sense.

give to baptisma the sense xatagiouós, and all is harmonious and plain; for an outpouring of blood is a xadagiouós in the sacrificial sense, i. e. an atonement. In Heb. i. 3, καθαρισμὸν ποιησάμενος τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν is applied to Christ in this very Let now the passages from Chrysostom, Gregory Naz., and Theophylact be re-examined, and carefully compared with these. xxii. 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 x. 38, 39, Matthew xx. 22, 23. So that their usage of βαπτισμός to denote καθαρισμός, 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. Barrioμós has the sacrificial sense xalagiouós. 2. In the description given of the rite by Gregory Naz., not only are xabάigw and xábagois used in the place of βαπτίζω and βαπτισμός, but they are used as perfectly synonymous.

§ 26. Baptism of Blood. Case of Martyrs.

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. iv. 6. "Yea, and if I be offered up," etc.-Phil. ii. 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 passages 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 οι βαπτισμός, in the sacrifical 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 on 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; 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 i. 29, speaking of Jesus, the Lamb of God, says: "Et sane hujus victimæ cognatæ sunt cæteræ, quarum symbola 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." "And truly the other victims, of whom the legal victims are symbols, are related to this victim (i.. e. Christ). By other victims related to this, I understand the shedding of the blood of generous martyrs-who make expiation for those on whose behalf they are offered." In Latin the idea of expiation is conveyed by

purgo-in Greek, xaláspw. Just before, Christ as a victim, is called καθάρσιον του ὅλου κόσμου, a purification of the whole world. Again, in his notes on Matthew xx. 22, 23, he says: "Quod autem quis in passione remissionem accipit peccatorum baptismus est." "But because any one by suffering receives remission of sins it is a baptism" (that is an expiation). 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 baptismus, sine dubio ipsum martyrium rationabiliter baptismus appellatur." "For if the rite of absolution promises the forgiveness of sins, as we have been taught concerning the purification of water and the Spirit, and if he who receives the purification of martyrdom, also receives the forgiveness of sins, without doubt, martyrdom itself is reasonably called an absolution” (or a baptism). Here note, 1. Previously, as we have seen, he said of Christ, "profusionem sanguinis baptisma nominavit." Here he conveys the same idea in other words, when he says, "Martyrium baptismus appellatur." 2. 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 Barrioμós, he could not have been more exact. "Quod autem quis in passione remissionem accipit peccatorum baptismus est." Because any one through his suffering receives the remission of sins, it is a purification-a xalapiouósa Barrioμós. 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,

* Hence the expressions τὸ βάπτισμα διὰ μαρτυρίου, οι διὰ παθοῦς, Οι δι' aparos. Purification by martyrdom, by suffering, by blood, not immersion in martyrdom, &c.

is always called xaðapioμós, 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 purification of the mind," xalapμós, and "as others are purified, Barríovras, in water, these are washed, oúovra, in their own blood."

So Gregory Naz., speaking of the baptism of blood, says: "it is more august than the rest," those of water, tears, etc.— because, after it the martyr is polluted no more (iv μoλúverai). 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 work De Civitate Dei, lib. 13, cap. 7, also lib. 2, cap. 23, of his treatise contra literas Petiliani, where Petilianus uses the expression: "Similes Christo martyres, quos post aquam veri baptismi, sanguis baptista 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 xii. 50, Mark x. 38, 39, Matt. xx. 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 βαπτισμός and βαπτίζω 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. 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 βαπτίζω among the Fathers.

I do not indeed affirm that they did not, any of them, at any time, use it as a religious term to denote immersion. To say this intelligently, would require a certainty that every usage of it by the Fathers had been seen, which, in my case, certainly is not true. But I must say, that even if such cases can be found, they will not disprove my position. They can only prove inconsistent usage; and this I have already admitted would be 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 not lost or obscured, till the Greek language itself sank 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

* Reflection has convinced me that the Fathers are right, and that in these passages also, Barrica has the sense to purify.