graced the rite. Such was the baptism of men and women, naked, to denote their entire nakedness, before putting on Christ, the assumption of white robes after baptism to symbolize purity, the anointing the eyes and ears, to denote the sanctification of the senses, the eating of honey and milk, — the sign of the cross, breathing upon the baptized, as a sign of imparting the Holy Ghost, the practice of "trine immersion," dipping the body entirely in at the mention of each name in the Trinity, and attributing miraculous influence to the holy water, by which it was efficacious of itself to cleanse from every moral pollution. No chapter in the annals of the church is so revolting as that which describes the history of its positive institutions. It shows how much more apt men are to attach themselves to what is outward, formal, to the letter which killeth, than to the interior principle, the essence, the spirit which giveth life. It deserves to be considered how much the preservation of Christianity itself is owing to the fewness and simplicity of its ordinances.

When we come down to the early part of the third century, we find that Christians had begun to experience the great inconvenience of the mode of baptism, to which the superstition of the age had confined them. In cases of sickness and infirmity they began to depart from the practice of immersion. The weak-minded and timid applied to their spiritual teachers to know if sprinkling in such cases was equally valid. We have the reply which was given in one memorable instance to that inquiry, which, for the enlightened and liberal spirit that it breathes, deserves to be quoted. It was given by Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, who flourished A. D. 240, a man of learning and influence, a martyr to his religion, and whose decision deserves more consideration from the fact, that it was confirmed and proclaimed by several ecclesiastical councils, not long afterwards. "You ask me, my dear son, what I think of those who have become subjects of divine grace in a state of languor and sickness, viz. whether they are to be regarded as lawful Christians when they have not been bathed by sacred water, but are bedewed, sprinkled. In regard to this, let not our diffidence and modesty hinder any one to think according to his own opinion, and practise as he thinks. So far as my own humble opinion goes, I think the divine benefits [of the ordinance] are in no degree diminished or cut short [by any mode], nor that anything of the divine bounty is at all dimin

6

ished, where it [the ordinance] is received by the full faith of him who receives, and him who administers it. Nor do I think that the contagion of sin is washed away by this salutary ordinance (as the filth of the skin is by corporeal or secular bathing) so that there is need of soap and other means of a bathing-tub and pool, in which the body can be washed and cleansed. The [physical] breast of a believer is cleansed in one way; the mind [or soul] of man in another way, by the deserts of faith. In sacred rites performed as necessity dictates, through divine mercy, divine favor is bestowed on those who sincerely believe. Nor should any be troubled because sick persons be sprinkled, or affused, since they obtain the favor of God; for the Holy Spirit says, by Ezekiel the Prophet, 'I will sprinkle clean water upon you and ye shall be clean,' &c. So in the book of Numbers, 'The man who shall be unclean * * because the water of sprinkling is not sprinkled upon him.' And again, 'The Lord said the water of purification.' And again, the water of sprinkling is purification.' Hence it appears that sprinkling is of like value with the salutary bath; and when these things are done in the church, where the faith is sound of the giver and receiver, all is valid, and may be completed and effected agreeably to the authority of the Lord, and the truth of faith." As quoted by Prof. Stuart, Bib. Repos., April, 1833, p. 318. It is a confirmation of the views before expressed, that this author did not feel, that the word baptize confined him to one mode through the native and original sense of the word. It is important, also, to observe that, even in that superstitious age, it was believed that the vital and essential idea of baptism did not lie in the particular mode of its administration. If this, the belief of modern times, was the opinion then cherished, it is inconceivable that such an answer as the above should have been given. After the time above named, the practice of sprinkling grew more and more common, until, in the Romish Church, it became at length the established usage. At the time of the Reformation it passed into the Episcopal, Presbyterian, and Puritan Protestant Churches, through which it has come down to us. In the Lutheran Church the practice of pouring obtains. In the Oriental Churches the mode of immersion has always been observed, and exists to this day.

We have now seen that there is nothing in the original force of the word baptize, nothing in the prevailing ideas of the

