same person with the Holy Spirit and with fire, but because he who is holy, is baptized with the Holy Spirit; but he who turns to sin after professing his faith and submitting to God, is purified by the torments of fire. Blessed is he who has received the purification of the Holy Spirit, and does not need the purification of fire. Miserable is he, and deserving of tears, who, after the purification of the Spirit, needs to be purified (baptizandus) with fire." In the Greek text of Origen, the word Barig is used where the Latin translator uses lavacrum. Thus, μακάριος ὁ βαπτιζόμενος ἐν ἅγιῳ πνεύματι. Beatus qui lavacrum accepit spiritus sancti. If Jerome or Rufinus was the translator, as I suppose, it is a direct testimony that Carriw did not mean to immerse, and that, by one perfectly qualified to judge. So βαπτίσματος τοῦ ἀπὸ Tugós corresponds to "ignis lavacro." A little after he speaks of "peccator qui ignis indiget baptismo, qui combustione purgatur." "The sinner who needs the baptism of fire, who is purged by burning." In his Comment. in Epist. ad Rom. Lib. 8, he says: "Ut ignis gehennæ in cruciatibus purget quem nec apostolica doctrina, nec evangelicus sermo purgavit, secundum illud quod est scriptum, purificabo te igni ad purificationem." "That the fire of Gehenna may purify him by torments, whom neither the apostolical doctrine nor the evangelical truth purified, according to that which is written, I will purify thee with fire, in order to make thee pure." Here baptizo, purgo, purifico, and lavo (involved in lavacro), are all used as synonymous terms in describing the baptism of fire. If Gieseler is correct (Vol. i. § 119, note 14), this purgation of Origen is not to be confounded with the Roman Catholic purgatory, first suggested, as he says, by Augustine. Neither the opinion of Origen nor of Augustine is correct; yet they show as clearly as if true, that by the baptism of fire, a purgation by fire, and not an immersion, Clearly they had in mind the words of Malachi: "he is like a refiner's fire," and, " he shall purify and purge." These words gave rise to the expression in the gospel: "He shall purify you with the Holy Ghost and with fire.” Taking the word was meant. Sarria in this sense, we can clearly see how the various and erroneous forms of the doctrine of purgatory grew out of it. Compare §§ 9, 10. 12. In speaking of the baptism of tears, the Fathers regard it as a purification by tears, and not as an immersion in tears. The very nature of the case shows that it must have been so, and the language of the Fathers proves that the purifying power of tears did not depend on having a quantity sufficient for an immersion. Says Nilus, Λουτῆς ἀγαθὸς τῆς ψυχῆς, τῆς προσευχής Το δάκρυον. "The tear of prayer"—not a flood or river, or ocean of tears— "the tear of prayer is a good wash-basin of the soul." For this use of Aourng, see § 16, and the idea there given of washing the hands of the soul. So Gregory Nyss. calls tears λourgòv xatomiδιον καὶ κρόνους ἰδίους δι' ὧν ἐστὶ τὰς κηλίδας τῆς ψυχῆς ἀπονίψασθαι, domestic washing place and fountains of your own, by means of which you can wash off the pollution of your soul." 'Awovialw, as no one can deny, never denotes immersion, but commonly, the washing of hands and feet. From the nature of the case then, as well as from the language of the Fathers, we are certain that they regarded the baptism of tears, not as an immersion, but as a purification. 66 a 13. The Fathers applied passages of the Old Testament commanding washing, or predicting purification, to the rite of baptism in such a way, as evinces a belief that Barrio means to purify. In Is. i. 16, is a command to wash and make clean-Heb. estote. Sept. Aoścarte, xatapoì yévedés-Vulg. lavamini, mundi Justin Martyr and Hippolytus regard this as an anticipation, or prophetic injunction of baptism. Hippolytus says: "Propheta Isaias Baptismi vim purgativam prædixit, cum ait, lavamini, mundi estote."* Cyprian, Jerome, and others apply to baptism the prediction: "I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean." Now, if they regarded Barriga as a syno *For Justin's view see § 90. See, also, Basil on Is. iv. 4, as another fact, § 55. nyme of xadapi w, all this is plain and natural; for in one of these cases purification is commanded, in the other it is predicted, but in neither is immersion mentioned. The only external act alluded to is sprinkling. I desire that here may be noted the use of, in Isa. i. 16. By this word all the commands for personal ablution in the Mosaic ritual are given, and to it, I remarked, § 14, Barril would naturally become a synonyme. Here is proof that it did so become. And this word always denotes washing, without respect to mode, and never immersion. 