A TREATISE ON BAPTISM
AND A TREATISE ON
CONFIRMATION
SAINT BASIL THE GREAT
REV. F. P. COYLE
“LET A MAN SO ACCOUNT OF US AS OF THE MINISTERS OF CHRIST,
AND THE DISPENSERS OF THE MYSTERIES OF GOD.” 1 COR. 4:1
PHILADELPHIA: M. FITHIAN, 61 NORTH SECOND STREET 1843
ENTERED ACCORDING TO THE ACT OF CONGRESS, IN THE YEAR
1843, BY FRANCIS PATRICK KENRICK, IN THE CLERK’S OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COURT
OF THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA.
Published on the net for the Greater Glory of God ©Copyright
2018 ecatholic2000.com
A TREATISE ON
BAPTISM AND A TREATISE ON CONFIRMATION
A TREATISE ON BAPTISM AND A TREATISE
ON CONFIRMATION
PREFACE
ON BAPTISM
CHAPTER I
BAPTISM OF JOHN
CHAPTER II
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM
CHAPTER III
APOSTOLIC PRACTICE
CHAPTER IV
OBJECTIONS OF “THE FRIENDS”
CHAPTER V
ORIGINAL SIN
CHAPTER VI
NECESSITY OF BAPTISM
CHAPTER VII
EFFECTS OF BAPTISM
CHAPTER VIII
ORIGIN OF THE BAPTISTS
CHAPTER IX
BAPTISM OF INFANTS
CHAPTER X
MODES OF BAPTISM
CHAPTER XI
MEANING OF THE TERM: BAPTIZE
APPENDIX TO CHAPTER
XI
CHAPTER XII
APOSTOLIC PRECEDENTS
CHAPTER XIII
DISPOSITIONS FOR BAPTISM
CHAPTER XIV
CEREMONIES OF BAPTISM
EXHORTATION TO
BAPTISM
BY ST. BASIL THE GREAT
TREATISE ON CONFIRMATION
CHAPTER I
DIVINE INSTITUTION
CHAPTER II
RITES OF CONFIRMATION
TO THE RIGHT REV. BENEDICT JOSEPH
FLAGET, BISHOP OF LOUISVILLE.
RIGHT REV. SIR,
The permission received from you several
years ago, to publish, with your sanction, some discourses then recently
delivered by me on baptism, in your Cathedral, emboldens me to dedicate to you
the treatise on this sacrament, of which those sermons form the rude materials.
Although my relations to you have changed, I entertain the same profound
veneration for your character, and the same devoted attachment to your person.
I have the honor to be, Right Rev. Sir,
Your devoted brother in Christ,
† FRANCIS PATRICK,
Bishop of Philadelphia.
PHILADELPHIA,
Feast of the Purification,
1843.
SOME years ago, when I was a Missionary in
Kentucky, an invitation or challenge given me by a Baptist Minister, to preach
in his Meeting-house on the subject of baptism, which I declined, induced me to
deliver in the Cathedral of Bardstown, four sermons on baptism, which I
subsequently published. I have been frequently urged to reprint them; and have,
at length, determined to throw the materials of them into a new form, better
suited to the critical nature of the investigations which they embrace. My
present position, in a city wherein the Society of Friends is numerous, has led
me to treat in this work of the institution of water-baptism, which was not
called in question by those who invited the original controversy. The learned
tract on this subject from the pen of Dr. Pusey has so abundantly established
the efficacy of this Sacrament, that I have been less solicitous to multiply
proofs of it, although I have treated of it at some length. The necessity of
baptism, and the lawfulness of baptizing infants, and the validity of the
various modes of baptism are the chief points on which I dwell. To immersion we
are by no means opposed, although we maintain the sufficiency of other modes,
and the necessity to respect the established immemorial usage of particular
places. In a controversy between Charles Blackwood, an Anabaptist, and Thomas
Blake, a Presbyterian, the former having alleged in his behalf the authority of
St. Thomas Aquinas, Blake replied: “Aquinas was a man zealous for the use of
dipping, as is generally the popish party and popishly inclined.” The practice
of sprinkling, which prevails among Presbyterians, is exposed to so great
danger of nullity, from the light manner in which it is performed, that
Catholics are not favorable to it; although they hold such aspersion as may be
reasonably deemed an ablution, to be valid baptism.
In maintaining Catholic truth, I have had occasion
to notice the opposite errors, held by various sects, and advocated in the
writings of individuals still living. This I have done without respect of
persons, yet, as I hope, without forgetting the courtesy and charity which
become the apologist of religion. To give pain to others affords me no
gratification, but I dare not dissemble the awful departure from the ancient
and unchangeable principles of faith, which is perceived among the professed
ministers of CHRIST.
I have subjoined to this Treatise the translation
of a discourse of ST. BASIL THE GREAT, in which he exhorts the many who in his
age delayed baptism, although convinced of the truth of Christianity, to hasten
to receive it. The readers will no doubt be gratified to hear, as it were, this
venerable Doctor of the East, after fifteen centuries, explaining the nature
and effects of baptism, enforcing its necessity, and pointing to the vain
pretexts on which it was by many postponed. His discourse will be particularly
felt by some, who in our day likewise postpone, from time to time, the
reception of this most necessary Sacrament.
I take this opportunity of correcting a mistake
into which I fell, in my work on Justification, concerning the view given of
the nature of justifying faith in a work then recently published by Mr.
Vanbrugh Livingston. It appeared to me similar to one of the views presented by
Luther: but as this very respectable gentleman immediately on the appearance of
my book assured me that he rejected altogether the theories of Luther on this
subject, I cheerfully retract my assertion. Since that time the estimable
author has abjured every error opposed to Catholic truth, and has taken refuge
in the ark.
I have annexed a short Treatise on Confirmation,
as it is meet that these sacraments should not be separated, whenever they may
be conveniently received at the same time, according to the ancient discipline
of the Church. Controversy on this latter subject being rare, although it be
cancelled by the sects generally from the number of the sacraments, I have not
thought it necessary to enter very deeply into the examination of the proofs
and objections.
To my readers I earnestly recommend devout and
humble prayer, to prepare their minds for the strong Catholic truths which they
will meet with in this work. The institutions of our Divine Redeemer are to be
regarded with the eye of enlightened faith; and with an entire acquiescence in
the justice and wisdom of His laws. It is weakness to attempt to soften down
what may appear harsh in the divine teaching, and to present the revealed
truths in a garb that may suit the capricious fancy of erring man.
BEFORE I treat of the baptism instituted by
Christ our Lord, I am under the necessity of considering the nature of the
baptismal rite which John performed. The “Friends,” or “Quakers,” as they are
popularly called, whose Society derived its origin from George Fox, an English
Anabaptist, discarding all external rites, say that the baptism of Christ is no
other than an interior operation of the Divine Spirit, and is thus distinguished
from the baptism which John performed, which was in water. The Catholic Church
maintains the distinction of the two baptisms, and anathematizes whosoever
asserts that the baptism of John had the same virtue as the baptism of Christ:
but holds that water is to be used in Christian baptism, as it was in that of
John. Calvin, with his adherents, was aimed at by this canon, since he taught
that the difference between them lay in the accompanying instruction, rather
than in the rites themselves, or their effects, inasmuch as John taught that
Christ was about to come, whilst the Christian rite supposes Him already
manifested. Dr. Miller, however, although an ardent Calvinist, says, “It is
certain that John’s baptism was not Christian baptism.” The members of the
society called Baptists speak to the same effect, and consider their name as
identifying them with John, who is styled THE BAPTIST, because he baptized the
multitudes that approached him, confessing their sins and professing
repentance. Their confession of faith, however, is silent as to the Baptism of
John, and speaks only of baptism as an ordinance of the New Testament appointed
and ordained by Jesus Christ. Isaac Taylor Hinton, a recent Baptist writer,
says: “I regard the baptism of John as Christian baptism in an incompletely
developed state; yet with all its elements of character strongly marked.” He
glories in the idea that he has been baptized with the same baptism of which
his Great Master and Teacher personally partook. This, I believe, may be
considered as the general sentiment of Baptists.
Whether the rite of baptizing was practised among
the Jews previously to the time of John, is a subject of dispute among the
learned. Maimonides and other Jewish writers state that it was used on occasion
of admitting to Jewish privileges the Gentiles, who sought to be incorporated
with the nation; but many maintain that the Gentile converts merely bathed, to
express by the act that they cleansed and put away all the defilements of
idolatry. Various purifications were prescribed in the Mosaic law, wherein the
priest sprinkled with blood, or water, those who had contracted legal
uncleanness. The washing of the whole body was also, in some instances,
enjoined, yet it was to be performed by the individual himself; and was
therefore a bath rather than a baptism, as this term is now understood.
In the consecration of Aaron and his sons, Moses
was directed to wash them with water; which is the only instance of the
ablution of the whole body performed by a person different from the individual
washed. Whatever resemblance may exist between this rite, or the legal
aspersions, and the baptism of the multitudes by John, it was peculiar to him
to baptize on a profession of repentance, and as a means of preparation for the
immediate coming of the Redeemer. His baptism was consequently different from
the legal purifications, or other Jewish usages, and differed likewise from the
rite subsequently instituted by Christ.
Of John Christ had spoken by the prophet Malachy:
“Behold, I send my Angel, and he shall prepare the way before my face.” His
father Zacharias, under divine inspiration, had declared the preparatory
character of his ministry: “Thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the
Most High: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord, to prepare his way:
to give knowledge of salvation to his people, unto the remission of their
sins.”
We are not authorized by any expression of the
sacred writers, to consider the baptism of John as a rite of divine
institution. He certainly was “a man sent by God,” and he acted under the
influence of the Divine Spirit, both in his fervent exhortations to penance,
and in his adoption of this rite, the natural emblem of the purification of the
penitent. It is on that account called purification, where mention is made of a
dispute between the disciples of John and the Jews on this subject. It does
not, however, appear that any grace was imparted by it, although it is styled
“the baptism of penance for the remission of sins.” God, no doubt, granted
pardon to the penitent; and therefore the rite of baptism, which, with the
preaching of John, was intended to awaken sentiments of penitence, and to
excite those baptized to make to themselves a new heart and a new spirit, is
properly so designated by the Evangelist. We know of no form of words
accompanying the ablution; but it was preceded by the announcement of Him who
was to come, that is Jesus, in whom he taught them to believe.
The baptism of Christ by John was intended to give
a public sanction to the ministry of the Precursor; whereby all might be
encouraged to hearken to his preaching, and every appearance of rivalry between
him and Christ might be taken away from the minds of the Jews. It was at the
same time the occasion of a public and solemn testimony of John to Christ,
confirmed by heavenly evidences of his divine character; and it was, as it
were, to consecrate the waters by the contact of the Incarnate God, that they
might thenceforward be the instrument of human sanctification. He, holy and
undefiled, needed not “the baptism of penance for the remission of sins;” but
when the Precursor hesitated, and acknowledged his own need to be washed and
purified by Christ: “I ought to be baptized by thee: and comest thou to
me?”—”Jesus answering, said to him: Suffer it to be so now. For so it becometh
us to fulfil all justice.”
