this ground they called water a purification, because it purifies. It is a purifier. On what ground could they call water an immersion? It is not an immerser. It does not immerse us-others immerse us in it, and it purifies us. If the fact that others immerse us in water, justifies us in calling it an immersion, there is the same reason for calling it a sprinkling or a pouring-for others sprinkle us with it, or pour it on us. But what shall we say of blood? Was there a rite of immersion in blood? Men were purified by blood, but it was by sprinkling, not by immersion. Why then call it an immersion? Here all possibility of the sense immersion is cut off. The truth is, that by a natural metonymy, means of purification were called baptisms, i. e. purifications, transferring the name of the effect to the cause.

So Tertullian (p. 357. Paris, 1634) says, speaking of the water and the blood, "Hos duo baptismos de vulnere perfossi lateris emisit." "These two baptisms he poured forth from the wound of his pierced side." Did he mean to say that Christ poured forth two immersions from his wounded side? or that he sent forth two purifications? So Augustine uses such passages as these, "baptismus, id est aqua:" again, "baptismus, id est aqua salutis." Isidore Hispalensis (Monumenta Orthodoxographa, p. 1774), speaking of the water that flowed from the side of Christ, says, "baptismus est aqua," and gives as his reason, "nullum aliud

est elementum quod purgat omnia." That is, "water is a purification, because there is no other element that purifies all things." Once more air was regarded as a purifying element and a type of the Holy Spirit ; and thunder was regarded as a compound of water and air. The philosophy was false. But to what language did it give rise? Maximus (p. 449, vol. ii. Paris, 1675) says, that sons of thunder means sons of Baptism. The reason is, ǹ βροντὴ συνίσταται ἐξ ὕδατος καὶ πνεύματος. Thunder is composed of water and air, and this he calls μυσταγωγία τοῦ βαπτίσματος, i. e. a mystic intimation of purification; and sons of thunder means, on this ground, sons of purification. What has immersion to do with all this? Again, Anastasius speaks of baptism as poured into the water-pots; and the water-pots as baptized by pouring baptism into them, Bibliotheca Patrum, vol. v. p. 958. Does he mean that the pots were immersed by pouring immersion into them, or that they were purified by pouring purification, i. e. water, a purifier, into them? This transaction he regards as a type of the baptism of the Gentiles. Did he suppose that they were to be immersed by pouring immersion upon them?

These passages are in themselves sufficient to settle the case. But as Mr. Carson attaches so much importance to the proof of an impossibility of the sense of immersion, I will add a few more passages.

§ 53. Other Cases. Expiation by Sprinkling called Baptism.

The passages now to be adduced are designed to prove this position; that the fathers apply the word Barril to denote expiation by sprinkling, and, indeed, expiation however made, so that all the sprinklings and other expiations of the Mosaic ritual, and even of the whole heathen world, are spoken of as baptisms.

Before proceeding to adduce the passages, it will add to the clearness of our ideas, to recur to the usages of language on the subject of sacrificial purification, or expiation by atonement. We have seen, then, that ideas of absolution, expiation, forgive

ness, are expressed in Greek by xabagiZw, to make pure, to purify —also, that the actual removal of moral pollution by the truth and the Spirit are denoted by the same word. Now, in spiritual baptism, these things always co-exist, i. e. those who are forgiven are always made pure in fact, yet there is a logical distinction between the two ideas, and the word xalagi?w directs the mind sometimes to one chiefly, and sometimes to the other. We see in English the same idiom in our use of the words clear and purge. They have a legal sense denoting to absolve, as when God says he will not clear the guilty; and sin or guilt are said to be purged away by the blood of Christ. So in law, we read of purging by an oath; and of compurgators, who freed accused persons from charges of guilt by an oath in their favor. In such cases the reference plainly is to acquittal from charges, not to an actual purification of the heart. The same idiom exists in the Latin words lavo, purgo-as lavare, or purgare peccatum―to give or to obtain pardon for sins. Thus, "venis precibus lautum peccatum❞—you come to obtain by prayers the forgiveness of your sins. Literally, you come by prayers to wash, purify, or purge, your sin.

For these reasons I shall not hesitate, in translating the sacrificial sense of καθαρίζω and βαπτίζω, to use as equivalents the words purify, purge, wash, absolve, expiate, atone for, clear, acquit, forgive, &c., as the case may require.

The most striking case of absolution by sprinkling in the word of God is undoubtedly that in which the Israelites were saved by the sprinkling of the blood of the Paschal Lamb on their door posts. It was established to commemorate the redemption out of Egypt, and was the great type of atonement by the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world. In Ex. xii. 21-28, Moses directs as to the sprinkling of the blood with a bunch of hyssop, and says, when the Lord seeth the blood upon the lintel and on the two side posts, the Lord will pass over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come into your houses to smite you. And ye shall observe this thing for an ordinance for ever. This is the only case

of sprinkling the blood of a lamb by hyssop in the Old Testament, and in this case there was no bathing, washing, or immersion, as some allege in the case of sprinkling the ashes of a heifer by hyssop. I am so particular on this case, because Ambrose speaks of it directly as a baptism under the law. Much controversy has existed as to what the divers baptisms were of which Paul speaks. Of these Ambrose regards the sprinkling of the blood of a lamb with a bunch of hyssop as one,—vol. ii. p. 333. Paris, 1609. Speaking to the baptized, he says, "Ye received white garments that they might be an indication that ye have laid aside the garments of sin, and put on the chaste robes of innocence, concerning which the prophet said, thou shalt sprinkle me with hyssop and I shall be cleansed. Thou shalt wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow." Adsperges me hyssopo et mundabor; lavabis me et supra nivem dealbabor. Qui enim baptizatur, et secundum legem, et secundum evangelium videtur esse mundatus. Secundum legem quia hyssopi fasciculo Moyses adspergebat sanguinem agni; secundum evang. etc. "For, he who is baptized, both according to the law and according to the gospel, is made clean. According to the law, because Moses, with a bunch of hyssop, sprinkled the blood of a lamb. According to the gospel," &c. Here his main position is that baptized persons are made clean, both according to the law and according to the gospel. Of course there were baptized persons under the law. Of these baptized persons Ambrose gives one example, to prove his main position. Who were they? This is the point. Were they persons immersed? or were they persons purified, i. e. expiated by the sprinkling of blood? Plainly the latter; for he refers to a case in which there was nothing but purification, i. e. expiation, by sprinkling the blood of a lamb, and he does not even allude to immersion at all; and from these facts he proves 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