Testimony from Tertullian, Barnabas, Justin, Methodius, the
Apostolic Constitutions, etc.--Holy Water, or Repeated Baptism,
Borrowed without Change--Magical Effects of Holy Water, the Same
in Christian as in Pagan Cult--Baptism of Animals by Holy Water,
to Produce Magical Results--Holy Water Prepared after the Pagan
Method--Consecration of Baptismal Waters Borrowed from Pagan
Combination of Sun- and Water-Worship--The Church Filled with
Baptized but Unconverted Pagans, and so Passed under Pagan Control.
Baptism in the Early Church.
Turning to the earlier Church fathers, who formulated much which has
come to us as Christian doctrine, we find the pagan idea of baptism
repeated in all its essential characteristics. We have seen that the
Greek fathers came to Christianity by way of Neo-Platonism rather
than the New Testament. They accepted Christianity as containing many
excellent things, but not as the only authoritative system of faith.
They followed the popular syncretic tendency, and combined Christianity
with the pagan faith in which they had been educated.
TERTULLIAN wrote a special treatise on the question of baptism, which
represents the pagano-Christian creed in fulness and in detail. I
transcribe his words in part, and call attention to the similarity and
the points of identity between these and the pagan theories already
presented. Chapter i. of the treatise opens with these words:
“Happy is the sacrament of our water, in that, by washing away the
sins of our early blindness, we are set free [and admitted] into
eternal life!... But we, little fishes, after the example of our
Ιχθυς, Jesus Christ, are born in water, nor have we safety in any
other way than by permanently abiding in [that] water.”[126]
In the succeeding chapters Tertullian goes on to show that water was
“chosen as a vehicle of divine operation” because it was the element
over which the divine spirit brooded in creation. He says:
“_Why should WATER be chosen as a vehicle of divine operation? Its
prominence first of all in Creation_.--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. This, 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 state. In the first beginning, saith
[Scripture], ‘God made the heaven and the earth. But the earth was
invisible, and unorganized, and darkness was over the abyss; and the
Spirit of the Lord was hovering over the waters.’ The first thing,
oh 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 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’; 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.’ 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. 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 [than I have already done] 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 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.”
The title of chapter iv. is:
“_The primeval hovering of the Spirit of God over the waters typical
of baptism. The universal element of water thus made a channel of
sanctification. Resemblance between the outward sign and the inward
grace._”
In this chapter Tertullian teaches that the divine power hovering over
the water, in creation, made it “holy” as well as life-producing, and
that these qualities continue to exist in all water. He says:
“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 very 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 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 font, a lake or a
trough; nor is there any distinction between those whom John baptized
in the Jordan and those whom Peter baptized in the Tiber, unless
withal [it be thought that] the eunuch whom Philip baptized in the
midst of his journeys with chance water, derived [therefrom] more or
less of salvation [than others]. 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.”
In chapter v. Tertullian discusses the pagan theory as embodied in
the rites of Isis, Mithra, the Apollinarian and the Eleusinian games,
and attempts to show that cleansing cannot come through these rites,
because idols cannot imbue the water with sanctifying power, and evil
spirits can impart only evil influences. He expresses faith in their
power to do this, thus showing that he still held to the fundamental
features of the pagan system, and made them the basis of his theory of
Christian baptism.
