This page copyright © 2002 Blackmask Online.
http://www.blackmask.com
[TRANSLATED BY THE REV. S. THELWALL.]
HAPPY iS our[1] sacrament Of water, in that, by washing away the
sins of our early blindness, we are set free and admitted into eternal
life! A treatise on this matter will not be superfluous; instructing
not only such as are just becoming formed (in the faith), but them who,
content with having simply believed, without full examination of the
grounds[2] of the traditions, carry (in mind), through ignorance, an
untried though probable faith. The consequence is, that a viper of the
Cainite heresy, lately conversant in this quarter, has carried away a
great number with her most venomous doctrine, making it her first aim
to destroy baptism. Which is quite in accordance with nature; for
vipers and asps and basilisks themselves generally do affect arid and
waterless places. But we, little fishes, after the example of our IX q
,s204> S [3] Jesus Christ, are born in water, nor have we safety in any
other way than by permanently abiding in water; so that most monstrous
creature, who had no right to teach even sound doctrine,[4] knew full
well how to kill the little fishes, by taking them away from the water!
Well, but how great is the force of perversity for so shaking the
faith or entirely preventing its reception, that it impugns it on the
very principles of which the faith consists! There is absolutely
nothing which makes men's minds more obdurate than the simplicity of
the divine works which are visible in the act, when compared with the
grandeur which is promised thereto in the effect; so that from the very
fact, that with so great simplicity, without pomp, without any
considerable novelty of .preparation, finally, without expense, a man
is dipped in water, and amid the utterance of some few words, is
sprinkled, and then rises again, not much (or not at all) the cleaner,
the consequent attainment of eternity s is esteemed the more
incredible. I am a deceiver if, on the contrary, it is not from their
circumstance, and preparation, and expense, that idols' solemnities or
mysteries get their credit and authority built up. Oh, miserable
incredulity, which quite deniest to God His own properties, simplicity
and power! What then ? Is it not wonderful, too, that death should be
washed away by bathing ? But it is the more to be believed if the
wonderfulness be the reason why it is not believed. For what does it
behove divine works to be in their quality, except that they be above
all wonder?[6] We also ourselves wonder, but it is because we believe.
Incredulity, on the other hand, wonders, but does not believe: for the
simple acts it wonders at, as if they were vain; the grand results, as
if they were impossible. And grant that it be just as you think?
sufficient to meet each point is the divine declaration which has
fore-run: "The foolish things of the world hath God elected to confound
its wisdom;"[8] and, "The things very difficult with men are easy with
God."[9] For if God is wise and powerful (which even they who pass Him
by do not deny), it is with good reason that He lays the material
causes of His own operation in the contraries of wisdom and of power,
that is, in foolishness and impossibility; since every virtue receives
its cause from those things by which it is called forth.
Mindful of this declaration as of a conclusive prescript, we
nevertheless proceed to treat the question, "How foolish and impossible
it is to be formed anew by water. In what respect, pray, has this
material substance merited an office of so high dignity ?" The
authority, I suppose, of the liquid element has to be examined.[1]
This[2] however, is found in abundance, and that from the very
beginning. For water is one of those things which, before all the
furnishing of the world, were quiescent with God in a yet unshapen[3]
state. "In the first beginning," saith Scripture, "God made the heaven
and the earth. But the earth was invisible, and unorganized,[4] and
darkness was over the abyss; and the Spirit of the Lord was hovering[5]
over the waters."[6] The first thing, O man, which you have to
venerate, is the age of the, waters in that their substance is ancient;
the second, their dignity, in that they were the seat of the Divine
Spirit, more pleasing to Him, no doubt, than all the other then
existing elements. For the darkness was total thus far, shapeless,
without the ornament of stars; and the abyss gloomy; and the earth
unfurnished; and the heaven unwrought: water[7] alone—always a
perfect, gladsome, simple material substance, pure in itself—supplied
a worthy vehicle to God. What of the fact that waters were in some way
the regulating powers by which the disposition of the world
thenceforward was constituted by God? For the suspension of the
celestial firmament in the midst He caused by "dividing the waters;"[8]
the suspension of "the dry land" He accomplished by "separating the
waters." After the world had been hereupon set in order through its
elements, when inhabitants were given it, "the waters" were the first
to receive the precept "to bring forth living creatures."[9] Water was
the first to produce that which had life, that it might be no wonder in
baptism if waters know how to give life.[10] For was not the work of
fashioning man himself also achieved with the aid of waters? Suitable
material is found in the earth, yet not apt for the purpose unless it
be moist and juicy; which (earth) "the waters," separated the fourth
day before into their own place, temper with their remaining moisture
to a clayey consistency. If, from that time onward, I go forward in
recounting universally, or at more length, the evidences of the
"authority" of this element which I can adduce to show how great is its
power or its grace; how many ingenious devices, how many functions, how
useful an instrumentality, it affords the world, I fear I may seem to
have collected rather the praises of water than the reasons of baptism;
although I should thereby teach all the more fully, that it is not to
be doubted that God has made the material substance which He has
disposed throughout all His products[11] and works, obey Him also in
His own peculiar sacraments; that the material substance which governs
terrestrial life acts as agent likewise in the celestial.
