§ 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 ? πως τολμήσω βαπτίσαι σε; πότε πῦς ὑπὸ χόρτου καθαίρεται; πότε πηλὸς πλύνει πηγήν ; πῶς βαπτίσω τὸν κριτὴν ὁ ὑπεύθυνος; πῶς βαπτίσω σε δέσ ποτα ; μῶμον οὐ βλέπω ἔν σοι. τῆ κατάρα τοῦ ̓Αδὰμ οὐχ ὑπέπησας, ἁμαρτίαν οὐκ ἐποίησας. Πῶς βαστάσει ἡ γῆ ὁρῶσα τὸν τοῖς ἄγγε λους ἁγιάζοντα, ὑπὸ ἀνθρώπου ἁμαρτωλοῦ βαπτιζόμενον ; πῶς σε βαπτίσω δέσποτα, τοῖς ἐκ γενέσεως μολυσμοῖς οὐ προσομιλήσαντα ; πῶς οὖν ἐγὼ κατάξξυπος ἄνθρωπος ἁγνίσω Θεόν ;! Θεὸν ἀναμάρτητον ; βαπτιστὴν ἀπέστειλας δέσποτα, οὐ παρήκουσας τοῦ σου προστάγματος. I have abbreviated this passage somewhat, and yet, because of its beauty, and varied use of language, have retained more than I usually quote. Its main force lies in the expression, how shall I, who am under sentence of condemnation, purify, i. e. acquit my judge ? πῶς βαπτίσω τὸν κριτὴν ὁ ὑπεύθυνος. How absurd, in such a passage, to inquire, how shall I, a culprit, immerse my judge ? But take βαπτίσω in the sense purify, or acquit, and it at once harmonizes the whole passage. Nor is this all; the laws of antithesis demand this sense. Let us thus translate it. shall I dare to purify thee? When is the fire purified by the stubble? When does the clay wash the fountain? How shall I, a culprit, purify (or acquit) my judge ? How shall I purify thee, O Lord? I see no fault in thee. Thou hast not fallen under the curse of Adam: thou hast committed no sin. How will the earth endure to see him, who makes pure the angels, purified by a sinful man? How shall I purify thee, O Lord, "How who hast never participated in the pollutions of birth? How, then, shall I, a polluted man, purify God? The sinless God? Thou hast sent me as a purifier, hast thou not disregarded thine own command?" On this last sentence, the editor says: the sense is, as I infer, thou hast made me a purifier, that I should baptize, that is, purify, from pollution, and expiate those defiled by sin. But since thou art polluted by no sins, why dost thou command that I should expiate and wash thee, if there is nothing in thee to be washed away? That is beyond the province of a baptist, i. e. a purifier. I have need to be purified of thee. The interchange of ἁγνίσω and βαπτίσω in carrying out the antithesis is no less striking. He uses Tus Barriow till near the close, and then exchanges it in the question for ἁγνίσω—πῶς ἁγνίσω Θεόν ; how shall I purify God-the sinless God. Yet, who does not see that the import of the question must be the same throughout the whole passage ? So the antithesis τὸν ἁγιάζοντα ἀγγέλους βαπτιζόμενον ὑπὸ ἀνθρώπου ἁμαρτωλου, requires βαπτίζω and ἁγιάζω to be taken in the same sense. This passage admirably illustrates the statements in § 28, 2. Giving to Barril the sense to purify, the passage is inimitably beautiful and brilliant. It loses all its beauty the moment we assign to it any other sense. Have I not adduced evidence enough? In any common case it would be enough, and more than enough. But strange as it may seem, the life of a whole denomination depends upon denying this sense of this word. Dr. Carson says, if it were optional, he would never immerse. So says Mr. Hague. And if this meaning is established, all pretext for a separate Bible Society is taken away. Nor will any valid reason for separate organic action remain. So fundamental an error will not easily die. It has, indeed, no logical life; but it has an organic life of tremendous power. In numerous periodicals this denomination utters its voice. Hundreds of thousands hang on them for the truth ; and if they see it not in them, will not see it at all. They are the leaders. It is expected of them to defend the cause. And temptations, almost infinite, urge them not to see the truth. Be fore such temptations, they will fall, unless God, in his mercy, aid them by a full illumination of his Spirit. So may it be. But as things are, the work of adducing evidence must still go on. § 55. Definitions of βαπτίζω and βάπτισμα. I remark, then, that the sense to purify is established by direct definitions of the Fathers, and of Greek Lexicographers, given in a manner most explicit and unambiguous. On this point I shall first quote Basil. He is commenting on Is. iv. 4. "Οτι ἐκπλυνεῖ κύριος τὸν ξύπον τῶν υἱῶν καὶ τῶν θυγατέρων Σιὼν, καὶ τὸ αἷμα ̓Ιερουσαλήμ ἐκκαθαριεῖ ἐκ μέσου αὐτῶν ἐν πνεύματι κρίσεως καὶ ἐν πνεύματι καύσεως. “The Lord shall wash away the filth of the sons and the daughters of Zion, and shall purge the blood of Jerusalem from the midst of them, by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning.” On this he remarks, Τρανῶς τὰ ἀυτὰ τῷ Ιωάννῃ ὁ λόγος προαγορεύει περὶ τοῦ κύριου λέγοντι ὅτι αὐτὸς ὑμᾶς βαπτίσει ἐν τῷ πνεύματι ἁγίῳ καὶ πυρί· περὶ δὲ ἑαυτοῦ ὅτι ἐγὼ μὲν ὑμᾶς βαπτίζω ἐν ὕδατι εἰς μετάνοιαν. « Plainly the word foretells the same things concerning the Lord, by John, who says, that he shall baptize you by the Holy Spirit and fire; but, concerning himself, he says, I, indeed, baptize you with water unto repentance." In one series of expressions, the words are, πλύνω and ἐκκαθαρίζω—in the other, βαπτίζω. Basil