_The Epistle of Barnabas_ presents a similar combination of fact and
fancy concerning baptism. The pagan idea of water as a regenerating
power underlies the theory set forth, and the reader will see
how Scripture is misquoted and misapplied in the effort to give a
scriptural coloring to the pagan theory. Chapter xi. of the epistle is
entitled:
“_Baptism and the Cross Prefigured in the Old Testament._--Let us
further inquire whether the Lord took any care to foreshadow the
water [of baptism] and the cross. Concerning the water, indeed, it
is written, in reference to the Israelites, that they should not
receive that baptism which leads to the remission of sins, but should
procure another for themselves. The prophet therefore declares: ‘Be
astonished, O heaven, and let the earth tremble at this, because
this people hath committed two great evils; they have forsaken me, a
living fountain, and have hewn out for themselves broken cisterns. Is
my holy hill Zion a desolate rock? For ye shall be as the fledglings
of a bird, which fly away when the nest is removed.’ And again saith
the prophet: ‘I will go before thee and make level the mountains, and
will break the brazen gates, and bruise in pieces the iron bars; and
I will give thee the secret, hidden, invisible treasures, that they
may know that I am the Lord God.’ And, ‘He shall dwell in a lofty
cave of the strong rock.’ Furthermore, what saith He in reference to
the Son? ‘His water is sure; ye shall see the King in His glory, and
your soul shall meditate on the fear of the Lord.’ And again He saith
in another prophet: ‘The man who doeth these things shall be like a
tree planted by the courses of waters, which shall yield its fruit
in due season; and his leaf shall not fade, and all that he doeth
shall prosper. Not so are the ungodly, not so, but even as chaff,
which the wind sweeps away from the face of the earth. Therefore the
ungodly shall not stand in judgment, nor sinners in the counsel of
the just; for the Lord knoweth the way of the righteous, but the way
of the ungodly shall perish.’ Mark how He has described at once both
the water and the cross. For these words imply, Blessed are they who,
placing their trust in the cross, have gone down into the water;
for, says He, they shall receive their reward in due time; then He
declares, I will recompense them. But now He saith, ‘Their leaves
shall not fade.’ This meaneth that every word which proceedeth out
of your mouth in faith and love shall tend to bring conversion and
hope to many. Again, another prophet saith, ‘And the land of Jacob
shall be extolled above every land.’ This meaneth the vessel of His
Spirit, which He shall glorify. Further, what says He? ‘And there
was a river flowing on the right, and from it arose beautiful trees;
and whosoever shall eat of them shall live forever.’ This meaneth
that we indeed descend into the water full of sins and defilement,
but come up bearing fruit in our heart, having the fear [of God] and
trust in Jesus in our spirit. ‘And whosoever shall eat of these shall
live forever.’ This meaneth: Whosoever, He declares, shall hear thee
speaking, and believe, shall live forever.”[127]
JUSTIN MARTYR combines his theory with his description of the rite of
baptism as follows. Note the misquotation of Scripture:
“I will also relate the manner in which we dedicated ourselves to
God when we had been made new through Christ; lest, if we omit this,
we seem to be unfair in the explanation we are making. As many as
are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and
undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and
to entreat God, with fasting, for the remission of their sins that
are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by
us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in
which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the
Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour, Jesus Christ,
and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water.
For Christ also said: ‘Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter
into the kingdom of heaven.’ Now, that it is impossible for those who
have once been born to enter into their mother’s womb, is manifest
to all. And how those who have sinned and repent shall escape their
sins is declared by Esaias, the prophet, as I wrote above; he thus
speaks: ‘Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings
from your souls; learn to do well; judge the fatherless, and plead
for the widow; and come and let us reason together, saith the Lord.
And though your sins be as scarlet, I will make them white like wool;
and though they be as crimson, I will make them white as snow. But
if ye refuse and rebel, the sword shall devour you; for the mouth of
the Lord hath spoken it.’ And for this [rite] we have learned from
the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born without
our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and
were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we
may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may
become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the
water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced
over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins,
the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe; he who leads
to the laver the person that is to be washed, calling him by this
name alone. For no one can utter the name of the ineffable God; and
if anyone dare to say that there is a name, he raves with a hopeless
madness. And this washing is called illumination, because they who
learn these things are illuminated in their understandings. And in
the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and
in the name of the Holy Ghost, who, through the prophets, foretold
all things about Jesus, he who is illuminated is washed.”[128]
The pagano-Christian theory of baptism and baptismal regeneration,
variously expressed, is found in Methodius, _The Banquet of the Ten
Virgins_, chapter vi; in Clement of Alexandria, _The Instructor_,
chapter xii; in Tertullian, _Against Marcion_, book i., chapter xxviii;
in Cyprian, _Epistles_,[129]--1, _To Donatus_; 22, _To Clergy at Rome_;
51, _To Antonianus_; and 75, _To Magnus_; also _Testimonies against the
Jews_, paragraph 65; also, _A Treatise on Re-baptism_, by an unknown
author, published in connection with Cyprian’s writings, on page 402 of
Clark’s edition Ante-Nicene Library, vol. xiii.
