sanctified by the sign of the cross, and by the imposition of hands, which had also been made appendages of baptism at that time. It appears by a passage in Austin, that the African Christians usually called baptism salvation, and the eucharist life, preferring the former to the latter. When once it was imagined that a person newly baptized was cleansed from all sin, it is no wonder that many persons deferred this sanctifying rite as long as possible, even till they apprehended that they were at the point of death. We find cases of this kind at the beginning of the third century. Constantine the Great was not baptized till he was at the last gasp, and in this he was followed by his son Constantins; and two of his other sons, Constantine and Constans, were killed before they were baptized. When baptism was administered to persons near the point of death, the patient must generally have been in bed, and consequently the ceremony could not have been performed by immersion; and it appears in the history of Novatian, that this was actually the case. On these occasions, the unction, and other ceremonies which had been added to the simple rite of baptism, were omitted; but they were performed afterwards, if the sick person recovered. We even find that, rather than omit baptism entirely, it was usual to baptize persons who were actually dead. Epiphanius, Chrysostom, and Theodoret, observe, that this custom prevailed in some placeB in their time.* After the age of Justin Martyr, we nd many additions made to the rite of baptism. It was then the custom to give the person baptized milk and honey, and to abstain from washing, all the remainder of the day, for which Tertullian says they had no authority from the Scripture, but only from tradition. They also added unc 1 De Peccatorum Meritis. L. Iv. C. xxvi. Opera, VII. p. 711. (P.) 2 Busnage, Histoire, I. p. 137. (P.) tion, and the imposition of hands; the unction, probably, referring, in a symbolical manner, to their preparation for a spiritual combat; and in applying the oil the priest touched the head or the forehead in the form of a cross. Tertullian is the first who mentions the signing with the sign of the cross, but only as used in private, and not in public worship; and he particularly describes the custom of baptizing, without mentioning it.. Indeed, it does not appear to have been used in baptism till the latter end of the fourth or fifth century; but then we find great virtue ascribed to it. Lactantius, who lived in the beginning of the fourth century, says, the devil cannot approach those who have the heavenly mark of the cross upon them, as an impregnable fortress to defend them; but he does not say it was used in baptism. 3 After the Council of Nice, Christians added to baptism the ceremonies of exorcism, and adjurations, to make evil spirits depart from the persons to be baptized. They made several signings with the cross, they used to light candles, they gave salt to the baptized person to taste, and the priest touched his mouth and ears with spittle, and also blew and spit upon his face. At that time also baptized persons were made to wear white garments till the Sunday following, as was mentioned above. They had also various other ceremonies, some of which are now abolished, though others of them remain in the Church of Rome to this day. Blowing in the face, putting salt in the mouth, giving milk and honey, and also kissing the baptized persons, and making them abstain for some time from wine, are now no longer in use. The reason of these ceremonies may be pretty easily conceived. I shall, therefore, only observe, that the salt was used as a symbol of purity and wisdom; and that exorcism took its rise from the Platonic notion that evil demons hovered over human souls, seducing them to sin. In a decree of the Council of Laodicea, held in the year 364, mention is made of two anointings, one with simple oil before baptism, and the other with ointment (pvp) after baptism; and it is there expressed that the first unction was for the participation of the Holy Spirit, that the water was a symbol of death, and that the ointment, which was applied with the sign of the cross, was for the seal of the covenant.1 This latter unction we shall find was afterwards reserved for the bishops, and became the subject of a distinct sacrament in the Church of Rome, called confirmation. Originally the bishop only, or the priests by his permission, administered baptism, as, with his leave, they also performed any other of his functions; but it appears from Tertullian that, in his time, laymen had, in some cases, the power of baptizing. This baptism, however, we may be assured, required the confirmation of the bishop, and would not be