But it will suffice to have this called at the outset those
points in which withal is recognised that primary principle of
baptism,—which was even then fore-noted by the very attitude assumed
for a type of baptism,—that the Spirit of God, who hovered over (the
waters) from the beginning, would continue to linger over the waters of
the baptized.[12] But a holy thing, of course, hovered over a holy; or
else, from that which hovered over that which was hovered over borrowed
a holiness, since it is necessary that in every case an underlying
material substance should catch the quality of that which overhangs it,
most of all a corporeal of a spiritual, adapted (as the spiritual is)
through the subtleness of its substance, both for penetrating and
insinuating. Thus the nature of the waters, sanctified by the Holy One,
itself conceived withal the power of sanctifying. Let no one say, "Why
then, are we, pray, baptized with the very waters which then existed in
the first beginning?" Not with those waters, of course, except in so
far as the genus indeed is one, but the species very many. But what is
an attribute to the genus reappears[13] likewise in the species. And
accordingly it makes no difference whether a man be washed in a sea or
a pool, a stream or a fount, a lake or a trough;[1] nor is there any
distinction between those whom John baptized in the Jordan and those
whom Peter baptized in the Tiber, unless withal the eunuch whom Philip
baptized in the midst of his journeys with chance water, derived
(therefrom) more or less of salvation than others.[2] All waters,
therefore, in virtue of the pristine privilege of their origin, do,
after invocation of God, attain the sacramental power of
sanctification; for the Spirit immediately supervenes from the heavens,
and rests over the waters, sanctifying them from Himself; and being
thus sanctified, they imbibe at the same time the power of sanctifying.
Albeit the similitude may be admitted to be suitable to the simple act;
that, since we are defiled by sins, as it were by dirt, we should be
washed from those stains in waters. But as sins do not 'show themselves
in our flesh (inasmuch as no one carries on his skin the spot of
idolatry, or fornication, or fraud), so persons of that kind are foul
in the spirit, which is the author of the sin; for the spirit is lord,
the flesh servant. Yet they each mutually share the guilt: the spirit,
on the ground of command; the flesh, of subservience. Therefore, after
the waters have been in a manner endued with medicinal virtue[3]
through the intervention of the angel,[4] the spirit is corporeally
washed in the waters, and the flesh is in the same spiritually cleansed.
"Well, but the nations, who are strangers to all understanding of
spiritual powers, ascribe to their idols the imbuing of waters with the
self-same efficacy." (So they do) but they cheat themselves with waters
which are widowed.[6] For washing is the channel through which they are
initiated into some sacred rites—of some notorious Isis or Mithras.
The gods themselves likewise they honour by washings. Moreover, by
carrying water around, and sprinkling it, they everywhere expiate[7]
country-seats, houses, temples, and whole cities: at all events, at the
Apollinarian and Eleusinian games they are baptized; and they presume
that the effect of their doing that is their regeneration and the
remission of the penalties due to their perjuries. Among the ancients,
again, whoever had defiled himself with murder, was wont to go in quest
of purifying waters. Therefore, if the mere nature of water, in that it
is the appropriate material for washing away, leads men to flatter
themselves with a belief in omens of purification, how much more truly
will waters render that service through the authority of God, by whom
all their nature has been constituted! If men think that water is
endued with a medicinal virtue by religion, what religion is more
effectual than that of the living God? Which fact being acknowledged,
we recognise here also the zeal of the devil rivalling the things of
God,[8] while we find him, too, practising baptism in his subjects.