The Apostolic Constitutions clearly set forth the result of this
perversion of New Testament doctrines concerning baptism. The
late Baron BUNSEN, one of the most eminent of German scholars and
statesmen, has grouped the teachings of the _Constitutions_ upon the
question of baptism in such a way as to give the reader a better view
than is possible by quoting these writings verbatim. Although these
_Constitutions_ are not the work of the apostles, they are of great
historic value in presenting a picture of the practices of the early
Church. Bunsen thinks that the _Constitutions_ present “a genuine,
though not textual, picture of the Ante-Nicene Church.” He says:
“As soon as we take away what belongs to the bad taste of the
fiction, all the ethic introductions and occasional moralizing
conclusions, and, in general, all which manifestly is re-written with
literary pretension, and lastly, as soon as we expunge some easily
discernible interpolations of the fourth and fifth centuries, we find
ourselves unmistakably in the midst of the life of the Church of the
second and third centuries.”[130]
The summary made by Bunsen is given below. By analyzing it the reader
will see how much that is extra-scriptural, and anti-scriptural, was
associated with baptism thus early. By comparison with the pagan water
_cultus_, the source of these errors is plainly apparent.
“And at the time of the crowing of the cock let them first pray
over the water. Let the water be drawn into the font, or flowing
into it. And let it be thus if they have no scarcity. But if there
be a scarcity, let them pour the water which shall be found into
the font; and let them undress themselves, and the young shall be
first baptized. And all who are able to answer for themselves, let
them answer. But those who are not able to answer, let their parents
answer for them, or one other numbered amongst their relations. And
after the great men have been baptized, at the last the women, they
having loosed all their hair, and having laid aside the ornaments of
gold and silver which were on them. Let not anyone take a strange
garment with him into the water.
“And at the time which is appointed for the baptism, let the bishop
give thanks over the oil, which, putting into a vessel, he shall
call the oil of thanksgiving. Again, he shall take other oil, and
exorcising over it, he shall call it the oil of exorcism. And a
deacon shall bear the oil of exorcism and stand on the left hand of
the presbyter. Another deacon shall take the oil of thanksgiving and
stand on the right hand of the presbyter.
“And when the presbyter has taken hold of each one of those who are
about to receive baptism, let him command him to renounce, saying: ‘I
will renounce thee, Satan, and all thy service, and all thy works.’
And when he has renounced all these, let him anoint him with the oil
of exorcism, saying: ‘Let every spirit depart from thee.’
“And let the bishop or the presbyter receive him thus unclothed,
to place him in the water of baptism. Also let the deacon go with
him into the water, and let him say to him, helping him that he may
say: ‘I believe in the only true God, the Father Almighty, and
in his only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, our Lord and Saviour, and
in the Holy Spirit, the Quickener, [the Consubstantial Trinity].
One Sovereignty, one Kingdom, one Faith, one Baptism; in the Holy
Catholic Apostolic Church, in the life everlasting. Amen.’
“And let him who receives (baptism) repeat after all these: ‘I
believe thus.’ And he who bestows it shall lay his hand upon the head
of him who receives, dipping him three times, confessing these things
each time.
“And afterwards, let him say again: ‘Dost thou believe in our Lord
Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, the Father; that he became man in
a wonderful manner for us, in an incomprehensible unity, by his Holy
Spirit, of Mary, the Holy Virgin, without the seed of man; and that
he was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, died of his own will,
once for our redemption, rose on the third day, loosening the bonds
(of death), he ascended up into heaven, sat on the right hand of his
good Father on high, and he cometh again to judge the living and the
dead at his appearing and his kingdom? And dost thou believe in the
Holy Good Spirit and Quickener, who wholly purifieth; and in the Holy
Church?’
“Let him say again: ‘I believe.’
“And let them go up out of the water, and the presbyter shall anoint
him with the oil of thanksgiving, saying: ‘I anoint thee with holy
anointing oil in the name of Jesus Christ.’ Thus he shall anoint
every one of the rest, and clothe them as the rest, and they shall
enter into the Church.”[131]
After entering the church the candidate was anointed a second time, in
connection with the “prayer of blessing” and the “kiss of peace.” This
was followed by the service of the communion, which included bread,
wine, _milk and honey_, showing that the Lord’s Supper, as well as
baptism, was corrupted with pagan elements.
Holy Water.
The use of holy water formed an important part of the pagan system.
It was a sort of continuous baptism, a succession of baptismal acts.
