Sivut kuvina
PDF
ePub

Again Theophylact says, βάπτισμα ὥσπερ διὰ τῆς καταδυσέως θανατὸν οὕτω διὰ τῆς ἀναδυσέως τὴν ἀνάστασιν τύποι. “ As the rite of absolution shows forth death by immersion, so by emersion it shows forth resurrection."

Again he says, ἐν τρισί καταδύσεσι τοῦ σώματος ἕν βάπτισμα τοῖς ἑαυτοῦ μαθήταις παραδέδωκε λέγων πορευθέντες μαθητεύσατε etc. Matt. 28: 19. He gave to his disciples one rite or ordinance of absolution, by these immersions of the body, saying, go ye therefore and teach all nations, etc.

I would here call attention once more to the fact, that to denote the act of immersion κατάδυσις is used, reserving to βάπτισua the sense purification or absolution as the name of the rite. But inasmuch as fúrrioje could be used to denote the act of immersion, it was sometimes though rarely so used, of which in § 28. 4, I have given an example from the Apostolic Constitutions, Can. L τρία βαπτίσματα μιας μυήσεως three immersions of one initiation. This was so clearly a departure from common usage, that both Zonaras and Balsamon deemed it worthy of a note. That of Zonaras I have given in the section referred to. That of Balsamon is this, τὰ δὲ βαπτίσματα ἐνταῦθα ἀντὶ καταδυσέων ὑποληπτεόν μοι. This note is still more remarkable and decisive than that of Zonaras-for he merely gives it as his opinion that Barrioμara means immersions here-"It seems to me that Buzziouara is to be taken for immersions here." Indeed! If it never means any thing but immersions, as Mr. Carson says, both the note itself and this modest expression of opinion are quite out of place. But Mr. Carson's theory of this word is entirely a modern invention. No one had ever dreamed of it in the patristic age. Balsamon well knew that in common usage funziona meant purification and not immersion.

It may be well here to notice the sophistical reasoning by which the author of this canon endeavored to make out the doctrine of trine immersion. It was this: Christ did not enjoin it upon them to purify into his death, in which case there would have been one immersion, but into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost; hence it being assumed that immersion is the mode, there must be one act of immersion for each person. In this reasoning, Bantico in the command retains its usual sense, but when from the three persons the inference is drawn that there ought to be three acts of immersion, it leaves its usual sense, and denotes to im

merse, and this usage was thought by two Greek commentators, to be so likely to mislead as to need an explanatory note to prevent confusion.

In Gregory Nazianzen occurs a striking passage, of peculiar interest, as showing at once that immersion was in fact the usual practice, but not the meaning of the word: Bánzioμa καλοῦμεν ὡς συνθαπτόμενης τῷ ὕδατι τῆς ἁμαρτίας—“ We call it (i. e. the rite) baptism, i. e. absolution or purification, because OUR SINS are buried with us in the water." Whilst this clearly implies that in the rite THEY were in fact buried in the water, it no less clearly implies that it was not called baptism for this reason but because THEIR SINS were buried with them. The burial of sins in the baptismal pool, was a common mode of expressing absolution or purification from sin, taken from Micah 7: 19, Thou wilt cast all their sins into the depths of the sea. So that the sense is plainly this, we call it purification, because when we are buried in the baptismal pool, our SINS are buried with us, and we of course come out perfectly pure. If the word had meant immersion, he must have said simply: We call it immersion, because we are immersed.

We now come to a case of inconsistent usage, inconsistent at least with the present systems of philology. In a few cases Chrysostom uses the principle of a double sense in commenting on this word. Inasmuch as both meanings, i. e. purification and immersion coexist in the language, and immersion was the common mode; on this principle the word can be expounded as having both meanings in one and the same place, in order to give greater fulness to the passage. At this we need not wonder in the Fathers. A certain class of modern commentators have not hesitated to do the same thing. On this ground Chrysostom in a few instances gives a two-fold exposition of the passage in which Christ says, I have a baptism to be baptized with, etc.

One exposition is based on the sense purification. As in Hom. 65, al 66, on Matt.-Speaking of his death on the cross, he says he calls it baptism, Bánzioua, indicating that a great purification xávaquor should be made for the world by the things then transpiring.-De petit fil. Zebedai. Vol. I. p. 520.

Again he says" he calls it baptism, because by it he purified the world, and not only so, but on account of the ease of his resurrection, for as he who is immersed ßanticóuevos in water arises with great ease, being nothing hindered by the nature of

the waters, so he having descended into death arose again with ease, for this reason he calls it baptism: and again, on Mark, 10: 39," he calls his cross baptism, for as we are easily immersed and arise again, so he having died, easily arose again when he would." On p. 34, Jan. 1841, I say, "Nor have I found any evidence that the passages in Luke 12: 50, Mark 10: 37, 39, Matt. 20: 22, 23, were ever understood by any of the Fathers in the sense either of immersion or overwhelming." This usage of Chrysostom is an exception, and it is the only one that I have yet found. He plainly uses the word in both senses, purification and immersion. And yet even in these cases the sense purification can be retained as the name of the rite, and the illustration be taken from the well known mode of its performance, though the view that I have taken seems to me most likely to be correct. I have already twice stated that cases of inconsistent usage may exist, without at all destroying the force of my argument, § 27, Jan. 1841, § 21, April, 1840, p. 371, yet after extended research, my greatest surprise has been that I have found so few such cases. I have been surprised, because when I considered how general was the practice of immersion among the Fathers, and how natural it was that their practice should react upon their language, and that immersion was in fact an existing meaning of the word, it seemed strange to me that this meaning should so rarely be given to the word ẞanzio in speaking of the rite. But when I reflected that the great idea of purification, i. e. absolution, or remission of sins, was ever uppermost in their minds, and that immersion, though the common mode, was not deemed essential to it, I saw a sufficient reason for reserving to ẞánzioua this great idea, and introducing the terms xarádvois and árádvois to denote inmersion and emersion.