14. From the time of the clinic baptism of Novatian, down to the Reformation, there were cases of baptism by affusion or sprinkling, defended on grounds similar to those stated by Cyprian (No. 5), and totally inconsistent with the idea that they felt bound by the word Barril to regard nothing as a baptism that was not an immersion. All this is plain, and easily accounted for, if they regarded Barriduós merely as a purification, to be performed in common cases, by immersion, and in extraordinary cases, by affusion or sprinkling. It shows that their attachment to the mode did not depend on Barrigw, but on a regard to general practice, and its supposed significance. Constantine the Great was baptized by sprinkling on his bed. In 499, Clodovius, king of the Franks, was baptized by affusion. Gennadius, of Marseilles, A. D. 490, says, that the baptized person is either sprinkled or immersed-vel aspergitur, vel intingitur. For other clear and striking cases, see Pond, pp. 42-50; where he clearly proves, that immersion was never considered as essential to baptism till after the Reformation. The bearing of all these facts on the meaning of the word is irresistible. Had it been regarded as demanding immersion, when there was such a universal attachment to that mode, a deviation would have been resisted on philological grounds; but, though frequent and extensive deviations took place, they were never so resisted. The conclusion is inevitable-they could not be so resisted; it was universally known that Barri(w, as a religious term, meant to purify, not to immerse. 15. To conclude, the idea of purification is, in the nature of things, better adapted to be the name of the rite, than immersion. It has a fitness and verisimilitude in all its extensive variety of usage, which cause the mind to feel the self-evidencing power of truth, as producing harmony and agreement in the most minute, as well as in the most important relations of the various parts of this subject to each other. This is owing to three facts: 1. The idea of purification is the fundamental idea in the whole subject. 2. It is an idea complete and definite in itself in every sense, and needs no adjunct to make it more so. 3. It is the soul and centre of a whole circle of delightful ideas and words. It throws out before the mind a flood of rich and glorious thoughts, and is adapted to operate on the feelings like a perfect charm. To a sinner, desiring salvation, what two ideas so delightful as forgiveness and purity? Both are condensed into this one word. It involves in itself a deliverance from the guilt of sin, and from its pollution. It is a purification from sin in every sense. See § 12. It is purification by the atonement, and purification by the truth, -by water and by blood. And around these ideas cluster others likewise, of holiness, salvation, eternal joy, eternal life. No word can produce such delight on the heart, and send such a flood of light into all the relations of divine truth; for purification, in the broad Scripture sense, is the joy and salvation of man, and the crowning glory of God. Of immersion none of these things are true. 1. Immersion is not a fundamental idea in any subject or system. 2. By itself, it does not convey any one fixed idea, but depends upon its adjuncts, and varies with them. Immersion? In what? Clean water, or filthy; in a dyeing fluid, or in wine? Until these questions are answered, the word is of no use. And with the spiritual sense the case is still worse; for common usage limits it in English, Latin, Greek, and so far as I know, in all languages, by adjuncts of a kind denoting calamity or degradation, and never purity. It has intimate and firmly established associations with such words as luxury, ease, indolence, sloth, cares, anxieties, troubles, distresses, sins, pollution. We familiarly speak of immersion in all these, but with their opposites it refuses alliance. We never speak of a person as immersed in temperance, fortitude, industry, diligence, tranquillity, prosperity, holiness, purity, etc. Sinking and downward motion are naturally allied with ideas which, in a moral sense, are depressed, and not with such as are morally elevated. Very few exceptions to this general law exist, and these do not destroy its power. Now, for what reason should the God of order, purity, harmony, and taste, select an idea so alien from his own beloved rite, for its name, and reject one in every respect so desirable and so fit? Who does not feel that the name of so delightful an idea as purification must be the name of the rite? And who does not rejoice that there is proof so unanswerable, that it is? Whatever may be The philological argument is now closed. the interpretation of Romans vi. 3, 4, and Col. ii. 12, the question of philology must remain untouched. All that they can prove, at most, is the fact, that those to whom Paul wrote were immersed, and that he deemed immersion a significant act. Neither of these do they prove, in my opinion; for which I propose soon to give my reasons. But if they did, it is impossible, as we have shown, to settle the question of philology by early practice. Even if they did immerse, it was only a mode of purification; and it was baptism, not because it was immersion, but because it was purification. |