That it is wholly unscriptural, and in every way foreign to Christian
baptism, is too obvious to need statement. There are abundant evidences
of its pagan origin; among them are the following:
“Some persons derive the use of holy water in the churches from the
Jews; but that it has been derived from the ancient heathens of Rome
is now very generally believed, and, indeed, is warmly defended
by the intelligent Ecclesiastics at Rome, on the principle that,
as the heathen temples have been turned into Christian churches,
so it was well to lay hold of the heathen practices and turn them
into Christian customs, thus reconciling the heathen to a change of
religion, seeing it did not change their favorite rites and customs.
At the entrance of the heathen temples there were vessels of water
with which the votaries sprinkled themselves as they entered to
worship, and as it seemed desirable to make as little difference as
possible, so as to induce the heathen to conform the more readily to
Christian worship, similar vessels of water consecrated or made holy,
were placed at the entrance of the Christian churches, and thus the
custom has continued. Such at least is the origin generally ascribed
at Rome to this practice, and such the principle on which it is
defended by the men of mind and judgment among the priesthood.”[132]
Dr. JOSEPH PRIESTLEY thus supplements Mr. Seymore’s statements:
“In Popish churches the first thing that we are struck with is a
vessel of what is called _holy water_, into which those who enter dip
their fingers, and then mark their foreheads with the sign of the
cross. This holy water, there can be no doubt, came from the _lustral
water_ of the pagans, as, indeed, learned Catholics allow. This water
was also placed at the entrance of the heathen temples, and those who
entered were sprinkled with it.”[133]
CONYERS MIDDLETON attests the pagan origin of holy water:
“The next thing that will of course strike one’s imagination is their
use of holy water; for nobody ever goes in or out of a church but
is either sprinkled by the priest, who attends for that purpose on
solemn days, or else serves himself with it from a vessel, usually of
marble, placed just at the door, not unlike to one of our baptismal
fonts. Now, this ceremony is so notoriously and directly transmitted
to them from paganism, that their own writers make not the least
scruple to own it. The Jesuit la Cerda, in his notes on a passage of
Virgil, where this practice is mentioned, says: ‘Hence was derived
the custom of Holy Church to provide purifying or holy water at
the entrance of their Churches.’ ‘_Aquaminarium_ or _Amula_,’ says
the learned Montfaucon, ‘was a vase of holy water, placed by the
Heathen at the entrance of their Temples to sprinkle themselves
with.’ The same vessel was by the Greeks called περιῤῥαντήριον; two
of which, the one of gold, the other of silver, were given by Crœsus
to the Temple of Apollo at Delphi; and the custom of sprinkling
themselves was so necessary a part of all their religious offices,
that the method of excommunication seems to have been by prohibiting
to offenders the approach and use of the holy water-pot. The very
composition of this holy water was the same also among the Heathens,
as it is now among the Papists, being nothing more than a mixture
of salt with common water; and the form of the sprinkling brush,
called by the ancients _aspersorium_ or _aspergillum_ (which is much
the same with what the priests now make use of), may be seen in
bas-reliefs, or ancient coins, wherever the insignia, or emblems of
the Pagan priesthood, are described, of which it is generally one.
“Palatina, in his lives of the popes, and other authors, ascribes
the institution of this holy water to Pope Alexander the First; who
is said to have lived about the year of Christ 113; but it could not
have been introduced so early, since, for some ages after, we find
the primitive fathers speaking of it as a custom purely heathenish,
and condemning it as impious, and detestable. Justin Martyr says
that it was invented by demons, in imitation of the true baptism
signified by the Prophets, that their votaries might also have their
pretended purifications by water; and the Emperor Julian, out of
spite to the Christians, used to order the victuals in the markets to
be sprinkled with holy water, on purpose either to starve, or force
them to eat what by their own principles they esteemed polluted.
“Thus we see what contrary notions the Primitive and Romish Church
have of this ceremony: the first condemns it as superstitious,
abominable, and irreconcilable with Christianity; the latter adopts
it as highly edifying and applicable to the improvement of Christian
piety: the one looks upon it as the contrivance of the Devil to
delude mankind; the other as the security of mankind against the
delusions of the Devil. But what is still more ridiculous than
even the ceremony itself, is to see their learned writers gravely
reckoning up the several virtues and benefits, derived from the use
of it, both to the soul and the body; and to crown all, producing a
long roll of miracles, to attest the certainty of each virtue, which
they ascribe to it. Why may we not, then, justly apply to the present
people of Rome what was said by the Poet of its old inhabitants, for
the use of this very ceremony?
“‘Ah, easy Fools, to think that a whole Flood
Of water e’er can purge the Stain of Blood!’