What similarity is there? The unclean cleanses! the ruiner sets free!
the damned absolves! He will, forsooth, destroy his own work, by
washing away the sins which himself inspires! These (remarks) have been
set down by way of testimony against such as reject the faith; if they
put no trust in the things of God, the spurious imitations of which, in
the case of God's rival, they do trust in. Are there not other cases
too, in which, without any sacrament, unclean spirits brood on waters,
in spurious imitation of that brooding[9] of the Divine Spirit in the
very beginning? Witness all shady founts, and all unfrequented brooks,
and the ponds in the baths, and the conduits[10] in private houses, or
the cisterns and wells which are said to have the property of
"spiriting away,"[11] through the power, that is, of a hurtful spirit.
Men whom waters have drowned[12] or affected with madness or with fear,
they call nymph-caught,[13] or "lymphatic," or" hydro-phobic." Why have
we adduced these instances? Lest any think it too hard far belief that
a holy angel of God should grant his presence to waters, to temper them
to man's salvation; while the evil angel holds frequent profane
commerce with the selfsame element to man's ruin. If it seems a novelty
for an angel to be present in waters, an example of what was to come to
pass has forerun. An angel, by his intervention, was wont to stir the
pool at Bethsaida.[14] They who were complaining of ill-health used to
watch for him; for whoever had been the first to descend into them,
after his washing, ceased to complain. This figure of corporeal healing
sang of a spiritual healing, according to the rule by which things
carnal are always antecedent[1] as figurative of things spiritual. And
thus, when the grace of God advanced to higher degrees among men,[2] an
accession of efficacy was granted to the waters and to the angel. They
who[3] were wont to remedy bodily defects,[4] now heal the spirit; they
who used to work temporal salvation? now renew eternal; they who did
set free but once in the year, now save peoples in a body[6] daily,
death being done away through ablution of sins. The guilt being
removed, of course the penalty is removed too. Thus man will be
restored for God to His "likeness," who in days bygone had been
conformed to "the image" of God; (the "image" is counted (to be) in his
form: the "likeness" in his eternity:) for he receives again that
Spirit of God which he had then first received from His afflatus, but
had afterward lost through sin.
Not that in[7] the waters we obtain the Holy Spirit; but in the
water, under (the witness of) the angel, we are cleansed, and prepared
for the Holy Spirit. In this case also a type has preceded; for thus
was John beforehand the Lord's forerunner, "preparing His ways."[8]
Thus, too, does the angel, the witness[9] of baptism, "make the paths
straight"[10] for the Holy Spirit, who is about to come upon us, by the
washing away of sins, which faith, sealed in (the name of) the Father,
and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, obtains. For if "in the mouth of
three witnesses every word shall stand:"[11]—while, through the
benediction, we have the same (three) as witnesses of our faith whom we
have as sureties' of our salvation too—how much more does the number
of the divine names suffice for the assurance of our hope likewise!
Moreover, after the pledging both of the attestation of faith and the
promise[13] of salvation under "three witnesses," there is added, of
necessity, mention of the Church;[14] inasmuch as, wherever there are
three, (that is, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,) there is
the Church, which is a body of three.[15]
After this, when we have issued from the font,[16] we are
thoroughly anointed with a blessed unction,—(a practice derived) from
the old discipline, wherein on entering the priesthood, then were wont
to be anointed with oil from a horn, ever since Aaron was anointed by
Moses.[17] Whence Aaron is called "Christ,"[18] from the "chrism,"
which is "the unction;" which, when made spiritual, furnished an
appropriate name to the Lord, because He was "anointed" with the Spirit
by God the Father; as written in the Acts: "For truly they were
gathered together in this city[19] against Thy Holy Son whom Thou hast
anointed."[20] Thus, too, in our case, the unction runs cornally, (i.e.
on the body,) but profits spiritually; in the same way as the act of
baptism itself too is carnal, in that we are plunged in water, but the
effect spiritual, in that we are freed from sins.