That the baptism of John was a mere preparatory
rite, emblematic of penance, is most evident from the divine scriptures. Had it
been the same as the baptism of Christ, no one would have been baptized anew,
who had received the ablution of the Precursor: yet we find that persons who
had been baptized by John were not considered members of the christian church,
until they afterwards received the baptism of Christ. “There went out to him
all the country of Judea, and all they of Jerusalem, and were baptized by him
in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.” In less than five years
afterwards, Peter, in Jerusalem itself, addressed the multitude that had
gathered together to witness the miraculous manifestations of the presence of
the Holy Spirit on the Apostles. Many, who had come from distant nations to
worship in the Jewish temple, were present on the occasion: but it is highly
probable that the vast majority were of Jerusalem, or of some part of Judea.
Peter addressed them as guilty of crucifying Jesus, and putting him to death by
the hands of wicked men: and as they were moved to compunction, and inquired
what they should do, to obtain forgiveness, he told them: “Do penance and be
baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ.” He urges each one of
them to seek christian baptism, although doubtless many, perhaps most of them,
had been baptized by John. “They therefore that received his word were
baptized: and there were added in that day about three thousand souls.”
In the nineteenth chapter of the Acts of the
Apostles a fact is recorded, which establishes most clearly the distinction
between the baptism of John and that of Jesus. “It came to pass when Apollo was
at Corinth, that Paul, having passed through the upper parts, came to Ephesus,
and found certain disciples. And he said to them: Have you received the Holy
Ghost since ye believed? But they said to him We have not so much as heard
whether there be a Holy Ghost. And he said: In what then were ye baptized? Who
said: In John’s baptism. Then Paul said: John baptized the people with the
baptism of penance, saying, That they should believe in him who was to come
after him; that is to say, in Jesus. Having heard these things, they were
baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” We need no clearer evidence of the
distinction of christian baptism from that of John, and of the necessity of
baptizing anew, with the christian rite, those whom John had baptized. These
disciples were supposed by the Apostle to have received christian baptism, and
were therefore interrogated by him whether they had received the Holy Ghost by
the imposition of hands; he being solicitous to strengthen them by this new
gift, in case they had not already received it. To his surprise they were
ignorant of the rite of which he spoke, and of the gift imparted by it. They
said that they had not even heard that there was a Holy Ghost. The question put
by the Apostle, “In what then were you baptized?” supposes that express belief
in the Holy Ghost was required of applicants for christian baptism, and that He
was solemnly invoked in its administration; and consequently that no adult
could be baptized without a knowledge of His divine influence and gifts. The baptism
of John was accompanied with no such invocation: and although the Divine
Spirit, in the shape of a dove, descended on our Redeemer when baptized, it was
not the effect of the rite, but the testimony of the Father to His beloved Son,
and the pledge and token of the grace to be annexed to the baptism which He was
to institute. The baptism of John was a penitential rite, emblematic of the
purification of the repentant sinner; and it served as a preparation for Him
who was to come, who should baptize in the Holy Ghost. The explanation given by
the Apostle was followed by the administration of christian baptism: “Having
heard these things they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” The
attempt of some to refer this to the baptism of John, as if they were the words
of Paul, rather than of the sacred historian, is too destitute of all
plausibility to deserve refutation; especially as the sacred writer immediately
adds, that Paul imposed hands on them, thus identifying the persons baptized
with those who received the imposition of hands.
It may be useful to show how the ancients
understood the words of the sacred text.
TERTULLIAN observes: “In the Acts of the Apostles
we find, that those who had the baptism of John, had not received the Holy
Ghost, of whom they had not even heard: therefore it was not heavenly, since it
did not impart heavenly things.” ST. OPTATUS says: “No one had been baptized in
the Trinity: no one had yet known Christ: no one had heard of the Holy Ghost:
the baptism of John was different from the baptism of Christ. Paul said: In
what baptism have you been baptized? And they said: John’s. He persuaded them
to receive the baptism of Christ.” The motive of the second baptism is justly
stated by ST. AUGUSTIN to have been no other than the difference between that
of John and that of Christ: “We read,” he says, “in the Acts of the Apostles,
that those were baptized by Paul who had already been baptized by John for no
other reason but because the baptism of John was not the baptism of Christ.”
These testimonies show the sense which the sacred text naturally presented to
minds unbiassed by the controversies of modern times.
The distinction between the two baptisms is
broadly stated by these ancient writers, on the authority of the divine scriptures:
“The baptism of penance,” TERTULLIAN observes, “was given as the disposition
for the forgiveness and sanctification which were to ensue in Christ: for the
baptism of penance for the remission of sins which he preached, was announced
for the future remission: since penance precedes, remission follows; and this
is to prepare the way: he that prepares, does not himself perfect, but leaves
the perfecting to another.” ST. JEROM calls attention to the preparatory and
imperfect character of the baptism of John, and appeals to the divine writings:
“Hear what the scriptures teach: the baptism of John did not remit sins, but
was a baptism of penance for the remission of sins, that is the future
remission, which was afterwards to come by the sanctification of Christ.” ST.
ATHANASIUS, explaining the words of the Baptist, observes: “That expression,
‘He will baptize you in the Holy Ghost,’ means that He will purify you:
inasmuch as this could not be effected by the baptism of John, but by that of
Christ, who has power even to forgive sins.” ST. BASIL, urging catechumens to
hasten to the font, puts before them the anxiety of the Jews to receive the
baptism of John as an example worthy of their imitation, and shows how much
more excellent christian baptism is: “John preached a baptism of penance, and
all Judea went forth to him: the Lord proclaims a baptism, whereby we are
adopted as children of God, and who is there that hopes in Him, who will refuse
to receive it? That baptism was of an introductory character: this perfects the
receiver; that separated from sin: this unites with God. The preaching of John
was of one man, and yet it drew all to penance: you are taught by the prophets:
‘Wash yourselves, be clean;’ you are admonished by the psalmist: ‘Come ye to
Him, and be enlightened;’ you hear the glad tidings from the Apostles: ‘Do
penance and be baptized each one of you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ,
for the remission of your sins, and you will receive the promise of the Holy
Ghost;’ you are invited by the Lord himself: ‘Come to me, all you that labour,
and are burthened, and I shall refresh you;’ and yet you tarry, and deliberate,
and delay.”
The grace of the Holy Ghost is declared by the
Fathers, on the divine authority of scripture, to be peculiar to christian
baptism. TERTULLIAN, speaking of the baptism of John, observes, that though it
was heavenly, inasmuch as he was divinely sent, it was not heavenly in its
effects, since “it would give the Holy Ghost and the remission of sins, if it
were heavenly. He declares that he baptizes unto penance only, and that there
would shortly come one who would baptize in the Spirit.” ST. CHRYSOSTOM says:
“The grace of the Holy Ghost is in the baptism of Christ: but the baptism of
John is destitute of this gift.” ST. GREGORY, of Nazianzum, writes: “John
baptized, no longer indeed after the manner of the Jews, for it was not merely
in water, but unto penance: and yet not altogether spiritually; for he does not
add: in the Spirit. Jesus also baptizes, but in the Spirit: for this is the
perfection.”
Calvin confesses that the Fathers distinguish the
two baptisms, and contemptuously rejects their authority, on the pretext that
it is opposed to scripture: “Let no one be disturbed at the attempt of the
ancients to distinguish one from the other, since their opinions should not be
looked on of such importance as to weaken the certainty of scripture.”
The proper view of the baptism of John is that
given by ST. JOHN DAMASCENE: “The baptism of John was introductory, and it led
the persons that were baptized to penance, that they might believe in Christ.
For I, said he, baptize you in water; but he that shall come after me, shall
baptize you in the Holy Ghost and in fire. Therefore John purified previously
for the Spirit: but we are baptized with the perfect baptism of Christ, by
water and the Spirit.” The same view is constantly presented by TERTULLIAN: “We
recognize John as a kind of limit established between the old and new
dispensations, in whom Judaism should terminate, and from whom Christianity
should begin.”
In thus appealing to the Fathers I ask nothing but
what must be conceded by every rational inquirer. I rest not on their
authority; but in examining the nature of this ancient rite, and its relation
to the initiatory rite of Christianity, the judgment and testimony of ancient
christian writers, most of whom held high stations in the church, must have
weight. They had in their hands the sacred books, and were acquainted with the
public doctrine of the church. Their proximity to the apostolic times, and
their utter estrangement from the controversies which are now agitated, must
recommend their calm testimony to our serious consideration. “In what depends
on testimony,” the learned critic George Campbell observes, “they are in every
case wherein no particular passion can be suspected to have swayed them, to be
preferred before modern interpreters or annotators. 1 say not this to insinuate
that we can rely more on their integrity, but to signify that many points were
with them a subject of testimony, which with modern critics are matter merely
of conjecture, or, at most, of abstruse and critical discussion. It is only
from ancient authors that those ancient usages, in other things as well as in
language, can be discovered by us, which to them stood on the footing of
matters of fact, whereof they could not be ignorant.”
According to the Fathers there is a manifest
distinction made in the scriptures between the baptism by John and that which
Christ instituted. Both are in water; but christian baptism is the instrument
of the Holy Spirit for the regeneration of the soul, and is made in the name of
the three Divine Persons, whilst the baptism by John was an incentive to
penance, and a symbol of the purification of the penitent, without the express
invocation of the Trinity. Nor need we be moved by the observation of Enoch
Lewis: “It is strange,” says he, that nothing appears in their (the Apostles)
history to show that they accompanied the act with a declaration that it was
done in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” For us
it is sufficient to know, that they were commanded to baptize in this way: for
surely they fulfilled the injunction.
To confound things so clearly distinguished in the
divine scripture is to set at naught its authority, whilst professing to revere
it. The christian who adheres to its teaching, regards the baptism of John as a
preparatory rite, adopted for a time, to express the purity of soul with which
Christ should be received when He should publicly manifest himself. When He
came, John gladly saw the multitudes flock to Him to receive His baptism. “This
my joy, therefore,” he said, “is fulfilled. He must increase, but I must
decrease.” From the time of its institution it alone was to be sought after,
and its nature, qualities, and effects are to be determined, not by reference
to the baptism of John, but by those divine testimonies which specially regard
the christian institution.
THE “Friends,” as I have already stated,
maintain that Christian baptism is the interior purification and sanctification
which the Spirit of God effects, without any external ablution. Barclay, the
celebrated Apologist of the Quakers, states their principles on this head in
the following terms: “As there is one Lord, and one faith, so there is one
baptism: which is not the putting away the filth of the flesh, but the answer
of a good conscience before God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. And this
baptism is a pure and spiritual thing, to wit, the baptism of the Spirit and
fire, by which we are buried with Him, that being washed and purged from our
sins, we may walk in newness of life, of which the baptism of John was a
figure, which was commanded for a time, and not to continue for ever.”