Ovid, _Fasti_, ii., 45.”[134]
Mr. Middleton wrote as a polemist against Romanism, and hence he took
especial pains to apply these facts to that system of Christianity
exclusively. Such an application is manifestly unjust, since baptism
was fully corrupted before the formal establishment of the Papacy,
and many corrupt elements are yet retained in Protestantism. Mr.
Middleton’s suggestion that men were debarred from the use of holy
water as a punishment is sustained by the following from ÆSCHINES. In
his speech against Ctesiphon he said:
“Now the said law-giver (Solon) excludes as well the fearful, and him
that refuses to serve in war, as him that deserts his rank in battle,
from the privilege of holy lustration, and from the assembly of the
people.”[135]
The magical virtues which Christians came to ascribe to holy water are
essentially identical with those which the pagans attributed to it. Mr.
Seymore, whom we have already quoted, gives a catalogue of the uses
and virtues of holy water, which he found in the chapel of St. Carlo
Borromeo at Rome. Similar virtues are still attributed to it by modern
Catholics.[136] The catalogue is as follows:
“Holy water possesses much usefulness when Christians sprinkle
themselves with it with due reverence and devotion. The Holy Church
proposes it as a remedy and assistant in many circumstances, both
spiritual and corporeal, but especially in these following:
“_Its spiritual usefulness._
“1. It drives away devils from places and persons.
“2. It affords great assistance against fears and diabolical
illusions.
“3. It cancels venial sins.
“4. It imparts strength to resist temptation and occasions to sin.
“5. It drives away wicked thoughts.
“6. It preserves safely from the passing snares of the devil, both
internally and externally.
“7. It obtains the favor and presence of the Holy Ghost by which the
soul is consoled, rejoiced, excited to devotion, and disposed to
prayer.
“8. It prepares the human mind for a better attendance on the divine
mysteries, and receiving piously and worthily the most holy sacrament.
“_Its corporeal usefulness._
“1. It is a remedy against barrenness, both in woman and in beast.
“2. It is a preservation from sickness.
“3. It heals the infirmities both of the mind and of the body.
“4. It purifies infected air, and drives away plague and contagion.
“Such is this document. It is the only authorized one I have seen
respecting holy water; and this extraordinary statement stands as
publicly in the church as do the ten commandments in a church in
England. It is affixed separately over each of the vessels containing
the Holy Water; and as every member of the congregation must have
sprinkled himself with the water as he entered the church, so he may
have seen and read these, its uses.”[137]
Holy water was also used to sprinkle animals. This custom continues in
the Roman Church. The counterpart is found in several pagan customs
which are described by Ovid in _Fasti_, as already quoted, and further
as shown in book i., line 669. Speaking of animals, Mr. Seymore says:
“It was supposed to guard them [horses] against evil genii as they
ran the race; and a legend is told of the horses of some Christians
having outstripped all the horses of the heathen, owing to their
being sprinkled with holy water. Such a legend serves as a sanction
of primitive Christianity to horse-races, quite as well as to the
use of holy water. The pagan custom soon became a papal custom, and
falling in with the humor of the people, and the patronage of St.
Anthony, who is usually pictured accompanied by a pig, and being
conducive to the pecuniary interests of the convent of St. Anthony,
the custom was continued under a new name, and ‘St. Anthony’s day’
and the ‘blessing of the horses’ are thus identified.”[138]
Roman Catholics Defend this Use.
Dr. WISEMAN, who stands high as a Roman Catholic authority, in his
third letter, in reply to Poynder’s _Pagano-Papismus_ defends the use
of holy water:
“But did not the ancient Christians use holy water? Indeed they did,
and that in a manner to shame us. They did not sprinkle themselves
with it, to be sure, or help themselves from a vessel at the door,
as you express it; they did more than either, _they bathed in it_.