In the next place the hand is laid on us, invoking and inviting
the Holy Spirit through benediction.[21] Shall it be granted possible
for human ingenuity to summon a spirit into water, and, by the
application of hands from above, to animate their union into one
body[22] with another spirit of so clear sound;[23] and shall it not be
possible for God, in the case of His own organ,[24] to produce, by
means of "holy hands,"[25] a sublime spiritual modulation? But this, as
well as the former, is derived from the old sacramental rite in which
Jacob blessed his grandsons, born of Joseph, Ephrem[26] and Manasses;
with his hands laid on them and interchanged, and indeed so
transversely slanted one over the other, that, by delineating Christ,
they even portended the future benediction into Christ.[27] Then, over
our cleansed and blessed bodies willingly descends from the Father that
Holiest Spirit. Over the waters of baptism, recognising as it were His
primeval seat,[1] He reposes: (He who) glided down on the Lord "in the
shape of a dove,"[2] in order that the nature of the Holy Spirit might
be declared by means of the creature (the emblem) of simplicity and
innocence, because even in her bodily structure the dove is without
literal[3] gall. And accordingly He says, "Be ye simple as doves."[4]
Even this is not without the supporting evidence[5] of a preceding
figure. For just as, after the waters of the deluge, by which the old
iniquity was purged—after the baptism, so to say, of the world—a dove
was the herald which announced to the earth the assuagement[6] of
celestial wrath, when she had been sent her way out of the ark, and had
returned with the olive-branch, a sign which even among the nations is
the fore-token of peace;[7] so by the self-same law[8] of heavenly
effect, to earth—that is, to our flesh[9]—as it emerges from the
font,[10] after its old sins flies the dove of the Holy Spirit,
bringing us the peace of God, sent out from the heavens where is the
Church, the typified ark.[11] But the world returned unto sin; in which
point baptism would ill be compared to the deluge. And so it is
destined to fire; just as the man too is, who after baptism renews his
sins:[12] so that this also ought to be accepted as a sign for our
admonition.
How many, therefore, are the pleas[13] of nature, how many the
privileges of grace, how many the solemnities of discipline, the
figures, the preparations, the prayers, which have ordained the
sanctity of water? First, indeed, when the people, set unconditionally
free,[14] escaped the violence of the Egyptian king by crossing over
through water, it was water that extinguished[15] the king himself,
with his entire forces.[16] What figure more manifestly fulfilled in
the sacrament of baptism? The nations are set free from the world[17]
by means of water, to wit: and the devil, their old tyrant, they leave
quite behind, overwhelmed in the water. Again, water is restored from
its defect of "bitterness" to its native grace of "sweetness" by the
tree[18] of Moses. That tree was Christ,[19] restoring, to wit, of
Himself, the veins of sometime envenomed and bitter nature into the
all-salutary waters of baptism. This is the water which flowed
continously down for the people from the "accompanying rock;" for if
Christ is "the Rock," without doubt we see baptism blest by the water
in Christ. How mighty is the grace of water, in the sight of God and
His Christ, for the confirmation of baptism! Never is Christ without
water: if, that is, He is Himself baptized in water;[20] inaugurates in
water the first rudimentary displays of His power, when invited to the
nuptials;[21] invites the thirsty, when He makes a discourse, to His
own sempiternal water;[22] approves,when teaching concerning love,[23]
among works of charity,[24] the cup of water offered to a poor
(child);[25] recruits His strength at a well;[26] walks over the
water;[27] willingly crosses the sea;[28] ministers water to His
disciples.[29] Onward even to the passion does the witness of baptism
last: while He is being surrendered to the cross, water intervenes;
witness Pilate's hands:[30] when He is wounded, forth from His side
bursts water; witness the soldier's lance![31]
We have spoken, so far as our moderate ability permitted, of the
generals which form the groundwork of the sanctity[32] of baptism. I
will now, equally to the best of my power, proceed to the rest of its
character, touching certain minor questions.