Inasmuch as “the Friends” appeal to the inward
revelations of the Spirit as the formal object of faith, and refuse to subject
them to the test of the outward testimony of the Scriptures, although they
contend that these divine revelations neither do, nor even can, contradict this
outward testimony; there is little ground for hoping to convince them by an
appeal to the Sacred Writings. Yet must we not on this account abandon the
proofs which are abundantly furnished us in the pages of the New Testament, of
the divine institution of baptism by water. These passages will confirm the
faith of believers, and may enlighten many, who have never considered them with
attention, and serve to show how great is the delusion of those who resist
evidence so striking. Barclay himself lays down the Scriptures as a ground
whereon the Friends are ready to meet their adversaries, and admits the maxim
that “whatsoever any do, pretending to the Spirit, which is contrary to the
Scriptures, be accounted and reckoned a delusion of the devil.” “Strange
reasoning!” justly exclaims Frederick Lucas, the distinguished convert: “The
Scripture is too uncertain and doubtful to be the rule itself, but it is,
nevertheless, the test of the application of the more perfect rule.”
The literal and obvious meaning of the term
“baptize,” is acknowledged to be, to plunge in water, or, in its modified
acceptation, to wash in some way: but, like other terms, it is sometimes used
figuratively. Thus to be overwhelmed with affliction, is in Scriptural style to
be baptized: “I have a baptism,” said Christ, to represent the greatness of his
sufferings, “wherewith I am to be baptized, and how am I straitened until it be
accomplished.” It is used also to express the pouring out and communication of
the gifts of the Holy Ghost: “You shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost,” said
He to his Apostles, consoling them with the assurance of the communication of
the divine gifts on the day of Pentecost. It naturally expresses a washing with
water: yet figuratively it was said by John of Christ: “He shall baptize you in
the Holy Ghost and fire:” to indicate the divine influence on the heart,
whereby the love of God is excited, and earthly affections are consumed: the
external emblems whereof were seen in the tongues of fire reposing on the
Apostles when the Holy Ghost descended. “What means,” cries ST. CHRYSOSTOM, “in
the Holy Ghost and fire? Call to mind that day whereon tongues as of fire
appeared divided on the Apostles, and sat on each one of them.” These figurative
meanings being acknowledged, it becomes important to know, by what rule the
signification of the command to baptize is determined. “The Friends” say, that
the baptism of the Spirit, and not any external ablution is meant in the
commission, and that the precursor declared that his external washing of the
body was to give place to this invisible baptism: “I baptize in water”—said he
to the multitudes:—”he it is that baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.” We, on the
contrary, maintain, that as to baptize, in its natural and usual meaning, is,
to wash with water, it must be so understood in a solemn commission, since
words are used in their obvious sense on occasions of this character. The
humility of the Precursor leads him to declare, that he only performs a mere external
ablution, whilst all sanctifying influence comes from Christ. The grace
received by the penitent whom he baptized, was the gift of Him who baptizes in
the Holy Ghost. Thus in the very baptism of John the external rite was
distinguished from the grace granted to penitence on occasion of its
ministration. Between that baptism and the baptism instituted by Christ, there
exists an immense distance, since John’s baptism was a mere ablution with
water, having no inherent efficacy; whilst Christ baptizes in the Holy Ghost,
using the water only as the emblem and instrument of his grace. In contrasting
the two rites, water is mentioned in the first place as constituting altogether
the rite which John performed; and is afterwards omitted, that the excellence of
the baptism of Christ may alone be considered in the divine effects which it
produces. This by no means excludes water, which is elsewhere positively
specified, and which is naturally included in the idea of baptizing. Had we
nothing to argue from but this text, we might hesitate; but it is fair to
supply what is here omitted by the many other texts wherein water is mentioned
as the element used in Christian baptism.
Christ is said to baptize with the Holy Ghost,
because his power is invisibly employed in sanctifying the soul; but he cannot
be supposed to command the Apostles to baptize in this way, since they can
exert no divine power. They can only perform some external act, to which a
certain virtue may be divinely annexed: but they cannot directly operate on the
soul; so that to order them to baptize, in the sense of purifying the soul by
an immediate invisible influence, is to enjoin that which is utterly beyond
their power, and which is the exclusive prerogative of the God-man, whose
ministers they are. The words, then, in which he addressed the apostles cannot
be so interpreted: Go, teach all nations, sanctifying them by the Holy Spirit.
This cannot even be referred to a divine influence attending their preaching;
since this influence was not theirs, and they could not be ordered to impart
it. It must necessarily proceed immediately from a divine source. There is no
parity in the example of miraculous operations; because the external act is
done by the agent, and the Divine power makes it efficacious; but baptizing in
the Spirit is a purely internal act, necessarily Divine, and cannot be enjoined
on men. They might be directed to instruct men, and a divine blessing might be
promised to their labors: but they could not be called on to give the Holy
Ghost, by internally communicating His influence, which must wholly depend on
God. Had Christ meant to employ the term “baptize” to express the operation of
the Holy Ghost on the mind, he might have said: “Go, teach my doctrine in all
nations, and I will baptize them unto the name of the Father, Son, and Holy
Ghost;” but he could not direct them to baptize in this sense. No where is it
said that the Apostles baptized in the Holy Ghost, although Cornelius was thus
baptized whilst Peter was speaking. The natural force of the term employed in
this solemn commission must, then, be retained, since the figurative
application of it is totally inconsistent with the circumstances in which it
was used, and the persons to whom it was addressed. In its obvious sense every
thing is plain and harmonious. The Jews were accustomed to divers washings with
water. John had baptized with water on receiving to penance the multitudes that
flocked to his preaching. The disciples of Christ, in accordance with his will,
had been accustomed for some time to perform the same ablution to such of their
countrymen as applied for it. When, then, He said, “Go, teach all nations,
baptizing them,” they were necessarily led to understand Him as ordering them
to wash in like manner all, without discrimination of nations, and thus to
initiate them into his Church. The command is to do unto the nations generally,
what they had hitherto performed within the limits of Judea: to instruct them,
and to baptize them: and the rite of baptism, as well as the teaching, is to
continue to the end of time.
Whenever the term “baptize” is qualified by other
words, a secondary, or figurative, meaning may be attached to it, as when John
says of Christ: “He shall baptize you in the Holy Ghost and fire;” and Christ
promises to his Apostles: “You shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many
days hence.” All occasion of mistake is removed, and the secondary meaning is
fixed and defined by the terms added: but when the word is simply and
absolutely used, every just rule of interpretation requires that we should
understand it in its natural and ordinary meaning. The Apostles were led by the
promise of Christ to expect the Divine influence of the Holy Spirit, to be
exercised on them in an extraordinary manner: and the miracles of Pentecost
surpassed their expectations. The communication of the divine gifts to others
may also be styled a baptism of the Holy Ghost, since Peter applies the promise
to Cornelius and his family, who were supernaturally sanctified. But what
pretext can be derived from expressions thus qualified in order to force on the
term, when used alone, a meaning which is foreign and figurative?
Barclay contends that the spiritual character of
the baptism of Christ is declared by the words subjoined: “εἰς
τὸ ὄνομα, that is, into the Name: now the
Name of the Lord is often taken in scripture for something else than a bare
sound of words, or literal expression even for his virtue and power, as may
appear from Psalm 54:3, Cant. 1:3, Prov. 18:10, and in many more. Now that the
Apostles were by their ministry to baptize the nations into this name, virtue
and power, and that they did so, is evident by these testimonies of Paul, where
he saith, that as many of them as were baptized into Christ have put on
Christ.” This observation, however, does not affect the necessity of the
ablution with water, which is implied in the command to baptize; for waiving
the literary inquiry whether the accusative form be a Hebraism, or designate
the end for which the ablution is made, it is certain that christian baptism is
a work of divine power, consecrating to the adorable Trinity those who receive
it, and clothing them with Christ, by the communication of his merits. This
interferes not with the ablution, or the invocation of the three Divine
Persons, whose name is invoked, that their power may effect the sanctification
indicated by the external act. The end, or effect, of the act being declared,
necessarily presupposes the reality of the act itself. No parallel passage can
be alleged, wherein the name of God is added to take away the natural and
obvious meaning of a preceding term. The baptizing with the Holy Ghost is
nowhere called a baptizing unto the name of God: so that this is a forced and
gratuitous wresting of the words. The interpretation of some moderns, who
explain the whole passage of a mere initiation into christianity by instruction
in its truths, is equally unsupported by parallel passages, and does equal
violence to the text, which points out baptism as the means of initiation. The
liberty which the sacred writers use in speaking of baptism as conferred in the
name or unto the name of the Lord Jesus, only shows that baptism makes us His
disciples, as well as worshippers of His Father and of the Holy Ghost, and that
it is conferred by His authority, and in virtue of His institution. There is
nothing to warrant us in regarding the baptism as a mere internal operation;
but on the contrary the external act is plainly and positively declared. It is
said of the Samaritans that they were baptized in the name of Jesus, by Philip,
who no doubt used water for that purpose, as well as in the case of the eunuch,
which baptism was received even by Simon Magus: and the disciples at Ephesus
are stated to have been baptized in the name of Jesus, after they had been
instructed by Paul, who, afterwards, by the imposition of hands and prayer,
communicated to them the Holy Ghost.
When Nicodemus approached Christ, to learn from
Him the truths of salvation, our Redeemer at once solemnly declared the necessity
of a new birth, in order to enter into the kingdom of God: “Amen, amen I say to
thee, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” This
excited the astonishment, and provoked the curiosity of the Jewish ruler.
Attaching himself to the most literal meaning of the words, without having
regard to the style of the Jews, who were wont to call the baptism of a Gentile
proselyte a new birth, inasmuch as he became a member of the Jewish nation,
Nicodemus asked, how could a man in old age be born anew; and as it was
naturally impossible for him to be so born, he intimated that even a new birth,
by an entire change of sentiment and conduct, was morally impracticable. In
reply our Lord said: “Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of
water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” The manner
of the new birth is here specified: it is by water, even as that was which, in
an enlarged sense, was styled a new birth, the incorporation of a Gentile with
the Jewish nation: but it is also by the Holy Ghost, and therefore it is truly
a new birth, because His divine influence purifies and sanctifies him who is
washed, and makes him truly a child of God. He was before a carnal man, born in
a natural way of earthly parents: he is now a spiritual being, living by faith:
“that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the
Spirit, is spirit. Wonder not, that I said to thee, you must be born again.”
The sanctifying influence of this Divine Spirit is the free exercise of His
sovereign bounty; and is oftentimes experienced by those who are unconscious of
the divine source of their sentiments and feelings: “The Spirit breatheth where
he will; and thou hearest his voice, but thou knowest not whence he cometh or whither
he goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.” The child of God, born
of the Spirit in the baptismal laver, continues to receive the divine
inspirations, without knowing their origin, in a sensible and manifest manner.
In this context there is nothing to warrant a departure from the obvious
meaning of the term water, used in speaking of the new birth; or to establish a
birth of the Spirit, so as to exclude water, as the instrument and sign of
regeneration.
Nevertheless, not only the followers of George Fox
have interpreted the words of Christ without reference to baptism; but Calvin
himself, although admitting the use of water in baptizing, has employed his
ingenuity in explaining away their obvious meaning. He maintains that water is
mentioned in connexion with the Holy Spirit, as fire in another passage in
similar connexion, to indicate His effects on the soul, which He purifies and
inflames. But the passages are not parallel. In the text which we bring
forward, Christ is explaining to Nicodemus the new birth, the necessity whereof
He had already declared. When Nicodemus had addressed Him, professing his
conviction that He was a teacher divinely sent, Christ said: “Amen, amen I say
to thee, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
Nicodemus asked how a man could be born again: “How can a man be born when he
is old? can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb, and be born again?”