Read Pacciandi, _De Sacris Christianorum Balneis_, Rome, 1758, and
you will find much to instruct you on this subject. You will see
how the ancient Christians used to bathe themselves before going to
church after the commission of any sin. ‘Why do you run to the bath
after sin?’ asks St. John Chrysostom. ‘Is it not because you consider
yourselves dirtier than any filth?’ And Theophylactus writes in a
similar strain. An ancient Christian bath was discovered by Ciampini
among the ruins of Rome. But what is more to our purpose, the ancient
Christians never went to receive the Eucharist, or even to pray in
their churches, without washing their hands. ‘What propriety is
there,’ says Tertullian, ‘to go to prayer with washed hands and yet
with an unclean spirit?’ St. Chrysostom is still stronger: ‘Thou
darest not touch the sacred victim with unwashed hands, although
pressed by extreme necessity; approach not, therefore, with an
unwashed soul.’ To supply the necessary convenience for this rite,
a fountain or basin was provided at the church porch at which the
faithful washed, as St. Paulinus of Nola several times described in
the churches which he built.... St. Leo the Great built one at the
gate of St. Paul’s Church which was celebrated by Ennodius of Pavia
in eight verses.... The same was the practice of the Greek Church;
for Eusebius tells us with commendation how Paulinus, Bishop of Tyre,
placed in the porch of a splendid church which he built, the symbols
of sacred purification, that is, fountains which gave, by their
abundant supply, means of washing themselves to those who entered the
temple.[139]
“In fact, we have several of the old lustral vases with early
Christian symbols and inscriptions, belonging to both the churches,
as a celebrated Latin one at Pesaro, and a Greek one at Venice,
drawings of both of which you will find in Pacciandi’s work with an
ample description.”
Preparing Holy Water.
The corrupting presence of paganism is shown in the preparation of
water for purification and for baptism quite as much as in its use. The
following description is from FOY, _Romish Rites_, as quoted by BROCK:
“It appears that there are three kinds of holy water, two of which
are used for the consecration of churches. Of these two, the first
is considered to be inferior, since nothing but salt is used in
its preparation--‘salt exorcised for the salvation of those that
believe.’ It serves for sprinkling the building. The other is made
up by a mixture of salt, ashes, and wine--all blessed, of course.
This appears to be the holier of the two, and is used for the
consecration of the altar. The third class of holy water, that which
is referred to above as being consecrated on ‘Holy Saturday,’
is used for baptisms during the following year; and also, as I
gather, for sprinkling generally. In its preparation--amid many
exorcisms of devils and evil spirits, and forms of prayer--the
following ceremonies are observed: The priest divides the water
in the font with his hand, in the shape of a cross. In exorcising
the water he touches it with his hand. In blessing it, he thrice
makes over it the sign of the cross. In dividing it, he pours it
toward the four quarters of heaven. He breathes thrice into it in
the form of a cross. He lets down the great Paschal candle a little
into it, and says: ‘The might of the Holy Ghost descend into this
fountain--plentitude.’ _In hanc plentitudinem fontis._
“Then he takes the candle from the water and again merges it more
deeply, saying the same words as before, but in a higher tone. The
third time he plunges it to the bottom, again repeating the formula
with a still louder voice. Then blowing--_sufflans_--thrice into the
water in the form of the Greek letter Psi, he says: ‘Impregnate with
regenerating efficacy the whole substance of this water’; and so
takes the candle out of the font. Besides these doings, various oils
are poured into the water and mixed with the hand; and still more
strange, spittle is mingled with it, as I have once seen with my own
eyes in the grand baptistery at St. John Lateran in Rome.
“‘_The might of the Holy Ghost descend into this
fountain--plentitude, and impregnate with regenerating efficacy
the whole substance of this water._’ Such is the spell. Exorcisms
first chase all evil spirits from the water, then incantations and
charms--dividings, oils, crossings, breathings, candle plungings,
and other things--cause the might of the Holy Ghost to descend
and impregnate the water with regenerating efficacy. It is no
longer ordinary water, such as that wherein the eunuch or Cornelius
and his friends were baptized; but, by the power of charms, it
has become an ecclesiastical compound, and those to whom it is
administered are made new creatures and regenerate, not--so far as I
understand--because they are brought by faith to Christ, but through
the mere application of the fluid impregnated with virtue by an
ecclesiastical process. And the only man who can make and apply this
‘Elixir of Life,’--of eternal life,--is the priest.”[140]
Sun-Worship and Water-Worship.
We have already shown that the sun-worship _cultus_ and water-worship
were united from the beginning. This union was made anterior to Grecian
or Roman times, and much of the sacredness of water arose from it.