The baptism announced by John formed the subject, even at that
time, of a question, proposed by the Lord Himself indeed to the
Pharisees, whether that baptism were heavenly, or truly earthly:[33]
about which they were unable to give a consistent[34] answer, inasmuch
as they understood not, because they believed not. But we, with but as
poor a measure of understanding as of faith, are able to determine that
that baptism was devine indeed, (yet in respect of the command, not in
respect of efficacy[1] too, in that we read that John was sent by the
lord to perform this duty,)[2] but human in its nature: for it conveyed
nothing celestial, but it fore-ministered to things celestial; being,
to wit, appointed over repentance, which is in man's power.[3] In fact,
the doctors of the law and the Pharisees, who were unwilling to
"believe," did not "repent" either.[4] But if repentance is a thing
human, its baptism must necessarily be of the same nature: else, if it
had been celestial, it would have given both the Holy Spirit and
remission of sins. But none either pardons sins or freely grants the
Spirit save God only.[5] Even the Lord Himself said that the Spirit
would not descend on any other condition, but that He should first
ascend to the Father.[6] What the Lord was not yet conferring, of
course the servant could not furnish. Accordingly, in the Acts of the
Apostles, we find that men who had "John's baptism" had not received
the Holy Spirit, whom they knew not even by hearing.[7] That, then, was
no celestial thing which furnished no celestial (endowments): whereas
the very thing which was celestial in John—the Spirit of prophecy—so
completely failed, after the transfer of the whole Spirit to the Lord,
that he presently sent to inquire whether He whom he had himself
preached,[8] whom he had pointed out when coming to him, were "'HE."[9]
And so "the baptism of repentance"[10] was dealt with[11] as if it were
a candidate for the remission and sanctification shortly about to
follow in Christ: for in that John used to preach "baptism for the
remission of sins,"[12] the declaration was made with reference to
future remission; if it be true, (as it is,) that repentance is
antecedent, remission subsequent; and this is "preparing the way."[13]
But he who "prepares" does not himself "perfect," but procures for
another to perfect. John himself professes that the celestial things
are not his, but Christ's, by saying, "He who is from the earth
speaketh concerning the earth; He who comes from the realms above is
above all;"[14] and again, by saying that he "baptized in repentance
only, but that One would shortly come who would baptize in the Spirit
and fire;"[15]—of course because true and stable faith is baptized
with water, unto salvation; pretended and weak faith is baptized with
fire, unto judgment.
"But behold, "say some, "the Lord came, and baptized not; for we
read, ' And yet He used not to baptize, but His disciples! ' "[16] As
if, in truth, John had preached that He would baptize with His own
hands! Of course, his words are not so to be understood, but as simply
spoken after an ordinary manner; just as, for instance, we say, "The
emperor set forth an edict," or, "The prefect cudgelled him." Pray does
the emperor in person set forth, or the prefect in person cudgel? One
whose ministers do a thing is always said to do it.[17] So "He will
baptize you" will have to be understood as standing for, "Through Him,"
or" Into Him," "you will be baptized." But let not (the fact) that "He
Himself baptized not" trouble any. For into whom should He baptize?
Into repentance? Of what use, then, do you make His forerunner? Into
remission of sins, which He used to give by a word? Into Himself, whom
by humility He was concealing? Into the Holy Spirit, who had not yet
descended from the Father? Into the Church, which His apostles had not
yet founded? And thus it was with the selfsame "baptism of John" that
His disciples used to baptize, as ministers, with which John before had
baptized as forerunner. Let none think it was with some other, because
no other exists, except that of Christ subsequently; which at that
time, of course, could not be given by His disciples, inasmuch as the
glory of the Lord had not yet been fully attained,[18] nor the efficacy
of the font[19] established through the passion and the resurrection;
because neither can our death see dissolution except by the Lord's
passion, nor our life be restored without His resurrection.
When, however, the prescript is laid down that "without baptism,
salvation is attainable by none" (chiefly on the ground of that
declaration of the Lord, who says, "Unless one be born of water, he
hath not life"[1]), there arise immediately scrupulous, nay rather
audacious, doubts on the part of some, "how, in accordance with that
prescript, salvation is attainable by the apostles, whom—Paul
excepted-we do not find baptized in the Lord? Nay, since Paul is the
only one of them who has put on the garment of Christ's baptism,[2]
either the peril of all the others who lack the water of Christ is
prejudged, that the prescript may be maintained, or else the prescript
is rescinded if salvation has been ordained even for the unbaptized." I
have heard—the Lord is my witness—doubts of that kind: that none may
imagine me so abandoned as to ex-cogitate, unprovoked, in the licence
of my pen, ideas which would inspire others with scruple.
And now, as far as I shall be able, I will reply to them who
affirm "that the apostles were unbaptized." For if they had undergone
the human baptism of John, and were longing for that of the Lord, then
since the Lord Himself had defined baptism to be one;[3] (saying to
Peter, who was desirous[4] of being thoroughly bathed, "He who hath
once bathed hath no necessity to wash a second time;"[5] which, of
course, He would not have said at all to one not baptized;) even here
we have a conspicuous[6] proof against those who, in order to destroy
the sacrament of water, deprive the apostles even of John's baptism.
Can it seem credible that "the way of the Lord," that is, the baptism
of John, had not then been "prepared "in those persons who were being
destined to often the way of the Lord throughout the whole world? The
Lord Himself, though no "repentance" was due from Him, was baptized:
was baptism not necessary for sinners? As for the fact, then, that
"others were not baptized"—they, however, were not companions of
Christ, but enemies of the faith, doctors of the law and Pharisees.