The answer of our Lord is explanatory of this difficulty: “Amen, amen I say to
thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter
into the kingdom of God.” Water is distinctly and emphatically mentioned, when
the object manifestly was to explain the manner of this birth: it is not
mentioned after the Holy Ghost, as the emblem of his purifying influence, in
the way fire is elsewhere connected with him: “he shall baptize you with the
Holy Ghost and with fire:” but it is distinctly and primarily mentioned as the
obvious and external means of the second birth, which is effected by the power
of the Holy Ghost. The mention of water in this place was useless, and
calculated to lead into error, if no such instrument of regeneration was meant.
The subsequent verses, as we have already seen, do not weaken the force of this
explicit declaration.
It should suffice to put to silence the authors
and supporters of this new interpretation, to know, as Hooker testifies, “that
of all the ancients there is not one to be named that ever did otherwise either
expound or allege the place, than as implying external baptism.” Dr. Pusey
observes: “However men may think that the words do not require this
interpretation, they will readily admit that it is an obvious, perhaps (apart
from other considerations) the more obvious meaning; add, then, to this, that
the christian church uniformly, for fifteen centuries, interpreted these His
words of baptism; that on the ground of this text alone, they urged the
necessity of baptism; that, upon it, mainly, they identified regeneration with
baptism. If, then, this be an error, would our Saviour have used words which
(since water was already used in the Jews’ and John’s baptism) must inevitably
and did lead His church into error? and which He, who knew all things, must, at
the time, have known would lead His church into error; and that, when,
according to Zuingli’s or Calvin’s interpretation, His meaning had been as
fully expressed, had it stood, ‘born of the Spirit,’ only.”
Unless, in the interpretation of the sacred
scriptures, we admit, I shall not say the authority of the church, but the
ordinary rules of explaining books from the context and parallel passages, they
become of no use whatsoever, since their most evident testimony may be
rejected, on the plea that it does not harmonize with the internal teaching of
the Spirit. The appeal to this immediate revelation throws open the gate for
enthusiasm and fanaticism of the wildest and worst character, and deprives us
of every standard for discriminating between the teaching of God, and the
vagaries of a disordered imagination. For the man who fancies himself
internally enlightened and instructed in the revelation of God, all proof and
argument are powerless and vain: and the only hope left is in humble prayer,
that God would vouchsafe to remedy that delusion, and make him sensible of the
need in which he stands to be taught by those to whom the divine scriptures and
the whole deposit of revelation have been entrusted.
WHEN the meaning of a commission is called in
question, the public acts of those who received it, must have great weight in
determining its nature and character: and when the authority of the
commissioners is vouched for by him who gave the commission, their acts are
decisive evidence. Christ ordered his disciples to baptize. An attempt is made
to explain this of a mere internal work of the Spirit, towards which the
Apostles could co-operate no further than by preaching. Did the Apostles
themselves so understand it? Did they not rather conceive themselves authorized
and commanded to wash with water those who professed faith in the Gospel
preached by them? When the Jews felt compunction for the death of Christ, and
asked of Peter what they should do to be saved, he exhorted them to be
baptized; and three thousand persons on that occasion were added by baptism to
the Church. From the baptism of three thousand persons in one day, it might be
pretended that it was only figurative, and consisted in the grace of the Spirit
being poured out on them, when they received the words of Peter; but they were
already touched with compunction, when they inquired of him what they should do
that they might be saved, and when told: “let every one of you be baptized,”
they were necessarily led to understand the command of a washing with water, since
this was the received acceptation of the term. The use of water by the Apostles
on several occasions is admitted by the opponents of baptism: “It is freely
admitted,” says Enoch Lewis, “that the Apostles, after our Lord’s ascension,
did sometimes baptize their converts with water:” but any possibility of cavil
on this point is precluded by the positive declaration of St. Peter, when
Cornelius was to be baptized: “Can any man forbid water, that these should not
be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded
them to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.” On this fact, ST.
CYRIL, of Jerusalem, remarks: “Cornelius was a just man, favored with angelic
visions, whose prayers and alms were like a high pillar erected in the heavens
reaching unto God; Peter came, and the Spirit was poured out on the believers,
and they spoke with strange tongues, and prophesied, and after the gift of the
Spirit, the Scripture says, that Peter commanded them to be baptized in the
name of Jesus Christ: that the soul being born anew by faith, the body also
might receive grace by the water.” The Eunuch learned from Philip the necessity
of this ablution with water. “See, here is water, what doth hinder me from
being baptized?” Ananias called to Saul: “Rise up, and be baptized, and wash
away thy sins.” The Apostle himself constantly speaks of baptism as a laver.
Christ loved the Church, “cleansing it by the laver of water.” It was, then,
the persuasion of those who received the commission, and of those who were
associated with them in its execution, that they were empowered to perform an
ablution with water. To say, as Barclay insinuates, that the Apostles mistook
the meaning of their Master, is destructive of the certainty of Christian
faith, and is irreverent to Him, who, in that supposition, ill provided for the
correct manifestation of his will to men. Who can read without horror the
language of this Apologist? “Although it should be granted, that for a season
they did so far mistake it as to judge that water belonged to that baptism,
(which, however, I find no necessity of granting,) yet I see not any great
absurdity would thence follow. For it is plain they did mistake that
commission, as to a main part of it.”
Joseph John Gurney, a recent writer on the same
subject, has not hesitated to say that the Apostles were unprepared for the
perfect spirituality of the Christian dispensation, although the germs of it
were in their hearts: “As long as they observed the ceremonies of the law in
their own persons—as long as they continued unprepared for a full reception of
the doctrine, that the ordinances and shadows of the law were now to be
disused, and that God was to be worshipped in a manner entirely spiritual—so
long would they, as a matter of course, persevere in the practice of baptizing
their converts in water.”
The practice of the Jewish ceremonies by the
Apostles, and the doubt raised as to the admissibility of the Gentiles to the
privileges of the Church, and their subjection to the Mosaic ceremonial, are
alleged by Barclay and by Gurney, in proof of their having mistaken the
commission, and not understood fully the spiritual character of the Christian
dispensation: but there is no evidence whatever of such misconception. The
renitence of Peter to eat of meats legally unclean, when presented to him in
vision, was a natural result of long habits of legal observance, and the
command given him not to designate as unclean what God had sanctified, was not
so much to enlighten him with regard to the admissibility of the Gentiles to
the Church, as it was to enable him to defend their admission against the
converts from Judaism, whose prejudices might lead them to condemn it: whence
he appealed to those who accompanied him: “Can any one forbid water, that these
should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?” In
observing the legal ceremonies, the Apostles conformed to the will of their
Divine Teacher, who himself observed them, and wished them to be respected,
although they were to be discontinued as soon as the amalgamation of Jews and
Gentiles in one Church suffered their discontinuance, without prejudice to
their original institution. The Gentiles were authoritatively declared by the
Apostles to be free from the yoke of the law, both in the council of Jerusalem
and in the epistles of St. Paul; and the conduct of Cephas, in withdrawing from
the common table, was an act of condescension to Jewish prejudice, unattended
with any false teaching. The retention of some ceremonial observances for a
time did not arise from any imperfect conception of the spiritual character of
the Christian dispensation, much less from any positive error; but from
considerations of prudence, and a necessary regard to their divine origin. It
is impossible to consider water baptism as one of them, since it is no where
prescribed in the Mosaic law. Whatever may be thought of the baptism of John,
baptism is simply and absolutely an institution of Christ himself, since he
commanded it, and prescribed the form of words that should distinguish it. His
promise to be with the Apostles, baptizing and teaching, is a pledge and
guarantee that they should be directed by Him for the proper performance of
each duty, and does not suffer us for a moment to think that they should have
administered a baptism which He did not institute. As then the fact is manifest
from the Scriptures, and conceded by the Friends, that the Apostles did baptize
with water, the conclusion is irresistible that water baptism is of divine
institution. Whosoever says that they misunderstood the intentions of Christ,
or that they were unprepared for the full development of the spiritual
character of the New Covenant, makes void the promise of Christ to be with
them, to send them the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of truth, to teach them all
truth; and thus overturns the whole fabric of Christianity.
The words of St. Paul to the Corinthians are
alleged, to show that baptism with water is no part of the Christian
dispensation, and that if permitted for a time, and useful to lead the Jews,
who had been accustomed to external rites, to the knowledge of the mysteries of
faith, it was in no way suited to the Gentiles, and but rarely practised, and
that the Apostle regretted having adopted the practice even for a time: “I give
God thanks, that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Caius: lest any should
say that you were baptized in my name. And I baptized also the household of
Stephanus: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. For Christ sent me
not to baptize, but to preach the gospel.” The inferences drawn from this
passage are altogether unwarranted. The Apostle spoke in reference to their
personal partialities for their teachers, which were an occasion of schism; and
he reminded them, that they were disciples of Christ, and not of the individual
who brought them to the knowledge of salvation, or received them into the
Church by baptism. “Is Christ,” he asks, “divided? Was Paul then crucified for
you? or were you baptized in the name of Paul?” He rejoices that he had
baptized but few of them, because there was so much the less reason to fear
that they would cling to him as a leader, to the detriment of the unity which
they should cherish in Christ: and he states that the chief object of his
vocation was to preach the gospel, to bear the name of Christ before the
Gentiles, and their kings, and the children of Israel. In calling him to the
faith, Christ wished the converted persecutor to become an illustrious witness
of his divinity, that Jews and Gentiles might be led by his testimony and
example to believe and to adore. He was, doubtless, commissioned to baptize, as
all the Apostles were positively ordered by Christ himself; and he actually
baptized several among the Corinthians; but he generally left the performance
of that duty to others. It was not a rite of rare performance, since it was the
gate of the Church, and all who bore the Christian name had entered thereby.
The Apostle addresses all the Corinthians as baptized persons, and reminds them
that they had not been baptized in his name: “Were you baptized in the name of
Paul? “In one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or
Gentiles, whether bond or free.” This cannot be wrested to signify a mere
internal baptism, as by it all were made “one body,” being aggregated to the
Church. All foundation for the assertion that the rite was used in
condescension to the Jews, is taken away by this passage, which is directed to
Gentile converts, and declares that all of them had been baptized. In vain is
it pretended that baptism with water is not implied in the term baptize. The
Apostle evidently speaks of their unity as a body, which is effected by
baptism, wherein they are born of water and of the Holy Ghost.
But we are asked where is the proof that the
Apostles themselves were baptized with water? If they were, it must have been,
it is said, with the baptism of John, since Christ baptized no one. Of the
baptism of Paul himself we have positive testimony. That the other Apostles
were baptized, we have reason to presume from the fact, that they were chosen
to be the first ministers and heralds of Christ, and the first priests of the
new dispensation, although, if Christ so pleased, he could no doubt have
dispensed them from this necessity. That He himself baptized some, is stated in
the Gospel; and when it is said in another place, that not He, but His
disciples baptized, this is manifestly meant of the ordinary and frequent
performance of this rite. “Whether,” says Tertullian, “they were baptized in any
way, or continued without baptism, so that what was said by our Lord to Peter
concerning his being already washed, should be referred to us only, it is
altogether rash to doubt of the salvation of the Apostles, since the
prerogative which they enjoyed in being first chosen by Him, and afterwards
continuing in intimate familiarity with Him, could supply the place of
baptism.”