HISLOP describes this connection in the sanctifying of water, as
follows:
“In Egypt, as we have seen, Osiris, as identified with Noah, was
represented when overcome by his grand enemy, Typhon, or the ‘Evil
One,’ as passing through the waters. The poets represented Semiramis
as sharing in his distress, and likewise seeking safety in the
same way. We have seen already that under the name of Astarte she
was said to have come forth from the wondrous egg that was found
floating on the waters of the Euphrates. Now, Manilius tells, in his
_Astronomical Poetics_, what induced her to take refuge in these
waters. ‘Venus plunged into the Babylonian waters,’ says he, ‘to
shun the fury of the snake-footed Typhon.’ When Venus Urania, or
Dione, the ‘Heavenly Dove,’ plunged in deep distress into these
waters of Babylon, be it observed what, according to the Chaldean
doctrine, this amounted to. It was neither more nor less than saying
that the Holy Ghost incarnate, in deep tribulation, entered these
waters, and that on purpose that these might be fit, not only by
the temporary abode of the Messiah in the midst of them, but by
the spirit’s efficacy thus imparted to them, for giving new life
and regeneration, _by baptism_, to the worshippers of the Chaldean
Madonna. We have evidence that the purifying virtue of the waters,
which, in pagan esteem, had such efficacy in cleansing from guilt and
regenerating the soul, was derived in part from the passing of the
mediatorial god, the sun-god, and god of fire, through these waters
during his humiliation and sojourn in the midst of them; and that the
Papacy at this day retains the very custom which had sprung up from
that persuasion. So far as heathenism is concerned, the following
extracts from Potter and Athenæus speak distinctly enough: ‘Every
person,’ says the former, ‘who came to the solemn sacrifices [of the
Greeks] was purified by water. To which end, at the entrance of the
temples, there was commonly placed a vessel full of holy water.’ How
did this water get its holiness? This water ‘was consecrated,’ says
Athenæus, ‘by putting into it a Burning Torch taken from the Altar.’
The _burning torch_ was the express symbol of the god of fire; and by
the light of this torch, so indispensable for consecrating the ‘holy
water,’ we may easily see whence came one great part of the purifying
virtue of ‘the water of the loud resounding sea,’ which was held to
be so efficacious in purging away the guilt and stain of sin,--even
from the sun-god having taken refuge in its waters. Now this very
same method is used in the Romish Church for consecrating the water
for baptism. The unsuspicious testimony of Bishop Hay leaves no doubt
on this point. ‘It,’ [the water kept in the baptismal font] says he,
‘is blessed on the eve of Pentecost, because it is the Holy Ghost who
gives to the waters of baptism the power and efficacy of sanctifying
our souls, and because the baptism of Christ is with the Holy Ghost
and with fire.’[141] In blessing the waters a Lighted Torch is put
into the font.
“Here, then, it is manifest that the baptismal _regenerating_ water
of Rome is consecrated just as the _regenerating_ and _purifying_
water of the pagans was. Of what avail is it for Bishop Hay to
say, with a view of sanctifying superstition and ‘making apostasy
plausible,’ that this is done ‘to represent the fire of divine
love, which is communicated to the soul by baptism and the light of
good example, which all who are baptized ought to give.’ This is
the fair face put on the matter; but the fact still remains that
while the Romish doctrine in regard to baptism is purely pagan,
in the ceremonies connected with the papal baptism one of the
essential rites of the ancient fire-worship is still practised at
this day, just as it was practised by the worshippers of Bacchus,
the Babylonian Messiah. As Rome keeps up the remembrance of the
fire-god passing through the waters and giving virtue to them, so
when it speaks of the ‘Holy Ghost _suffering_ for us in baptism,’
it in like manner commemorates the part which paganism assigned
to the Babylonian goddess when she plunged into the waters. The
sorrows of Nimrod, or Bacchus, when in the waters, were meritorious
sorrows. The sorrows of his wife, in whom the Holy Ghost miraculously
dwelt, were the same. The sorrows of the Madonna, then, when in
these waters, fleeing from Typhon’s rage, were the birth-throes by
which children were born to God. And thus, even in the Far West,
Chalchivitlycue, the Mexican ‘goddess of the waters’ and ‘mother’ of
all the regenerate, was represented as purging the new-born infant
from original sin, and ‘bringing it anew into the world.’”[142]
Summary.
1. The worship of water as a divine element or agent, and hence its use
as a protection against evil, and, in baptism, as a means of producing
spiritual purity, forms a prominent feature of pagan religions.
2. Pagan water-worship was associated with the higher forms of
sun-worship in various ways, and notably with that lower phase,
Phallicism, with the obscene rites of which it is yet closely
connected in India. In Mexico the cross was the special symbol of the
water-worship cult.