The real nature of this idiom will become clearer by a passage of Gregory Nyssen, in which he uses xάagois so as to show the force of βάπτισμα when used with ανάδυσις and κατάδυσις: "omitting things beyond our power let us inquire tívos vexer δι ὕδατος ἡ κάθαρσις; καὶ πρὸς ποιὰν χρείαν αἱ τρεῖς καταδύσεις παραλαμβάνονται for what end is the rite of purification by water, and for what use the three immersions are employed?" All see in this case a usage of xάvagois exactly equivalent to the use of Barrioμa just illustrated. The use of the preposition dià after xάapois and equivalent words illustrates the use of the

same preposition after Búzioua etc. I will by parallel columns still farther exhibit this similarity of usage to the eye.

The following uses of zάagois, The following are from Greάyoμòs, etc., are taken from Cyril of Alexandria :

τὸν ἁγνισμὸν δὲ ὕδατος

τὴν κάθαρσιν δὲ ὕδατος τὴν διὰ πυρὸς κάθαρσιν τοῦ δι' αἵματος ἁγνισμοῦ ἡγιάσμενοι διὰ πνεύματος

gory, Thaum. AthanasiusClemens Alexand.:

βάπτισμα διὰ δακρύων

βαπτίζειν δὲ ὕδατος

βαπτίζειν διὰ πυρὸς
βάπτισμα δι' αἵματος

βάπτισμα διὰ μαρτύριου

τὴν διὰ Χρίστου κάθαρσιν ἡ δι βαπτίζειν διὰ πνεύματος ὕδατος τε καὶ πνεύματος

ἁγιάζων δὲ ὕδατος

βάπτισμα νοητὸν διὰ πνεύματοςβάπτισμα ἀισθητὸν δὲ ὕδατος

This comparison of similar idioms could be extended to other prepositions, as v taken in the instrumental sense as equivalent to du—and also to the use of the dative in the instrumental sense after both words, showing by an extended induction of particulars such an exact similarity in the use of prepositions and cases after βάπτισμα and κάθαρσις, etc., as proves them at a glance to be synonymous, for the word xaráðvors, immersion, is never followed by such prepositions and the dative case in such a sense. See also § 56, on the same point.

$65. Commission to baptize.

I will conclude this general view by noticing its bearings on a question relating to the commission to baptize. It is this. Why is there a commission given to baptize in Matthew and Mark, and none in Luke and John? This is a question for those to answer who deny the correctness of the view that I have given for on this view it presents no difficulty at all. The reply is that a commission to baptize is in fact a commission to purify, that is, a commission to remit sins and in Luke and John, the disciples do receive a commission to remit sins. Luke 24: 47, 48-"That repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations-and ye are witnesses of these things," that is, that repentance and baptism should be preached in his name among all nations-for according to Zonaras and the Fathers, baptisin is the forgiveness of sins by water and the Spirit.

This view of the passages in Luke and John occurred to my mind before reading the Fathers, as furnishing a test of the soundness of my views, and on reading them I found that they did in fact regard the commission to remit sins in Luke and John as a com'nission to baptize as really as that in Matthew and Mark. They regarded it in short as merely another mode of expressing the same idea. In John the phraseology is different from that of Luke: "Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them, and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained," John 20: 23. In short, Christ died as the Lamb of God to take away the sins of the world, and the great business of the apostles was to publish to the world the great doctrine of the remission of sins, through his death, and the terms on which it could be obtained, and to establish the rite by which this purgation from sin should be shadowed forth and commemorated in honor of the Trinity, and especially of that Spirit by whom this atonement was made effectual to purge the conscience from dead works to serve the living God. Go ye therefore, teach all nations, purifying them (that is remitting to them that repent and believe their sins) into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

§ 66. Mr. Carson's dissertation on Loúw.

A few words ought here to be said on the meaning of the words λούω and λούτρον. I have affirmed that by their own force they denote simply washing or purification, and not bathing. To prove this I referred, in § 16, to the fact that the vessels for washing the hands in the vestibules of ancient churches were called Lovrñges as well as varies. Mr. Carson sees fit in view of this, to devote nearly nine pages to a dissertation on λούω. He opens his dissertation as follows: p. 66, "The philosophical linguist, Dr. Campbell, of Aberdeen, in distinguishing the words love and vinto, makes the first signify to wash or bathe the whole body, the last to wash or bathe a part. This distinction has been generally received since the time of Dr. Campbell. Mr. Beecher calls it in question, yet he does not touch the subject with the hand of a master. merely alleges an objection which he thinks calculated to bring confusion into what is thought to be clear; but he gives no additional light by any learned observations of his own. I shall endeavor to settle this question by evidence founded on the

[blocks in formation]

He

« EdellinenJatka »