From which fact is gathered an additional suggestion, that, since the
opposers of the Lord refused to be baptized, they who followed the Lord
were baptized, and were not like-minded with their own rivals:
especially when, if there were any one to whom they clare, the Lord had
exalted John above him (by the testimony) saying," Among them who are
born of women there is none greater than John the Baptist."[7] Others
make the suggestion (forced enough, clearly "that the apostles then
served the turn of baptism whenin their little ship, were sprinkled
and covered with the waves: that Peter himself also was immersed enough
when he walked on the sea."[8] It is, however, as I think, one thing to
be sprinkled or intercepted by the violence of the sea; another thing
to be baptized in obedience to the discipline of religion. But that
little ship did present a figure of the Church, in that she is
disquieted "in the sea," that is, in the world,[9] "by the waves," that
is, by persecutions and temptations; the Lord, through patience,
sleeping as it were, until, roused in their last extremities by the
prayers of the saints, He checks the world,[10] and restores
tranquillity to His own.
Now, whether they were baptized in any manner whatever, or
whether they continued unbathed[11] to the end—so that even that
saying of the Lord touching the "one bath"[12] does, under the person
of Peter, merely regard us—still, to determine concerning the
salvation of the apostles is audacious enough, because on them the
prerogative even of first choice,[13] and thereafter of undivided
intimacy, might be able to confer the compendious grace of baptism,
seeing they (I think) followed Him who was wont to promise salvation to
every believer. "Thy faith," He would say, "hath saved thee;"[14] and,
"Thy sins shall be remitted thee,"[15] on thy believing, of course,
albeit thou be not yet baptized. If that[16] was wanting to the
apostles, I know not in the faith of what things it was, that, roused
by one word of the Lord, one left the toll-booth behind for ever;[17]
another deserted father and ship, and the craft by which he gained his
living;[18] a third, who disdained his father's obsequies,[19]
fulfilled, before he heard it, that highest precept of the Lord, "He
who prefers father or mother to me, is not worthy of me."[20]
But they roll back an objection from that apostle himself, in
that he said, "For Christ sent me not to baptize;"[7], as if by this
argument baptism were done away! For if so, why did he baptize Gaius,
and Crispus, and the house of Stephanas?[8] However, even if Christ had
not sent him to baptize, yet He had given other apostles the precept to
baptize. But these words were written to the Corinthians in regard of
the circumstances of that particular time; seeing that schisms and
dissensions were agitated among them, while one attributes everything
to Paul, another to Apollos.[9] For which reason the "peace-making"[10]
apostle, for fear he should seem to claim all gifts for himself, says
that he had been sent "not to baptize, but to preach." For preaching is
the prior thing, baptizing the posterior. Therefore the preaching came
first: but I think baptizing withal was lawful to him to whom preaching
was.
I know not whether any further point is mooted to bring baptism
into controversy. Permit me to call to mind what I have omitted above,
lest I seem to break off the train of impending thoughts in the middle.
There is to us one, and but one, baptism; as well according to the
Lord's gospel[11] as according to the apostle's letters,[12] inasmuch
as he says, "One God, and one baptism, and one church in the
heavens."[13] But it must be admitted that the question, "What rules
are to be observed with regard to heretics?" is worthy of being
treated. For it is to us[14] that that assertion[15] refers. Heretics,
however, have no fellowship in our discipline, whom the mere fact of
their excommunication[16] testifies to be outsiders. I am not bound to
recognize in them a thing which is enjoined on me, because they and we
have not the same God, nor one—that is, the same—Christ. And
therefore their baptism is not one with ours either, because it is not
the same; a baptism which, since they have it not duly, doubtless they
have not at all; nor is that capable of being counted which is not
had.[17] Thus they cannot receive it either, because they have it not.
But this point has already received a fuller discussion from us in
Greek. We enter, then, the font[18] once are sins washed away, because
they ought never to be repeated. But the Jewish Israel bathes
daily,[19] because he is daily being defiled: and, for fear that
defilement should be practised among us also, therefore was the
definition touching the one bathing[20] made. Happy water, which once
washes away; which does not mock sinners (with vain hopes); which does
not, by
being infected with the repetition of impurities, again defile
them whom it has washed!