says that the import of both modes of expression is plainly the same. Nor is this all. He proceeds, ἐπεὶ γοῦν ἀμφότερα συνήψεν ὁ κύριος τὸ τὲ ἐξ ὕδατος εἰς μετάνοιαν, καὶ τὸ ἐκ πνεύματος εἰς ἀναγέννησιν, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἀινίσσεται ἀμφότερα τὰ βαπτίσματα μήποτε τρεῖς εἰσιν αἱ ἐπίνοιαι τοῦ βαπτίσματος. “ Since, then, the Lord has connected both (baptisms), namely, that from water to repentance, i. e. John's, and that from the Spirit to regeneration, i. e. Christ's, and the word (Is. iv. 4) alludes to both baptisms (i. e. Christian baptism, and that of fire), are there not three significations of baptism?" Here he first speaks of baptisms in the plural (i. e. the baptisms of John, of Christ, and of fire), and as, in some respects, alike, in others unlike; and this seems to call for a definition of the senses of the word. He says they are three, and proceeds to give them. (1) ὅ, τε τοῦ ῥύπου καθαρισμός (2) καὶ ἡ διὰ τοῦ πνεύματος ἀναγέννησις (3) καὶ ἡ ἐν τῷ πυρὶ κρίσεως βάσανος. 1. Purification from filth. 2. Regeneration by the Spirit. 3. Trial or proof in the fire of the judgment. These are three kinds of purification. One, external by water—the next, internal by the Spirit, i. e. regeneration-the other, a purgation in the fires of the judgment day. To this purgation by fire, the Fathers referred the words of Paul: "Every man's work shall be made manifest, for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work, of what sort it is; if any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire." The man saved by fire, is saved by Basil's third kind of purification. Concerning this, Hilarius says, "per ignem purgatus fiat salvus," being purified by fire, he may be saved. Hence, Basil refers a part of the purification to this world, and a part to the next, but considers it all as baptism in one way or another, ὥστε τὸ μὲν ἐκπλύνειν πρὸς τὴν ὧδε ἀπόθεσιν τῆς ἀμαρτίας λαμβάνεσθαι, τὸ δὲ πνεύματι κρίσεως καὶ πνεύματι καύσεως πρός τήν ἐν τῷ μέλλοντι αἰῶνι διὰ τοῦ πυρὸς δοκιμασίαν. “So that the expression to wash away (in Is. iv. 4) refers to the laying aside sins in this world (by Christian baptism), but the expression, spirit of judgment and spirit of burning, refers to trial by fire in the world to come." How unlike all this is to immersion, I need not say. Can anything be more to the point? Is it not enough to say, that to wash away filth, and to purge, in Is., and to baptize in the New Testament, are equivalent modes of expression? Is it not enough that he uses ex after Sárioμa, a preposition at war with the idea immerse? For we are not immersed ğ üdατος, but ἐν ὕδατι—but we are purified ἐξ ὕδατος καὶ ἐκ πνεύματος, ἐκ denoting that from which the purification proceeds, and by which it is produced. Is it not enough, that he speaks of baptisms in the plural, and refers two to this world, and one to the next, and then goes on to define three corresponding senses of the word, and that each sense is a purification, and neither an immersion? What more could be asked, or received, if asked? Surely he who will not believe this, would not believe, even though old Basil himself were to arise from the dead, and proclaim on the house tops, the meaning of Barrig is to purify! Nor is this all. Athanasius testifies explicitly to the same effect. Speaking of the expression: "he shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit," he expressly states that it has the sacrificial sense to purify, i. e. to remit sins.-Montfaucon, Collectio nova Patrum Græcorum. Vol. 2, p. 27. Paris, 1706—and to express this sense, he uses καθαρίζω. His words are: Τὸ αυτὸς ὑμᾶς βαπτίσει ἐν πνεύματι αγίω, τουτο δηλοῖ ὅτι καθαριεῖ ὑμᾶς. "The expression, he shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit, means this, that he shall purify, i. e. absolve you, or remit your sins.” That this is the sense is plain, for he adds, dià rò μỳ dúvarðar τὸ τοῦ ̓Ιωάννου βάπτισμα τοῦτο ποιῆσαι, ἀλλὰ τὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ὁς καὶ ἀφίεναι ἁμαρτίας εξουσίαν ἔχει. “ Because the purification of John could not do this, but that of Christ, who has power to forgive sins." This last expression fixes the sense of xaðagisĩ, and thus the sense of Barrica, to remission of sins, or sacramental purification. Athanasius, therefore, directly testifies, that this is the sense. Let us hear no more, then, of immersion in the Holy Spirit. Athanasius declares, that purification by the Holy Spirit is the sense. Once more the lexicographers. Zonaras and Phavorinus define βάπτισμα thus, ἄφεσις ἁμαρτιῶν δι ̓ ὕδατος καὶ πνεύματος—ἡ ἀνεκ λόγιστος ἄφεσις ἁμαρτιῶν—ἡ λύσις δεσμοῦ ἐκ φιλανθρωπίας δεδορημένη. "The remission of sins by water and the Spirit-the unspeakable forgiveness of sins—the loosing of the bond (i. e. of sin), granted by the love of God towards man." These are obviously all equivalents of sacrificial purification, i. e. remission of sins. They would be perfect definitions of xalagiouós.* Are not two words synonymous to which the same definitions can be truly given? * See the passage from Ambrose § 53, at the end. |