allowed but in case of necessity, as at the seeming approach of death, &c. At a synod at Elvira, in 306, it was allowed that a layman, provided he had not been married a second time, might baptize catechumens in case of necessity; but it was ordered that, if they survived, they should be brought to the bishop for the imposition of hands. Afterwards, when the bounds of the church were much enlarged, the business of baptizing was left almost entirely to the priests, or the country bishops, and the bishops of great sees only confirmed afterwards. Great doubts were raised in early times about the validity of baptism as administered by heretics. Tertul lian, before he became a Montanist, wrote a treatise to prove that here1 Sueur, 4. D. 364. (P.) tics, not having the same God, or the same Christ, with the orthodox, their baptism was not valid. Cyprian called a synod at Carthage, in which it was determined, that no baptism was valid out of the Catholic church, and therefore, that those who had been heretics should be re-baptized. But Stephen, the bishop of Rome, did not approve of this decision, and by degrees his opinion, which continued to be that of the Church of Rome, became everywhere prevalent. Indeed, when so much stress was laid on baptism itself, it would have introduced endless anxiety if much doubt had remained about the power of administering it. Having given this account of the corruption of the doctrine of baptism, and the principal abuses and superstitions with respect to the practice of it, I shall go over what farther relates to the subject, according to the order of administration. When Christians, from a fondness for the rites and ceremonies of Paganism, and a desire to engage the respect of their heathen acquaintance for the religion which they had embraced, began to adopt some of the maxims and rites of their old religion, they seem to have been more particularly struck with what related to the mys teries, or the more secret rites of the pagan religion, to which only few persons were admitted, and those under a solemn oath of secrecy. In conse quence of this disposition, both the positive institutions of Christianity, baptism and the Lord's supper, were converted into mysteries, Christians affecting great secrecy with respect to the mode of administering them, and no person could then be admitted to attend the whole of the public worship before he was baptized; but all who were classed with the catechumens were dismissed before the celebration of the eucharist, which closed the service. Farther, those who were admitted to the heathen mysteries had certain signs or symbols delivered to them, by which they might know each other, so It should seem, from the Acts of the that by declaring them they might Apostles, that it was sufficient to the he admitted into any temple, and to ceremony of baptism to say, J baptize the secret worship and rites of that into the name of Jesus Christ. But we god whose symbols they had received. soon find that the form of words used, In imitation of this, it occurred to the Matt. xxviii. 19, was strictly adhered Christians to make a similar use of to, at least in the third century, viz. J the Apostles' Creed, or that short baptize thee in the name of the Father, declaration of faith which it had been the Son, and the Holy Ghost. It apusual to require of persons before they pears, however, that at the time of were baptized. This creed, therefore, Justin Martyr, they did not always (which does not appear to have been confine themselves to these particular published, and indeed was altered from words, but sometimes added others by time to time, as particular heresies way of explanation. For though these arose in the church,) they now began precise words occur in one account of to call a symbol, affecting to conceal baptism by this writer, in another he it from the Pagans, and not revealing speaks of baptism, "Into the name of it even to the catechumens themselves, Jesus Christ, who was crucified by except just before they were baptized; Pontius Pilate, and into the name of and then it was delivered to them as the Holy Spirit, who foretold by the a symbol by which they were to know holy prophets everything relating to one another. Cyprian says, "that the sacrament of faith, that is the creed, was not to be profaned or divulged," for which he cites two texts of scripture, the one, Proverbs xxiii. 