CHAP, XVI.—OF THE SECOND BAPTISM—WITH BLOOD.
We have indeed, likewise, a second font,[1] (itself withal one
with the former,) of blood, to wit; concerning which the Lord said, "I
have to be baptized with a baptism,"[2] when He had been baptized
already. For He had come "by means of water and blood,"[3] just as John
has written; that He might be baptized by the water, glorified by the
blood; to make us, in like manner, called by water, chosen[4] by blood.
These two baptisms He sent out from the wound in His pierced side,[5]
in order that they who believed in His blood might be bathed with the
water; they who had been bathed in the water might likewise drink the
blood.[6] This is the baptism which both stands in lieu of the fontal
bathing[7] when that has not been received, and restores it when lost.
For concluding our brief subject,[8] it remains to put you in
mind also of the due observance of giving and receiving baptism. Of
giving it, the chief priest[9] (who is the bishop) has the right: in
the next place, the presbyters and deacons, yet not without the
bishop's authority, on account of the honour of the Church, which being
preserved, peace is preserved. Beside these, even laymen have the
right; for what is equally received can be equally given. Unless
bishops, or priests, or deacons, be on the spot, ether disciples are
called i.e. to the work. The word of the Lord ought not to be hidden by
any: in like manner, too, baptism, which is equally God's property,[10]
can be administered by all. But how much more is the rule[11] of
reverence and modesty incumbent on laymen—seeing that these powers[12]
belong to their superiors—lest they assume to themselves the
specific[13] function of the bishop! Emulation of the episcopal office
is the mother of schisms. The most holy apostle has said, that "all
things are lawful, but not all expedient."[14] Let it suffice
assuredly, in cases of necessity, to avail yourself (of that rule's),
if at any time circumstance either of place, or of time, or of person
compels you (so to do); for then the stedfast courage of the succourer,
when the situation of the endangered one is urgent, is exceptionally
admissible; inasmuch as he will be guilty of a human creature's loss if
he shall refrain from bestowing what he had free liberty to bestow. But
the woman of pertness,[16] who has usurped the power to teach, will of
course not give birth for herself likewise to a right of baptizing,
unless some new beast shall arise[17] like the former; so that, just as
the one abolished baptism,[18] so some other should in her own right
confer it ! But if the writings which wrongly go under Paul's name,
claim Thecla's example as a licence for women's teaching and baptizing,
let them know that, in Asia, the presbyter who composed that
writing,[19] as if he were augmenting Paul's fame from his own store,
after being convicted, and confessing that he had done it from love of
Paul, was removed [20] from his office. For how credible would it seem,
that he who has not permitted a woman[21] even to learn with
over-boldness, should give a female[22] the power of teaching and of
baptizing! "Let them be silent," he says, "and at home consult their
own husbands."[23]
But they whose office it is, know that baptism is not rashly to
be administered. "Give to every one who beggeth thee,"[24] has a
reference of its own, appertaining especially to almsgiving. On the
contrary, this precept is rather to be looked at carefully: "Give not
the holy thing to the dogs, nor cast your pearls before swine;"[25]
and, "Lay not hands easily on any; share not other men's sins."[26] If
Philip so "easily" baptized the chamberlain, let us reflect that a
manifest and conspicuous [27] evidence that the Lord deemed him worthy
678
had been interposed.[1] The Spirit had enjoined Philip to proceed to that road: the eunuch himself, too, was not found idle, nor as one who was suddenly seized with an eager desire to be baptized; but, after going up to the temple for prayer's sake, being intently engaged on the divine Scripture, was thus suitably discovered—to whom God had, unasked, sent an apostle, which one, again, the Spirit bade adjoin himself to the chamberlain's chariot. The Scripture which he was reading[2] falls in opportunely with his faith: Philip, being requested, is taken to sit beside him; the Lord is pointed out; faith lingers not; water needs no waiting for; the work is completed, and the apostle snatched away. "But Paul too was, in fact, 'speedily' baptized:" for Simon,[3] his host, speedily recognized him to be "an appointed vessel of election." God's approbation sends sure premonitory tokens before it; every "petition " [4] may both deceive and be deceived. And so, according to the circumstances and disposition, and even age, of each individual, the delay of baptism is preferable; principally, however, in the case of little children. For why is it necessary—if (baptism itself) is not so necessary[5]—that the sponsors likewise should be thrust into danger? Who both themselves, by reason of mortality, may fail to fulfil their promises, and may be disappointed by the development of an evil disposition, in those for whom they stood? The Lord does indeed say, "Forbid them not to come unto me."[6] Let them "come," then, while they are growing up; let them "come" while they are learning, while they are learning whither to come;[7] let them become Christians[8] when they have become able to know Christ. Why does the innocent period of life hasten to the "remission of sins?" More caution will be exercised in worldly[9] matters: so that one who is not trusted with earthly substance is trusted with divine ! Let them know how to "ask" for salvation, that you may seem (at least) to have given "to him that asketh."[10] For no less cause must the unwedded also be deferred—in whom the ground of temptation is prepared, alike in such as never were wedded[11] by means of their maturity, and in the widowed by means of their freedom—until they either marry, or else be more fully strengthened for continence. If any understand the weighty import of baptism, they will fear its reception more than its delay: sound faith is secure of salvation.