Jews in the time of Christ, and nothing in the examples of baptism in apostolic times, to limit the words of our Saviour in Matthew xxviii. 19, to one particular mode of administering the ordinance. We now add, that there is nothing in the general spirit of our religion to require this. That spirit, as we all know, lays but little stress upon outward forms and rites. He, who insists upon one method of administering a rite as in itself essential, is far, far behind that converted Jew, who affirmed, "In Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature." When Christ said, even of the Sabbath, that "it was made for man, and not man for it," how unreasonable to believe that in respect to the ceremony of admission into his Church, he intended that all considerations of convenience, prudence, and safety even, should give place, and that but one particular form should be tolerated. If so much importance is to be attached to the mere adjuncts of a ceremony, to the costume of an ordinance, how is it that the mode, in which the Lord's Supper shall be celebrated, is not prescribed by formalists? In respect to this rite there seems to be much more to justify one in setting up one specific mode as the only valid one. For how precise, it might be pleaded, are the Saviour's words. "This do in remembrance of me." It does not say, do something like this. But "this do." We have no choice left us. If we do not perform the precise thing, we do not obey the command. We must recline at table as Christ did; we must use the same kind of bread that he used; we must dip a sop as he did; we must have the same wine and the same vessels that he had, and so on without end. What should we say to one who should limit the words "this do" to such a literal construction as this? We should say, and justly, that he exalted the mere accidental circumstances of a rite above the grand spiritual signification and intent of the rite itself, and that he attributed a purpose to Christ which is formal, technical, ritual, Jewish, unworthy of the mind of that Teacher, and in dissonance with the whole spirit of his religion. But all this may be said with far more justice of one who insists upon immersion, as the only valid mode of baptism; for in instituting this ordinance our Saviour did not use phraseology so precise and determinate as that we have just noticed, but employed a terin of wide and indefinite signification. We do not blame those for their choice who have a preference for immersion over sprinkling. They have the same right to

A diversity of prac

their preferences that we have to ours. tice in regard to this ordinance may be the means of perpetuating a true idea of baptism, which would be more likely to be lost sight of, if but one mode had obtained. But when a denomination of Christians, however large and respectable, insist upon their mode as the indispensable one, when they affirm that without it there is no baptism at all, no entrance to Christ's Church, and no right to the table of his dying love, we hardly dare trust ourselves to express the feelings which these pretensions awaken in our breast. We can only mourn that, after the lapse of eighteen centuries, there should be such a poor and low comprehension of the essential spirit of the Christian faith. We can only go back and reiterate the words of the apostle, true baptism is not the putting away the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience before God. We can only hope better things from the intelligence and charity of a coming day.

We have now occupied so much time upon the meaning and mode of baptism, that we have but little space left to notice two other topics named in the beginning. One of these relates to the question, who are the proper subjects to receive this ordinance? In reply, we can do but little more than say, that the proper subjects are all believing adults, to whom the rite has not been administered, and the infant children of such parents, whether church members or not, who, we have reason to believe, religiously desire to have their children set apart, to be trained up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. By a portion of our fellow Christians the authority of infant baptism is denied. It is admitted that there is no particular text which commands us to extend the rite to this class of subjects. But the evidence seems hardly the less conclusive, on this account, that it was intended that the ordinance should be administered to them. Without an express word of limitation, the apostles would naturally conclude that the rite of initiation, in the new religion, would be coextensive with that in the old. The same devout feelings and habits which led the apostles, when Jews, to dedicate their male children to their religion by circumcision, would plead with them, when they had embraced the Christian faith, and lead them to extend to their offspring that rite to which circumcision had given place. To prevent the sure operation of this cause, not a word is said by Christ. On the contrary, the affectionate interest which he felt in little chilVOL. XXXIII. 3D S. VOL. XV. NO. II.

29

dren, inviting them to come to him, and laying his hands upon them, and blessing them, would certainly encourage the action of parental feeling in the direction here indicated. We have before seen what the evidence is to prove the existence of Jewish proselyte baptism in the time of Christ. It is certain that the chrildren of converts to Judaism were baptized together with their believing parents. If this was the Jewish custom in the time of Christ, the evidence is very much strengthened, that to baptize children with their parents would also be the practice of the apostles, unless their Master gave specific direction to confine the rite to adults alone. Agreeably to this conclusion we read of Lydia, that "she was baptized and her household," Acts xvi. 15; of the Jailer, that he was baptized, "he and all his," Acts xvi. 33; and of Stephanas, that "his household" was baptized, 1 Corinthians i. 16. Now we are not told, it is true, that there were children in these households. But it is probable that there were. The expression "he and all his" seems to point to the head of a family and his children. Certainly a modern Baptist minister would not be likely to describe his immersion only. of the adult heads of a family, by saying, I baptized such a one and all his family, or all his. In entire conformity with this view, we find the Christians of an early age practising infant baptism as an established usage. It appears as a custom which existed from the beginning. It occasioned no controversy, as it would probably have done had it been introduced as an innovation. The earliest controversy in relation to the whole subject, of which mention is made, was started about the time of Cyprian, to whom we have before referred; and that related to the question, whether infants should be baptized soon after their birth, or whether, in allusion to the rite of circumcision, it should be delayed until the eighth day. The question was referred to a council of fifty-six Bishops, who unanimously decided that the delay was not necessary. We allude to the fact merely as proof how universally established the custom of infant baptism must have been.

But for our observance of a rite so beautiful, appropriate, and full of meaning in itself, why need we be careful to seek any outward literal authority whereon to rest it? These are practices which carry their authority in themselves. As expressive of a parent's grateful emotions for the precious gift of a child, of his belief in the innocence and purity of the spirit,