9, "Speak not in the ears of a fool, for he will despise the wisdom of thy words;" and the cther, Matt. vii. 6, "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine," &c. Ambrose most pathetically exhorts to the utmost vigilancy, to conceal the Christian mysteries, and in particular to be very "careful not by incautiousness to reveal the secrets of the Creed, or the Lord's Prayer." This last appears very extraordinary, as the Lord's Prayer is contained in the gospels, where it might be seen by any person. In the second century, baptism was performed publicly only twice in the year, viz. on Easter and Whit-Sunday. In the same age, sponsors or godfathers were introduced to answer for adult persons, "though they were afterwards admitted also in the baptism of infants." This, Mr. Daillé says, was not done till the fourth century. History of the Apostles' Creed, Ed. 5, p. 20. (P.) Christ." But perhaps this explanation might be only intended for the use of his readers, and not given by him as a form of words that was used in the administration of baptism itself. We find very little mention made of baptism, from the time of those who were generally called fathers, that is, from the age of Austin to the Reformation. Indeed I have hardly met with anything on the subject worth reciting. It soon became a maxim, that as baptism was a sacrament that was to be used only once, it was exceedingly wrong to re-baptize any person; and it is pleasant to observe the precaution that Pope Boniface hit upon to prevent this in dubious cases. In his statutes or instructions he says, "They whose baptism is dubious, ought without scruple to be baptized, with this protestation, I do not re-baptize_thee, but if thou art not baptized, I baptize thee," &c. This is the first example that I have found of conditional baptism.* From the earliest account of the ord's suppe, we find that children received the Lord's supper, and that baptism 3 Edit. Thiriby, pp. 89, 91. (P.) 4 Jortin's Remarks, IV. p. 462. (P.) always preceded communion. In a took of divine offices, written, as some think, in the eleventh century, it is ordained that care be taken that young children receive no food after baptism, and that they do not even give them suck without necessity, till after they have participated of the body of Christ.1 SECTION II. THE STATE OF OPINIONS CONCERNING BAPTISM, SINCE THE REFORMATION. It is remarkable that, though the Waldenses always practised infant baptism, many of the Albigenses, if not all of them, held that baptism ought to be confined to adults. This was the opinion of the Petrobrussians, and also of Berenger.5 Wickliffe thought baptism to be necessary to salvation. "The priest," he says, "in baptism administers only the token or sign; but God, who is the priest and bishop of our souls, administers the spiritual grace." And Luther not only retained the rite of baptism, but even the ceremony of exorcism. At i Larroche, p. 129. (P.) Smith says that in the Greek Church "they give the eucharist...to new-born infants, after they have been christened, in case of imminent danger of death." Account, p. 161. 2 Leger, Histoire, p. 65. (P.) 3 They said, according to Limborch, "that the baptism of water, made by the church, was of no avail to children; because they were so far from consenting to it, that they wept." Hist. of Inquis. I. p. 44. Mr. Wall says of the Albigenses, that 86 as France was the first country in Christendom where dipping of children in baptism was left off, so there, first anti-pædobaptism began." Hist. of Inf. Bap. Ed. 3, II. p. 220. * Basnage, Hisloire, I [b]. p. 140. (P.) The Petrobrussians were named from Peter de Bruys, a native of Dauphiny, who was burnt in 1147. Nouv. Diet. Hist. I. p. 524. According to Mr. Wall, he held that the Lord's supper" is no more to be administered since Christ's time." Hist. II. 10. 285. » Fleury, A. D. 1050. (P.) Gilpin's Life of him, p. 64. (P.) "He opposed the superstition of three immersions; and, in case of necessity, he thought any one present might baptize." Brit. Biog. I. p. 46. least, this was retained in the greatest part of the Lutheran churches. It appeared, however, presently after the Reformation by Luther, that great numbers had been well prepared to follow him, and even to go farther than he did. Very many had been so much scandalized with the abuses of baptism, and the Lord's supper especially, as to reject them, either in whole, or in part. The baptism of infants was very generally thought to be irrational, and therefore it was administered only to adults. Most of those who rejected the doctrine of the divinity of Christ were of this persuasion, as was Socinus himself. Indeed, he and some others thought that the rite of baptism was only to be used when persons were converted to Christianity from some other religion, and was not to be applied to any who were born of Christian parents. does not appear, however, that those who held this opinion ever formed a separate sect, or that their numbers were considerable; but those who It rejected infant baptism were