The proof, then, of the meaning of the divine
commission, derived from the practice of the Apostles, is nowise weakened by
the silence of the sacred writers as to the fact of the baptism of most of
them. Admitting that they were not baptized, it does not follow that the
command of Christ was not to be executed by them in regard to others. But as no
book of scripture professes to be a full record of all the acts of Christ, it
is not wonderful that we should not have positive testimony of facts, which may
well be presumed from the general rule established for initiation into the
church. We have positive statements that the Apostles baptized with water those
who sought admittance into the church, and these justify us in maintaining that
the command given them must be so interpreted.
THE ingenuity of the adversaries of baptism has
been displayed in evading the very clear proofs of its institution, and in
gathering objections from every quarter against it. They say, that according to
St. Paul, there is but “one baptism” under the new dispensation, as there is
but one Lord, and one faith: and therefore they reject water-baptism, as the
admission of it, they pretend, implies two baptisms, namely, one with water,
the other by the Spirit. This objection is too subtle to be weighty. There is
in reality but one baptism under the christian dispensation, an ablution with
water, in the name of the Divine Trinity, and accompanied with the regenerating
virtue of the Holy Ghost. The grace which is imparted, does not constitute a
distinct baptism, since it is attached to the rite. There is no contrast made
in scripture between the ablution with water in christian baptism and the
sanctifying influence of the Spirit: since all the passages alleged to
establish it, have manifest reference to the baptism of John. There is one
Lord, Jesus Christ, in whom the divine and human nature are united, the fulness
of the Divinity dwelling corporally in Him: there is one faith, the
supernatural assent of the mind to all revealed truth, which is, nevertheless,
manifested by the external profession: since “with the heart we believe unto justice,
but with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.” So also there is one
baptism, the external act being the sign and instrument of the internal
operation.
It is insisted on, that the one baptism is the
mere internal work of the Spirit, whereby we are clothed with Christ, since St.
Paul says: “as many of you as have been baptized, have put on Christ.” But the
context plainly shows, that the Apostle speaks of their having by baptism been
adopted into the family of God, and having received the privileges of children,
which Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God, imparted to them, by means of this
sacrament. Jewish teachers had endeavoured to induce the Galatians to adopt the
ceremonial observances of the Law, and the rite of circumcision: wherefore the
Apostle pointed out that such observances were adapted to the infantile and
servile state in which men were before the coming of Christ, but not at all
obligatory on those who by baptism had become children of God, being clothed,
as it were, with Christ, partaking of His Sonship, and of His merits and
privileges: “After the faith is come,” he says, “we are no longer under a
pedagogue. For you are the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as
many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ.” This is
literally true of all who had been baptized with water, because the effect of
this sacrament is regeneration, adoption, and incorporation into the mystical
body of Christ: and although the unworthiness of some candidates may prevent
their enjoying all the effects, yet their state is that of children, and they
bear the christian character; wherefore even they are taught to address God as
a Father, and to implore pardon of their sins.
A passage of St. Peter is often objected, wherein
speaking of the saving of eight persons from the deluge by the ark, he adds:
“Whereunto baptism being of the like form, now saveth you also: not the putting
away of the filth of the flesh, but the examination of a good conscience
towards God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” The original text calls
baptism the “antitype” of the waters of the deluge, that is, the corresponding
object to that type, the reality shadowed forth by that figure. No ground would
exist for this comparison, were not the waters of baptism the instrument of
salvation, as the waters of the deluge buoyed up the ark of safety. It is not,
however, the putting away of the filth of the flesh which saves us, since the
ablution is not directed to cleanse the body, but rather to signify the purification
of the soul, for which the dispositions of faith and repentance prepare the
adult receiver, and which must be followed by a life corresponding with our
baptismal engagements.
The examination of a good conscience towards God
seems to refer to the ancient apostolic rite of questioning the candidate as to
faith, and demanding of him the renunciation of Satan, and of his works and
pomps. The sincere answer of the applicant to these interrogations prepares him
for that salvation, which, in its principle, is given in baptism; and a life in
conformity with his baptismal engagements secures to him its final attainment.
ST. GREGORY, of Nazianzum, speaking of water-baptism, applies to it the same
terms: “The illumination,” which, in the writings of the Fathers, means
baptism; “is the splendour of souls, the change of conduct, the interrogation
of conscience unto God.” It is indeed strange that from a passage which
expressly treats of baptism by water, occasion should be taken by any one to
exclude water altogether; especially as the same Apostle is known to have urged
the use of water in the case of Cornelius, whose conscience already was good
towards God.
It is objected by some that baptism supposes
conversion from infidelity, or from a worship entirely opposed to that which by
this rite is adopted: wherefore those converted from Heathenism or Judaism were
baptized, as proselytes had been under the previous dispensation: but those who
have always professed christianity cannot be baptized, since they need no change;
and the command evidently regards a different class of persons. This is a
gratuitous supposition: the words of the commission are as general as can be
conceived, and although the command to teach, and form to the christian rule,
precedes that of baptizing, there is nothing to warrant us to put any limit to
either precept, which does not arise from the very nature of the duty enjoined.
Teaching is directed to instruct the mind, and is specially necessary for those
who are unacquainted with the Gospel: baptizing, being a washing with water,
regards all who are defiled, and must, therefore, embrace all who are stained
with sin, whatever be the religious profession of their parents, or whatever
principles they themselves may have professed. If professors of christianity,
they still need the teaching of the apostolic ministry, to advance in saving
knowledge, and learn the practical influence of its maxims. They must be
baptized, in order to wash their robes white in the blood of the Lamb, and to
put on Jesus Christ. No argument can be drawn from the practice of the Jews
towards proselytes from Heathenism, whose descendants enjoyed Jewish privileges
without any baptism; for the christian rite is not borrowed from the Jews, nor
regulated by principles of analogy; but is wholly dependant on the divine
authority of Jesus Christ, who made it a necessary condition for entrance into
his kingdom. His law is universal, and the practice of the church, during all
ages, is a satisfactory evidence that it regards the posterity of believers, as
well as those who grew up amidst the darkness of infidelity.
Without any semblance of justice, it is alleged
that baptism is a relic of Judaism, one of those divers washings observed under
the law, an ablution like that of John, and one of those observances which were
tolerated for a time in condescension to Jewish prejudices. It certainly cannot
be viewed in this light. Although divers purifications by washing were
prescribed in the Mosaic law, they were totally different from Christian
baptism. In place of many ablutions, we have one: they were performed by the
individuals themselves; this must be performed by another: they were
accompanied by no solemn invocation, such as is made in Christian baptism, in
the name of the three Divine Persons: they were types; baptism is an instrument
and means of grace. Even conceding what many learned men deny, that the Jews
baptized proselytes, as some of their writers testify, and that this practice
was anterior to Christianity, and was apparently supported by passages of the
law; their custom, however ancient, cannot be identified with the divine
institution which Christ has so distinctly marked as his own, by the invocation
of the Trinity, and the sanctifying influence of the Holy Spirit. For the same
reason it is not the baptism of John; but it is that perfect baptism to which,
as John testified, his ablution should give place. “The Jewish purification,”
it is observed by ST. CHRYSOSTOM, “did not free from sins, but only from
corporal defilements: ours is not such, but much greater, and full of much
grace: for it frees from sins, and cleanses the soul, and imparts the gift of
the Spirit. The baptism of John was far more sublime than that of the Jews, but
inferior to ours, and as a kind of bridge between both baptisms, leading from
theirs to ours: for he did not invite them to the observance of corporal
purifications; but drawing them off from such things, he exhorted and persuaded
them to pass from vice to virtue, and to place their hope of salvation in the
amendment of their conduct, not in divers baptisms and purifications by water.”
Baptism is not a rite merely tolerated, but specially commanded by Christ
himself; pointed out by Peter to the Jews as the necessary means for the
remission of sin; and administered to Cornelius, even although already baptized
with the Holy Ghost; and enjoined by Ananias on Saul as a positive duty, after
his miraculous conversion.
An ablution with water appears to some to be too
material a rite to belong to the Christian dispensation, wherein God is to be
worshipped in spirit and in truth, and his gifts invisibly descend on the
children of men. But shall we judge of the divine institutions by abstract
ideas of perfection, rather than by the positive testimony of God himself? He
is to be worshipped in spirit and in truth; that is, spiritually and truly,
with the homage of the mind and of the affections, and in conformity with the
great principles which he has revealed. His gifts invisibly descend, and the
sanctifying influence of his grace is not visible to the carnal eye: yet it is
no wise inconsistent with his spiritual nature, as it is not certainly unworthy
of his goodness and bounty, to exhibit, even to the eye of flesh, the token and
seal, nay, the very instrument of his grace; that faith and hope may be excited
and sustained, and that we may be made sensible, by the external exhibition,
that an interior work of grace is performed, which eye hath not seen, nor ear
heard, and of which the conceptions of the mind are necessarily imperfect. It
becomes us not to be more spiritual and wise than suits our present state of
being, but rather to recognize with gratitude the spiritual and divine
character of the gift conveyed under the external form. “It is not,” says ST.
CHRYSOSTOM, “a mere sensible gift, which Christ has left us: under sensible
forms we receive gifts which the understanding alone can contemplate. Thus in
baptism in the external rite water is perceptible: but the effect is present to
the mind, namely, the birth, and regeneration or renewal of the soul. If you
were without a body, he would doubtless have bestowed on you spiritual gifts
without any envelop: but since your soul is united with the body, he bestows on
you spiritual gifts under sensible forms.” “Since we consist of two parts,” ST.
GREGORY NAZIANZEN observes, “that is soul and body, the one visible, the other
invisible, the purification is also twofold, namely, by water and the Spirit,
the one visibly and corporally received, the other incorporeally and invisibly
concurring therewith; the one typical, the other true, and purifying the depths
of conscience.” ST. CYRIL, of Jerusalem, speaks to the same effect: “Since man
is formed of two substances, soul and body, the purification is twofold,
incorporeal for the incorporeal substance; corporeal for the body: the water
cleanses the body, the Spirit seals the soul; that our heart being sprinkled by
the Spirit, and our bodies washed with water, we may approach God.”
Not only the express institution by Almighty God
of external worship by sacrifice and ceremonies, but the whole conduct of our
Divine Redeemer warrants us in expecting that the communication of his gifts
should be externally manifested. He used external forms in the cure of the deaf
and dumb, and of the blind: the touch of his garment was the occasion of virtue
going forth from him to dry up the fountain of blood: the walking home of him
who had been palsied, was the evidence of the pardon of sin. Why, then, shall
we imagine that every external rite is banished from the new dispensation?
“There is,” as Lucas has well observed, “nothing unspiritual in the belief that
Christ established as a perpetual ordinance in his Church a particular outward
act as a means or instrument of grace, and it seems to me a fearful thing for
men in the pride of human reason, to reject an ordinance most clearly
commanded, because we cannot perceive the reason why the ordinance and grace
are conjoined. Let it be remembered that if baptism is commanded by Christ, it
is a fearful thing to disobey his commands.”
