Of Baptism for the Dead
The superstitious rites of the
latter kind are again twofold: for some have more of vanity and of
superstition, others somewhat less. Of the former kind are the intercessions
for the dead, even if you sever from them that which here occurs of the
idolatrous (for so far these ceremonies belong to the former kind). Like unto
these was the superstition of those of whom, not only in our own judgment but
in that of many other most learned men also, Paul speaks 1 Cor. 15:29: who were
baptized for the dead, that is, as the words themselves of themselves sound,
for the good of the dead.
For, as some also of the Fathers,
as they are called, assert, it appears that there were some even among the
Corinthians themselves, otherwise of great name, who thought that if any had
departed without baptism who nevertheless had embraced the Christian religion,
then, because they had not professed the name of Christ in that manner which
was at that time received in the Church, the omission of baptism would either
altogether hinder them unto salvation, or might easily do them hurt. Therefore,
lest those men should perchance perish, others were baptized in their stead and
in their name, and they judged that this redounded to the good of those men.
For although many interpretations
are brought forward by others, yet they cannot be fitted to the words, nor do
they themselves bring forward any example of that signification of the words for
the dead which they pretend; which stands against them in the place of a
first argument. Secondly: if the Apostle were speaking of some matter common to
all Christians and right and praiseworthy, he would not say, What shall they do
are baptized for the dead?—speaking only of certain men and openly
distinguishing himself and men like unto himself from them, whereas the Apostle
himself also had been baptized with water. There may be added also that which
Josephus Scaliger has noted: that the Apostle does not say simply υπερ νεκρων, as though
he were speaking of the dead indefinitely, but υπερ των νεκρων, to signify that certain dead
are denoted by him. Which agrees but little with the other interpretations, but
with ours most exactly.
But as to what is objected—first,
that it is absurd to set down that the Apostle drew an argument for so great a
matter, namely for the resurrection, from a vain and superstitious rite; and
secondly, that it does not seem likely that the Apostle would have omitted the
reproof of this error—to the former it is to be answered that arguments, as Aristotle
also delivers, are twofold. The one sort are called προς πργμα, to the manner; the
others προς ανθρωπον, to the man. The former, since they are drawn from the truth of the
thing itself, must always and with all men have place; but these latter not
with all, but only with him with whom one has to do—whom we either slay with
his own sword, when with one of his errors we confute another, or whom we press
with the authority of those men to whom he attributes much—as when we urge the
Papists with the authority of the Fathers and object to them those things also
which we ourselves do not acknowledge all are wont to do who dispute with
adversaries.
To this kind of arguments, from
which the wisest and the most learned by no means shrink, since its force for
persuading is very great, and sometimes even greater than that of arguments
which are by their own nature most solid, this argument is to be referred. For
it is likely that those men whom the Apostle marks had great authority among
the Corinthians and the repute of wisdom. Besides, an argument προς πραγμα also may be
deduced from a false opinion, as Aristotle very often does, and among other
places in the first book of the Ethics, where he confirms his own
opinion concerning blessedness out of the manifold and withal erroneous
opinions of the philosophers. For it is not likely that they do it without all
reason and cause and altogether rashly; and, as Aristotle says in the place named,
it is not likely that they err the whole way, but rather that they attain the
truth at least in one part, or in most parts. Therefore the cause and the
ground of that error is to be dug out, which ground it is probable, and
well-night necessary, is of itself true.
Let us transfer this to the
present place. They who were baptized for the dead had above all this ground
and cause of their deed, that the dead should rise again; for unless they had
held this for a thing most certain, they would have been the most inept of all
men, who were willing to be baptized in the stead of those others, and so for
the sake of their advantage and their salvation. Since therefore they held this
for a thing most certain, and it is not likely that in so great a matter they
erred, by reason of the excellent wisdom which was otherwise in them, or at
least was believed to be in them, Paul rightly concludes that it is necessary
that the resurrection be set down. And that Paul’s argument was of such a sort
the very manner of speaking, in some measure indicates: “What shall they do
which are baptized” and so forth—as if he should say: most ineptly would those
men have acted, and rashly, and without any cause, whereas it is more than
credible that they had at least some probable cause.
To the latter it is to be
answered that it was not necessary in this place, where he would bring forward
this deed as a proof of the resurrection, and that briefly and in passing, the
Apostle should have reproved it expressly and openly, especially since the
error itself was not of itself so pernicious. Yet meanwhile, by the very manner
of speaking, while he removes the deed from himself and attributes it only to
certain men, he seems tacitly to disapprove it; which in this place sufficed
him. (Johannes Crell, Christian Ethics: An Explanation of the Virtues and
Vices Which Holy Scripture Speaks [trans. Marcin Poholski; 2026], 182-83)