The Passover affords a more than usually solemn day for baptism;
when, withal, the Lord's passion, in which we are baptized, was
completed. Nor will it be incongruous to interpret figuratively the
fact that, when the Lord was about to celebrate the last Passover, He
said to the disciples who were sent to make preparation, "Ye will meet
a man bearing water."[12] He points out the place for celebrating the
Passover by the sign of water. After that, Pentecost is a most joyous
space[13] for conferring baptisms;[14] wherein, too, the resurrection
of the Lord was repeatedly proved[15] among the disciples, and the hope
of the advent of the Lord indirectly pointed to, in that, at that time,
when He had been received back into the heavens, the angels[16] told
the apostles that "He would so come, as He had withal ascended into the
heavens;"[17] at Pentecost, of course. But, moreover, when Jeremiah
says, "And I will gather them together from the extremities of the land
in the feast-day," he signifies the day of the Passover and of
Pentecost, which is properly a "feast-day."[18] However, every day is
the Lord's; every hour, every time, is apt for baptism: if there is a
difference in the solemnity, distinction there is none in the grace.
They who are about to enter baptism ought to pray with repeated
prayers, fasts, and bendings of the knee, and vigils all the night
through, and with the confession of all by- 679
gone sins, that they may express the meaning even of the baptism of John: "They were baptized," saith (the Scripture), "confessing their own sins."[1] To us it is matter for thankfulness if we do now publicly confess our iniquities or our turpitudes:[2] for we do at the same time both make satisfaction[3] for our former sins, by mortification of our flesh and spirit, and lay beforehand the foundation of defences against the temptations which will closely follow. "Watch and pray," saith (the Lord), "lest ye fall into temptation."[4] And the reason, I believe, why they were tempted was, that they fell asleep; so that they deserted the Lord when apprehended, and he who continued to stand by Him, and used the sword, even denied Him thrice: for withal the word had gone before, that "no one untempted should attain the celestial kingdoms."[5] The Lord Himself forthwith after baptism[6] temptations surrounded, when in forty days He had kept fast. "Then," some one will say," it becomes us, too, rather to fast after baptism."[7] Well, and who forbids you, unless it be the necessity for joy, and the thanksgiving for salvation? But so far as I, with my poor powers, understand, the Lord figuratively retorted upon Israel the reproach they had east an the Lord.[8] For the people, after crossing the sea, and being carried about in the desert during forty years, although they were there nourished with divine supplies, nevertheless were more mindful of their belly and their gullet than of God. Thereupon the Lord, driven apart into desert places after baptism,[9] showed, by maintaining a fast of forty days, that the man of God lives "not by bread alone," but "by the word of God;"[10] and that temptations incident to fulness or immoderation of appetite are shattered by abstinence. Therefore, blessed ones, whom the grace of God awaits, when you ascend from that most sacred font[11] of your new birth, and spread your hands[12] for the first time in the house of your mother,[13] together with your brethren, ask from the Father, ask from the Lord, that His own specialties of grace and distributions of gifts[14] may be supplied you. "Ask," saith He, "and ye shall receive."[15] Well, you have asked, and have received; you have knocked, and it has been opened to you. Only, I pray that, when you are asking, you be mindful likewise of Tertullian the sinner.[16]
The argument (p. 673, note 6,) is conclusive, but not clear. The
disciples of John must have been baptized by him, (Luke vii. 29, 30,)
and "all the people," must have included those whom Jesus called. But,
this was not Christ's baptism: See Acts xix. 2, 5. Compare note 8, p.
673. And see the American Editor's "Apollos."