Need we be surprised that in baptism the
purification of the soul by the Divine Spirit should be externally displayed,
when the whole Christian teaching is the promulgation of truth as revealed and
manifested by our Lord Jesus Christ? “That which was from the beginning,” says
St. John, “which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have
looked upon, and our hands have handled of the word of life, for the life was
manifested, and we have seen and do bear witness, and declare unto you the life
eternal, which was with the Father, and hath appeared to us: that which we have
seen, and have heard, we declare unto you.” Barclay reproaches us with
preferring the shadow to the substance, because we retain a rite which is at
once the external exhibition and the efficient instrument of a divine work
wrought in the soul. The ablution with water is not a mere shadow. It
represents and effects the invisible purification of the soul. Lucas justly
observes, that the objections of Gurney, a recent writer, are founded on entire
misapprehension: “His interpretation of the texts in which there is an allusion
to baptism, depends wholly upon the unfounded notion that an outward ceremony
conjoined with and made the means of conveying the grace of God is the same in
principle with an outward ceremony connected with no grace whatsoever, but
merely used as a sign; and that a system of ordinances for the transmission of
spiritual influence is unspiritual in the same manner as a system of ordinances
for the transmission of no spiritual influences whatever.”
If the practice and persuasion of the whole
Christian world, from the earliest times to the latest, can afford any aid in
understanding the nature of the institutions of Christ, no doubt can be
entertained as to baptism by water, which has been always deemed the primary
and essential rite of Christianity. In the ancient epistle, ascribed to St.
Barnabas by Vossius, and other learned critics, and which all must acknowledge
to belong to the Apostolic age, it is said: “Let us inquire whether the Lord
was pleased to forewarn men of water and the cross. As to the water, it was
written concerning Israel, that they would not embrace the baptism which leads
to the remission of sins, but that they would form to themselves another.” The
writer interprets mystically the text wherein the Psalmist speaks of the tree
planted near the streams of water: “Observe how he mentioned at the same time
the water and the cross: for this is what he means: blessed are they who hoping
in the cross, descend into the water.” TERTULLIAN speaks of the mystical
appellation of fishes given to Christians, with reference to the Greek initials
expressing, in their combined form, a fish, and separately: Jesus Christ, Son
of God, the Saviour: “We little fishes in regard to Jesus Christ our
ΙΧΘΥΣ are born in the water.” The testimonies of all
the ancient Christian writers could be quoted, and I shall have occasion to
quote many of them hereafter; but for the present I shall merely remark, that
the Christian doctrine and practice was notorious even to the heathens, by whom
they were surrounded. A pagan writer, in the decline of the second century,
introduces a Christian speaking of the Divine Author of his religion, and says:
“He renovated us by water.”
There were, indeed, some of the various sects
separated from the church, who denied baptism; but they were few, and they were
regarded as the enemies of the Christian name. Quintilla, a woman of the sect
of Caianites, is mentioned by Tertullian as destroying baptism; viper-like, he
remarks, for vipers and asps love dry places. She sought to allure Catholics to
her sect, knowing, as he also observes, that to take fish out of water was
certain death. St. Augustin states that the Manicheans declined baptizing their
proselytes, since they acknowledged no saving virtue in the water. The
Seleucians also rejected baptism. In the twelfth century the Bogomili and
Albigenses, being infected with Manicheism, assailed the same sacrament. But
the vast body of those who claimed the Christian name, whatever errors
particular sects may have otherwise broached, retained it.
The distinguished convert whom I have more than
once quoted, thus compresses the proofs of the divine institution of baptism,
giving us the result of his own investigations: “I found that Christ sent out
His disciples to baptize, and they baptized with water under His immediate
superintendence. His last command to them is to baptize, and they believe, and
act upon the belief, that He meant baptism by water. The words of Christ and
His Apostles, speaking of baptism, contain, as J. J. Gurney admits, allusions
to baptism by water, and the Apostles continued all their lives the practice of
water baptism, and transmitted it as an ordinance to the church, by which it
has been preserved in an unbroken descent.”
BEFORE treating of the necessity of baptism, it
becomes necessary to explain and defend the faith of the church in regard to
original sin. A fundamental truth of christianity is that all men are naturally
children of wrath, being conceived and born in sin. On this foundation reposes
the belief of the need which the whole human race had of a Redeemer; and of the
necessity of grace to work out our salvation. It was denied by Pelagius, a
British monk, in the early part of the fifth century; but triumphantly
maintained by St. Augustin, and solemnly proclaimed in various councils of
Africa, and from the chair of Peter, by Popes Innocent and Zosimus. The General
Baptists were said by Wall to deny original sin: “Many, (but it seems not all)
of the General men are Pelagians in the point of original sin. They own nothing
of it. The other do, as appears both by the confession of faith of seven
churches of ʼem, and also by their present profession.” The American
Baptists, in the confession of faith published in 1742, express their belief in
original sin, and its consequences in terms much stronger than the Catholic
doctrine on this subject: “Our first parents by this sin, fell from their
original righteousness and communion with God, and we in them: whereby death
came upon all, all becoming dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the
faculties and parts of soul and body. They being the root, and, by God’s
appointment, standing in the room and stead of all mankind; the guilt of sin
was imputed, and corrupted nature conveyed to all their posterity, descending
from them by ordinary generation, being now conceived in sin, and by nature
children of wrath, the servants of sin, the subjects of death, and all other
miseries, spiritual, temporal, and eternal, unless the Lord Jesus set them
free.” The substance of this doctrine, and for the most part, the words, are
taken from the Westminster Confession. The Anglican articles contain similar sentiments:
“Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam, (as the Pelagians do
vainly talk;) but it is the fault and corruption of the nature of every man,
that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam, whereby man is very far
gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so
that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the Spirit; and therefore in every
person born into this world, it deserveth God’s wrath and damnation.” The
Catholic doctrine may be learned from the anathemas pronounced at Trent against
the contrary errors. Adam himself in body and soul was changed for the worse by
his prevarication, and we forfeited in him sanctity and justice, and incurred
the penalty of death, contracting sin, which is the death of the soul: “If any
one say that the prevarication of Adam injured him alone, and not his
posterity, and that he forfeited for himself alone, and not for us also, the
sanctity and justice which he had received from God, or that he being defiled
by the sin of disobedience, transfused death and corporal afflictions only to
the whole human race, and not sin, which is the death of the soul, let him be
anathema; since he contradicts the Apostle who says: ‘By one man sin entered
into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed unto all men, in whom all
have sinned.’ “ In the following canon it is said, that the sin of Adam is one
in its origin, and being transfused into all, by propagation, not by imitation,
is in each one of us. The difference between the Catholic faith and the
Calvinistic error has been well pointed out by Mohler in his celebrated work.
Catholics believe in the spoliation of human nature, which has lost in Adam the
supernatural graces wherewith divine bounty had adorned it: they believe that
the soul is dead to God, because deprived of grace which is her life: they
believe that she can never see God, unless raised from her fallen state: but
they do not believe that nature itself is corrupted, although it be weakened
and despoiled.
Man bears in himself the evidence of his fallen
condition. The miseries and infirmities of his body, but still more the
disorders of his mind, and the weakness and evil propensities of his heart, are
melancholy proofs of his degradation. Whatever effort may be made to account
for our numerous and grievous corporal afflictions by natural causes; who will
suppose that man originally came forth from the hands of his Creator with a
mind so clouded, and liable to err, and with passions so violent? The mystery
of moral weakness united with theoretical admiration of virtue, and an habitual
determination to practise it, can only be explained by admitting, that,
although God created man free from any moral imperfection, he is now imperfect
and defiled: and this defilement cannot otherwise be accounted for, than by
reference to the sin of the parent of the human race, whereby grace being
forfeited, interior disorder and revolt ensued.
The doctrine of original sin has been insidiously
attacked by Albert Barnes, a Presbyterian minister of this city, in his Notes
on the Epistle to the Romans, which occasioned his suspension from the
ministry, to which, however, he was subsequently restored, when the New School
prevailed in the General Assembly. On the pretence that the Apostle did not
mean to deliver any theory, but from admitted facts extolled the benefit of the
atonement, Barnes bends to his own views the clear and strong testimonies which
declare that all had sinned, and thus incurred the penalty of death.
Gratuitously assuming that the doctrine of original sin is a metaphysical
speculation of later ages, he explains what is said of the effects of Adam’s
sin on the human race, as indicating its influence, but not any communication
of guilt or punishment. Yet by the same rule of interpretation every revealed
doctrine may be rejected as a theory which the sacred writers did not deliver.
The Apostle testifies a fact when he declares: “By one man sin entered into
this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men in whom all have
sinned.” If the sin of Adam did not directly and as a cause induce the guilt of
the human race, there was no ground for stating that “so death passed upon all
men;” for in many of them it would not be the effect of sin, since a vast
portion of our race die before the age of reason, and consequently without any
actual sin. In this theory, which may be traced to the days of Pelagius, death
is not the effect of Adam’s sin, even as to the adult, but it is caused by
personal sins, to which Adam contributed no further than by the perverse
example of his disobedience. The connexion then between Adam’s sin, and the
necessity of death which embraces all, adults and infants, is destroyed by this
interpretation, which further contradicts the positive testimony: “in whom all
have sinned.” Whether this version be admitted, or the text be rendered, as
some will have it, “inasmuch as all have sinned,” the fact of sin being common
to all who die, equally results from it, death being in all caused by sin:
wherefore, as infants are manifestly incapable of actual sin, it must be
admitted that they are sinners, in consequence of the act of the first man,
whereby he and his posterity fell from original justice and innocence. “Death,”
says the Apostle, “reigned from Adam unto Moses even over them that had not
sinned after the similitude of the transgression of Adam.” Before the
promulgation of the law on Sinai, and the transgressions consequent thereon,
death held its sway over the whole human race, even over infants who had not
sinned actually, as Adam sinned. There must be a cause for this universal
necessity: there must be a sin common to all, of which death is the punishment.
Barnes endeavours to confine the Apostle’s words to actual transgressors of the
natural law; but the empire of death was not confined to them. It extended to
the tender infant, because it entered into the world by the sin of the father
of the human family, in whom all sinned, being all involved in the guilt and
punishment of his transgression. But how can this be? Is it not a manifest
absurdity to say that those sinned who had no existence? It were absurd to
assert it in its ordinary meaning, because it implies actual prevarication: but
it is not absurd to say that all fell from the unmerited elevation which Adam
forfeited by his disobedience: that all lost, through his act, the gratuitous
gifts which had been bestowed on him, as the head of his race: that all were
thenceforth estranged from God, children of wrath, stained with sin, which is
the death of the soul. There is indeed much that is mysterious in this economy
of Divine Providence, but nothing absurd: of it we have a faint image in some
legal enactments, which subject to penal disabilities the descendants of
traitors even to the twentieth generation. It behoves us to recognize and adore
a truth of which the evidence presents itself constantly to us in the moral
infirmities which we suffer. The gloomy reign of death over all men, for which
so many evils prepare us, is as inexplicable without the admission of a general
sin, of which it is the punishment, as the communication of the sin of Adam to
the whole human race. Let those who say that the Apostle means only that death
is universal, because men generally prove transgressors, show how this accounts
for the pains, and sufferings, and death of millions of children before the use
of reason.