3. In pagan water-worship the sacred fluid was applied in many ways--by
immersion, by bathing, by sprinkling; in the latter use, the water was
sprinkled upon the candidate from a sacred sprinkling-brush, or from a
bough of some sacred tree; it was sometimes poured upon the candidate
from a cup made from the bark of a sacred tree; trine immersion appears
in some instances. Inspiration was sought from sacred water, by
drinking, by bathing, by sitting over it, and by inhaling its vapors.
4. Water for religious purposes was taken from sacred streams,
fountains, and wells; or it was made holy by exorcisms and by the use
of salt; it was carried to remote points and preserved for a long time.
The ancient Druids caught rain-water in receptacles on the hill-tops
and carried it to their altars through necessary aqueducts.
5. The fundamental errors of the pagan water-worship cult appeared in
Western Christianity as early as the middle of the second century; this
resulted in the baptism of the sick, baptism of infants, baptism for
the dead, the delaying of baptism until the approach of death in order
to make the most of both worlds, and the doctrine of penance to atone
for sins committed after baptism; all these followed as a legitimate
result.
6. As baptism was the door to Church membership, the Church was soon
filled with “baptized pagans,” who were Christians in name only; by
this means New Testament Christianity was rapidly perverted.
7. Whoever will seek the ultimate facts must confess that the
Christianity of the third and the succeeding centuries was far removed
from the New Testament standard. Protestants are returning to that
standard all too slowly and unwillingly. Many are drifting farther away.
It is scarcely necessary to add that every form of baptism except
submersion was borrowed from paganism; that faith in baptism as
producing spiritual purity, and hence as a “saving ordinance,” was
borrowed from paganism: the notion that only the baptized can be saved
was borrowed from paganism; the use of oil, of spittle, of the sign
of the cross, of lights, of white robes, is a remnant of paganism;
baptising for the dead, and delaying baptism until near death, are
a part of the pagan residuum; faith in water from the Jordan or
elsewhere is paganism. The naming of children at baptism was a direct
importation from paganism. In so far as any of these false elements are
yet retained by Roman Catholics, Greeks, or Protestants, thus far does
paganism dominate Christian thought and practice.
FOOTNOTES:
[126] _On Baptism_, Ante-Nicene Library, vol. xi., p. 231 ff.
[127] _Epistle of Barnabas_, chap. xi., Ante-Nicene Library, vol. i.,
pp. 120, 121.
[128] _First Apology_, ch. li., Ante-Nicene Library, vol. ii., p. 59. T.
& T. Clark.
[129] Numbering as found in vol. viii. of Ante-Nicene Library. Clark’s
edition.
[130] Vol. ii. of _Hippolytus and His Age_, page 236.
[131] _Hippolytus and His Age_, by C. C. J. Bunsen, D.C.L., vol. ii.,
pp. 321-7. London, 1852.
[132] _A Pilgrimage to Rome_, by Rev. M. Hobart Seymore, M.A., p. 537.
London, 1848.
[133] _History of the Corruption of Christianity_, by Joseph Priestley,
LL.D., F.R.S., vol. ii., p. 111. Birmingham, 1782.
[134] A letter from Rome, by Conyers Middleton, D.D., _Works_, vol.
iii., p. 71 ff. London, 1752.
[135] _Orations_, etc., p. 115. Oxford, 1755.
[136] See _The Church Progress and Catholic World_, St. Louis, Mo.,
July 5, 1890.
[137] _Pilgrimage_, etc., p. 527.
[138] _Ibid._, p. 535.
[139] Eusebius, _Ecc. Hist._, vi., x.
This reference to Eusebius should be book x., chap. iv., p. 375 of vol.
i. Christian Literature Company’s publications, second series. The
description given by Eusebius shows that holy water played an important
part in the Christian Church at Tyre, as early as 315 A.D. See also
Bingham, _Antiquities_, book viii., chap. iii. The church buildings
described by Eusebius and Bingham contained many prominent elements of
sun-worship, associated with the water-worship emblems.
[140] _Rome, Pagan and Papal_, by Mourant Brock, M.A., p. 107 ff.
London, 1883.
[141] Matt. iii., 11.
[142] _The Two Babylons_, by Rev. Alexander Hislop, p. 142 ff., seventh
edition, London.