then, and still are, very numerous. It happened that many of those who held this opinion entertained some very wild notions, especially that of the reign of Christ, or of the saints, upon earth, independent of any secular power; and they made an attempt to set up a monarchy of this kind at Munster in Westphalia, which they seized upon for that 1 Mosheim, IV. p. 58. (P.) Cent. xvi. Sect. ill. Pt. ii. Ch. i. Sect. xliii. Note [1]. a "De aquæ baptismo ego ita sentio, eum ecclesiæ in perpetuum præscriptum non fuisse, nee unquam, ut ilium acciperent, iis præceptum neque a Christo, neque ab Apostolis fuisse, qui jam ipsi Christo alia quacuuque ratione publico nomen dedissent, vel a primis annis in Christiana disciplina educati atque instituti essent." De Mcclesia, Socini Opera, I. pp. 350, 351. See also De Baptismo Aqua Dispatatio, ibid. p. 709, and Toulmin's Socinus, pp. 251, 325. Emlyn and Wakefield have adopted the same opinion. See [Rutt's Priestley] Vol. II. p. 335, Note ad fin. 0 There is, probably, an increasing number, at least among Unitarians, who consider baptism as having no place among professing Christians, such as have already made the profession for which alone the rite of baptism appears to have been instituted. Of the different opinions on baptism now maintained by Unitarians in Great Britain, Mr. Rees has given a succinct and accurate account, in Bacov. Cat. p. 257, Note. purpose, in the year 1534. But an end was soon put to this delusion, and an odium very unjustly remained upon all those who retained nothing but their doctrine concerning baptism. At pre sent, those who are called Baptists are as peaceable as any other Christians. In Holland they are called Mennonites, from Menno, a very considerable person among them; and these have adopted the pacific principles of the Quakers in England. In this country the Baptists are very numerous. The greatest part of them are called Particular Baptists, from their holding the doctrine of particular election; but there are a few societies of them who are called General Baptists, from their holding the doctrine of general redemption. 66 The Church of England retains the baptism of infants, and also the use of the sign of the cross, and of godfathers. It also admits of baptism by women, a practice derived "from the opinion of the indispensable necessity of baptism to salvation. We have that regard to such a common practice," says Bishop Burnet, as not to annul it, though we condemn it." 99 1 And indeed it is the language of the public forms of the Church of England, that baptism is ne cessary to salvation. In the Thirtynine Articles we find the doctrine of an invisible work of God accompanying baptism, as well as the Lord's supper; and in the Church Catechism it is said, that by baptism a person becomes a ild of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven. The doctrine of the Church of Scotland is of a piece with this. For baptism is said, in their Confession of Faith, 1 Expos. Art. xxiii. ad fin. Ed. 4, p. 238. 2 "Sacraments...be certain sure witnesses and effectual signs of grace and God's will towards us, by the which he doth work invisibly in us." Art. XXV (C. xxviii.) to be "a sign and seal of the covenant of grace," of a person's "ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins," &c. But "the efficacy of baptism" is there said not to be "tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such, whether of age or infants, as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in his appointed time." The Dissenters of the Calvinistic persuasion in England may possibly retain the opinion of some spiritual grace accompanying baptism, though I rather think it is not at present held by them. Nothing, however, of it is retained by those who are called rational Dissenters. They consider the baptism of adult persons as the mode of taking upon them the Christian profession; and that when it is applied to infants, an obligation is acknowledged by the parents to educate their children in the principles of the Christian religion. Many of them lay so little stress upon it, that I imagine they would make no great difficulty of deferring it to adult age, or indeed of omitting it entirely in Christian families; but they do not think it of importance enough to make any new sect in the Christian church on account of it, or to act otherwise than their ancestors have done before them, in a matter of so great indifference.3 The Quakers make no use either of this rite, or of the Lord's supper.* 3 Such indifferent!, following the practice of their ancestors without their convictions of duty, deserved my author's censure, which no Christian had a better right to inflict. 4 See Barclay's Apology, frop. xii, xiii. |