The alternate use by the Apostle, in this chapter,
of the words many and all, shows that when he says, “by the offence of one many
died;” he means that “all were dead,” as he elsewhere says; and “the offence of
one was unto all men to condemnation:” and when he says, “by the disobedience
of one man, many were made sinners,” he means that “in him all have sinned.”
The comparison which he makes between the consequences of the sin of Adam and
the fruits of the sacrifice offered up by Christ, shows that as “Christ died
for all, all were dead,” and that as all who are sinners are such in
consequence of the sin of Adam, so all the just owe the gift of grace to Christ
their Redeemer. The actual communication of the justifying grace of Christ is
not indeed made to all, but it is offered to all, and its superior efficacy is
manifest, since, whilst the sin of Adam brought with it necessarily the general
fall of the human race from original justice, the grace of Christ suffices to
cancel not only that stain, but the innumerable prevarications of men, and is
accompanied with great gifts, and followed by life eternal: “Judgment, indeed,
was by one unto condemnation; but grace is of many offences unto justification.
For if by one man’s offence death reigned through one, much more they who
receive abundance of grace, and of the gift, and of justice, shall reign in
life through one Jesus Christ.” If Adam influenced the human race merely by his
example, and thus gave occasion to their sins, so should we consider, as
Unitarians do, Christ leading men to justice by example, rather than by any
actual communication of grace; and the pernicious results of Adam’s fall would
so outweigh the fruits of Christ’s offering, that there would be scarcely any
plausibility in the reasoning of the Apostle: whence Rosenmuller, following
this rationalistic view, ventured to state that the Apostle argued conformably
to Jewish prejudices, rather than to facts.
The Apostle, in clear terms, affirms that all were
dead to God, wherefore Christ offered himself up a victim for the sins of all
men. “If one died for all,” he says, “therefore all were dead. And Christ died
for all.” The argument loses its force, if the death of all by sin be denied.
Since, then, all have not committed deadly sins, their death must be the
consequence of the sin of him from whom all derive their origin. Christ died
for all: His divine heart embraced children as well as adults: His blood flowed
to obtain for both pardon and salvation. “Therefore all were dead,” void of the
life of grace, and subject to the decree of eternal death. The harshness of
this language is considerably mitigated, when it is considered, that, according
to the prevailing sentiment of divines, it implies no more as to infants than
the privation of supernatural beatitude.
Is it likely, it may be asked, that a dogma like
this should have been unknown until the days of Paul, and that no trace of it
should appear in the inspired narrative of the fall of man? The penalty of
disobedience intimated to him was death, and “we have no reason,” observes Mr.
Barnes, “to think he would understand it as referring to any thing more than
the loss of life, as an expression of the displeasure of God. Moses does not
intimate that he was learned in the nature of laws and penalties; and his
narrative would lead us to suppose that this was all that would occur to Adam.
And indeed there is the highest evidence that the case admits of that this was
his understanding of it. For in the account of the infliction of the penalty
after the law was violated; in God’s own interpretation of it, in Gen. 3:19,
there is still no reference to any thing further. ‘Dust thou art, and unto dust
shalt thou return.’ Now, it is incredible that Adam should have understood this
as referring to what has been called ‘spiritual death,’ and to ‘eternal death,’
when neither in the threatening, nor in the account of the infliction of the
sentence, is there the slightest recorded reference to it.” This reasoning goes
to overthrow not only the transfusion of original sin, but the moral guilt and
eternal punishment of Adam’s personal prevarication, so that it savors of
Universalism. It was not, indeed, necessary that Adam should be ‘learned in the
nature of laws and penalties,’ in order to understand that by violating the law
of God he should fall under the divine displeasure, and deserve to be cast away
for ever. It was sufficient to have the most common share of intellect to perceive,
that by transgressing the law, he should cease to enjoy the divine favor, the
loss whereof is the death of the soul. The penalty of corporal death intimated
to him, was an assurance that God must be obeyed; and without deep reflection
he might know, that having incurred His anger, he should lose for ever all
claim on His bounty. The threat and its execution were the immediate
significations of divine displeasure, and as the command was an addition to the
natural law, so likewise the penalty was added to the necessary guilt and
punishment which every grievous transgression produces. Can Mr. Barnes mean to
deny that Adam by his prevarication lost the grace of God, and forfeited all
claim to Heaven, nay, incurred the penalty of eternal death? If he deny it, the
Universalist may insist that grievous sin does not necessarily draw after it
these consequences. If he admit it, notwithstanding the silence of the sacred
text, he cannot argue from that silence that the guilt of that transgression
was confined to our first parents. When we consider that the gifts with which
Adam was adorned, and the glory for which he was thereby prepared, were
supernatural, we shall perceive no need of an express declaration on the part
of God, that in case of his prevarication, they would be forfeited for his
race, as well as himself, since this must appear to be a natural consequence of
the position which he occupied as head and source. In vain does Mr. Barnes
observe, that “the word representative implies an idea which could not have
existed in the case—the consent of those who are represented.” Adam was the
head, the father, and fountain, and consequently the natural representative of
the human family, which was to spring from him. He was not chosen, as delegates
are elected to represent constituents, but his creation placed him at the head
of his posterity. It is unnecessary to conceive a compact between God and him,
or a divine decree whereby he was constituted the representative of all; much
less need we presume the implied consent of his posterity that he should
represent them. It suffices that he was the first man, and the first
transgressor, and that all come from him a fallen and guilty head.
The doctrine of the communication of the sin of
Adam to each member of the human family was not unknown to the Jews, although
not declared in the history of the fall. Job makes reference to it, when in
extenuation of his weakness, he asks: “Who can make clean him that is conceived
of unclean seed?” or in the concise language of the original text: “Who can
make clean of unclean?” or as the Septuagint rendered it: “There is no one free
from stain, not even though his life be of one day.” Each one comes into the
world, defiled and unclean, wherefore he is also prone to personal prevarication;
nor can he be purified unless by God. David declares this truth more
explicitly, when imploring pardon for the crimes into which passion had
betrayed him: “Behold I was conceived in iniquities, and in sins hath my mother
conceived me.” To understand this of the sin of his parents, would be to favor
the Manichean heresy, which condemns the use of marriage: to explain it of the
imperfection sometimes attendant on what in itself is lawful, would be to wrest
the terms from their obvious signification: wherefore we must avow that David
himself was conceived in sin. The use of the plural number in the Latin version
can create no difficulty, since the original text is in the singular, and the
plural may be used considering the consequences of original sin.
The ancient faith of the church is evident from
all the Greek fathers, from St. Clement of Rome downwards, who quote the words
of Job according to the Septuagint: “No one is free from stain, even though his
life be but of a day.” The infant can have no personal stain, and consequently
there must be an hereditary stain common to all. ST. JUSTIN says that Christ
went to the Jordan, through no necessity, “but on account of the human race,
which by the sin of Adam had fallen under the power of death, and the deceit of
the serpent; besides the particular cause which each of them by his own evil
doing presents.” TERTULLIAN says: “every soul is reckoned in Adam until it be
newly enrolled in Christ; and it is unclean until this enrolment; and it is
sinful, because unclean.” ORIGEN quotes the above passage from the Septuagint:
“The Scripture declares of every one who is born, whether male or female, that
he is not clear of defilement, although his life be but one day.” “Hearken to
David, who says: ‘I was conceived in iniquities, and in sins did my mother
bring me forth;’ whereby he shows that every soul which is born in the flesh,
is defiled with iniquity and sin.” ST. CYPRIAN urges as a reason for the
baptism of infants, without awaiting the eighth day, that pardon is granted in
baptism to the worst sinners: “how much greater reason,” he asks, “is there for
not rejecting the infant, that being lately born has committed no sin, but
being carnally born according to Adam contracted at its first birth the
contagion of the ancient death?”
On this point, as on a vital doctrine of religion,
the fathers, councils, and pontiffs of the fifth century particularly insisted.
It cannot be questioned without destroying the necessity of grace, and
overturning the mystery of redemption. If all are not conceived and born in
sin, then Christ is not the Saviour of all men, since unnumbered infants attain
to salvation independently of His atonement: then also man by his mere natural
energy can observe the whole moral law, and needs only the application of the
sufferings of Christ, when by his personal act he has become a prevaricator.
Justly did the church at that early period regard these errors advanced by
Pelagius, as contrary to the teaching of the Apostle Paul, and utterly
subversive of christian faith. After so solemn declarations of ancient belief
in Africa, and at Rome, and throughout Christendom, it is surely just to regard
the dogma of original sin as a fundamental doctrine of religion, which cannot,
under any pretext, be denied. It was so judged repeatedly by the highest
tribunals of the church at that period; and in that judgment the christian
world acquiesced, and for eleven centuries it was regarded as an unalterable
dogma of revelation. Whatever authority centres in the sacred ministry by the
promises of Christ, gives sanction to this their solemn teaching: whatever
guaranties against error have been divinely given to the church, must here
afford security. She would cease to be “the pillar and ground of truth,” had
she incorporated with the revealed doctrines a human error, and made it for
centuries the basis of her teaching and practice.
I shall not at present dwell more at length on
this divine warranty of our faith; but will simply remark that the Council of
Trent opposed the errors of the sixteenth century, by repeating the anathemas
which in the fifth and sixth centuries had been hurled at Carthage, Mela, Rome,
Orange, and elsewhere, against Pelagius, Celestius, and other ancient
innovators.
BESIDES “the Friends,” who deny altogether that
water-baptism is a christian rite, many, who admit that Christ instituted it,
deny its absolute necessity. This, however, is firmly maintained by the church:
“If any one,” say the fathers of Trent, “shall say, that baptism is free, that
is, not necessary for salvation; let him be anathema.” The Anglican articles
are silent in regard to this point, and Anglican divines are divided in
sentiment. Featley, who wrote about two centuries ago, stated that there was no
real difference with us on this subject: “All that can be inferred from both,”
he says, speaking of the texts in John 3:15, Mark 16:16, “is that baptisme is
the ordinary means of salvation, and that baptisme is so far necessary as well
ratione praecepti, as ratione medii, no orthodox understanding Protestant ever
denied; neither is there any reall controversie between the Protestants and
Papists in this point, but only verball, as Doctor Reynolds excellently clearly
proveth in his lectures de censura apocryphorum.” Others however speak
differently. Hopkins, bishop of Raphoe, writes: “Baptism is not of such
absolute necessity as a means, that none can be saved without it; neither doth
our Saviour so assert it. For we must distinguish, between being inevitably deprived
of the opportunity of baptism, and a wilful contempt of it. And of this latter
must the words of Christ be understood. He that contemns being born again of
baptism, and out of that contempt finally neglects it, shall never enter into
the kingdom of God; but for others, who are necessarily deprived of that
ordinance, the want of it shall not in the least prejudice their salvation; for
it is a stated rule: ‘Non absentia, sed contemptus sacramentorum reum facit.’ “
This language is quoted and adopted by Bishop McIlvaine. Bishop Onderdonk does
not recede from these sentiments: “Baptism, as well as moral regeneration, is
required for our admission into the celestial kingdom—is ordinarily
necessary—incapacity, ignorance, involuntary error, and want of opportunity
being perhaps the only known exceptions to the rule so plainly enjoined by our
Lord himself.” “Infants dying unbaptized, persons ignorant of the Gospel, or
not having access to baptism, or omitting it through involuntary error, are
exceptions, we doubt not, to the requirement to be born of water.”
The Presbyterian confession speaks in terms
evidently designed to deny the absolute necessity of the sacrament: “Although
it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation
are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated or
saved without it, or that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.”
The Baptists say that “baptism and the Lord’s Supper are ordinances of positive
and sovereign institution, appointed by the Lord Jesus, the only Lawgiver, to
be continued in His church to the end of the world.” In admitting the command,
they do not suppose an obligation to execute it, when it cannot be done by
immersion, whence they suffer the sick to depart from life unbaptized: nor do
they consider the want of it an obstacle to salvation, unless when disobedience
to the divine mandate is wilful. Judge Rush gives a peculiar view: “In the
present state of the christian church, baptism is necessary for persons of four
descriptions, the Jew, the heathen, the Mahometan, and the avowed infidel.”
The necessity of baptism for salvation is chiefly
proved by the words of our Lord to Nicodemus: “Amen, amen, I say to thee,
unless a man be born of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the
kingdom of God.” A new birth had been already declared necessary, and the
inquiry of Nicodemus as to the manner in which it could take place, is now
answered, by affirming the necessity of being born of water and the Holy Ghost.
Water is to be the instrument of this new birth: the Holy Ghost is to be its
author: and until it take place, entrance into the church of God on earth, and
into the glorious kingdom of God above is impossible. The necessity of this new
birth arises from the supreme will of Christ, and is founded on the defiled
state of the children of Adam, and the supernatural quality of the glory of
Heaven. In Adam all have sinned: each one is conceived in iniquity: all are
children of wrath: the defilement must be washed away, for nothing defiled can
enter heaven: the child of Adam must be made a child of God, by the
regenerating influence of the Divine Spirit. This is the simple obvious force
of the text. The sentence is general, and imports the absolute necessity, that
each one be born of water and the Holy Ghost, in order to enter into the
heavenly kingdom.
We have already considered the vain attempt of
Calvin and of Barclay to interpret this text of a mere spiritual birth,
independently of water. It may be proper here to notice the interpretations
given by Baptist writers: “That both water and the Spirit,” says Mr. Gale, “are
necessary in the case our Lord is speaking of, is plain from the words
themselves, and that regeneration really consists but in one, and the other is
only used as a means, or the like, is, I think, full as plain.” “If our Lord
speaks only of adult persons, who have heard the word of God preached; then any
one in the text can mean only any one such adult hearer.” To be born of the
Spirit, in this view, is to conceive faith in the divine promises, and the
assurance of one’s own justification in Christ, through the operation of the
Spirit of God. When horror for sin committed has seized the soul, and
despondency preyed on it, the sudden conviction of forgiveness obtained in
Christ, according to this system, is regeneration. This would confine the
necessity of baptism to adult hearers, and would deny it to be the new birth.
To this we object that it is a novel and fanciful interpretation, not sustained
by the context or by any parallel text, and entirely unknown to all christian
antiquity. It is not allowed thus capriciously to detract from the means
divinely chosen for this new birth, and to ascribe all to that change of
feeling, which is oftentimes produced by impassioned declamation, or is the
mere play of imagination. The early Baptist writers rely on this passage to
prove the use of water in connexion with regeneration, or in reference to it,
rather than as its instrument, whereas the obvious force of the terms exhibits
it as an instrument and cause. “Not only,” as Dr. Pusey well remarks, “is there
nothing in Scripture to sever regeneration from baptism, but baptism is spoken
of as the source of our spiritual birth, as no other cause is, save God: we are
not said, namely, to be born again of faith, or love, or prayer, or any grace
which God worketh in us, but to be born of water and the Spirit, in contrast to
our birth of the flesh; in like manner as we are said to be born of God.” The
attempt of Baptist writers to appropriate the new birth to the Spirit, and
regard the water as not concurring to it efficiently, though not equally bold,
is as unwarrantable as the attempt of Calvin to deny the natural meaning of the
term water in this place. It is even more inconsistent, since the connexion of
water and the Spirit being immediate in the text, the natural meaning being
admitted, its efficiency as an instrument in regeneration necessarily follows.
It is equally opposed to the consent of all antiquity, on which Baptists rely
against Calvin; for all understood baptism to be the instrument and means of
regeneration, through the grace of the Spirit: and no one ever thought of that
work of imagination which is now called regeneration, being indicated by this
birth of the Spirit. There is no reason to suppose that Christ spoke only of
adult hearers, although he addressed Nicodemus; for the Greek term
τις—any one—is the most general that could be used, and there is
nothing in the context to restrict it. On the contrary, by saying: “That which
is born of the flesh, is flesh: and that which is born of the Spirit, is
spirit;” Christ teaches us that by our natural birth we are all without any
title to beatitude, and must be born anew in order to enter into the kingdom of
God. The Baptists allege that regeneration can suit only those who discern the
operations of the Spirit: but is it wonderful that a new and supernatural birth
should in some cases take place without co-operation, whilst we are altogether
passive in our natural birth? It is surely worthy of the power and goodness of
the Holy Spirit, who breathes where He willeth, to create, as it were, anew, to
His own image, by His mercy, those who cannot by the exercise of free will
prepare for this new birth. This was always believed to take place in baptism.
It was reserved for later times to explain the new birth of a state of mind, in
which presumption follows remorse and despair. Alexander Campbell observes:
“The popular belief of a regeneration previous to faith, or a knowledge of the
Gospel, is replete with mischief. Similar to this is a notion that obtains
amongst many of a ‘law work,’ or some terrible process of terror and despair
through which a person must pass, as through the pious Bunyan’s slough of
Despond, before he can believe the Gospel. It is all equivalent to this; that a
man must become a desponding, trembling infidel, before he can become a
believer.”
It is popularly believed that men must experience
the pangs of struggling conscience until the soul is born anew. “Enthusiastic
teachers,” says Bishop Onderdonk, “dwell much on the necessity of violent
pangs, in order to the accomplishing of the new birth, and not only justify on
this ground many improper excesses, but require the calmer Christian to force himself
into a similar excitement, under the penalty of being accounted void of true
piety.” “Although Christians of a calm disposition judge chiefly by the life
and conversation whether that act has occurred, enthusiasts appeal rather to
the feelings, and require in these a token, usually of strong agitations, often
of terrors, ending in rapture, before they allow a person to be considered as
regenerate. And this token once perceived, the individual is unreservedly
classed among the pious, and Calvinists add, that he is now, to human judgment,
marked for final perseverance.” Those who thus understand regeneration, do not
deny that water should be employed to associate the regenerate to the visible
church, although they apply the term itself to the work of the Holy Spirit
exciting and agitating the heart, and creating the new man. Hinton, however,
perceiving that the admission that baptism is at all referred to in the
discourse to Nicodemus, is fatal to this explanation, abandons the former
Baptist writers: “The passage plainly means, of water ‘even of the Spirit;’ the
former being the figure of the purifying influence of the operation of the
Divine Spirit. I am well aware that Baptists even have been misled by the early
Fathers on this point. Of late, however, the incorrectness of this
interpretation and its formalizing tendency have been more generally
acknowledged. Certain it is, that the reference is to the heavenly state; for
any one can see that men can and do enter the visible ‘kingdom of God’ without
the ‘Spirit’; and ‘God forbid’ we should follow the Fathers in entertaining the
idea that none can enter heaven without the water.” Such is the most recent
improvement in scriptural interpretation! It is difficult to reason with
enthusiasts: but to the calm inquirer it must appear clear that the new birth
spoken of by our Lord, bears analogy to the natural birth, not in the pangs
which precede it, but in the dignity of children of God to which it elevates
us. We are born of the flesh, flesh: we are “by nature children of wrath:” but
we cannot enter into the kingdom of God, unless we be born of the Spirit, to a
spiritual life, and thus made the children of God’s adoption.
Bishop Onderdonk offers an interpretation, in
harmony with his peculiar views of twofold regeneration. He supposes that our
Lord, in speaking of a new birth, at first merely meant a thorough change of
mind and affections, and was so understood by Nicodemus, who objected to Him,
that such a change was as difficult as a second natural birth. “Our Lord then
replies more fully, that he must not only be thus morally born again, but also,
by the new birth of baptism, assume the Christian covenant, and enter the
Christian church, which was henceforth to be the especial channel of the grace
producing and furthering moral regeneration—he must be born again of water, as
well as born again of the converting influence of the Spirit, in order to an
entrance into the kingdom of God. Then our Lord returns to the subject of the
moral new birth. “This is the key,” the bishop says, “we prefer for this highly
important conversation. The necessity of the change of character was the first,
and is throughout the principal topic. But the necessity of baptism also is
declared.” To this novel interpretation, which separates what Christ unites,
water and the Spirit, and makes two regenerations where one is plainly spoken
of, we demur; and plead the congruity of the ancient and unanimous
interpretation of the Fathers. Christ declared to Nicodemus, in the first
instance, the necessity of a new birth, which Nicodemus did not understand, and
was therefore reproached with his dulness by our Redeemer. He explained to him
afterwards the nature of this birth, pointing to the instrument whereby the
Holy Spirit would effect it.
It may be useful to notice another interpretation,
given by Judge Rush, which shows how fancy perverts the sacred volume. He
adduces many passages of Scripture, in which waters are used as a figure of
tribulations; and insists that the birth by water is the patient endurance of
affliction by which we are prepared for the kingdom of God: “A man born of
water,” says he, “is a man that has passed through much trouble. Having escaped
through the waters of affliction, he is like one new born. The sentiment
contained in the passage is simply this: unless a man be overwhelmed with a
sense of sorrow for sin, like one overwhelmed in water—unless the waters of
repentance compass him about even to his soul, accompanied with operations of
the blessed Spirit, he can never enter into the kingdom of God.” The learned
Judge failed to observe that in the passages which he conceived to be parallel,
the plural form occurs, the rush of many waters being an apt figure of
overwhelming affliction, whilst water in the singular is not so understood.
From the confused and incoherent interpretations
of modern writers, I turn to the venerable ancients. Their minds being
unbiassed by our disputes, they can best attest the obvious meaning of the
sentence, and the belief and practice of the church in her earliest days
grounded on it. In addition to the testimonies already adduced, I shall take
leave to quote others more directly bearing on the necessity of baptism. St.
Justin the Martyr, who lived in the decline of the second century, gives a
statement of our celestial and new birth by baptism, and to prove its necessity
adds: “for Christ says, ‘Unless you be born again, you shall not enter into the
kingdom of heaven.’ “ “Salvation,” writes Tertullian, at the commencement of
the third century, “appertains to none without baptism, especially on account
of this sentence of our Lord, who says: ‘Unless one be born of water, he hath
not life.’ The law of baptizing is enacted, and the form prescribed: ‘Go,’ said
He, ‘teach nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son,
and of the Holy Ghost.’ With this law, this definitive sentence being compared:
‘Unless one be born again of water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the
kingdom of God,’ has imposed on the believer the necessity of receiving baptism.”
He insists on this in order to show that although salvation might be obtained
before our Lord’s death and resurrection by faith, without this rite, since its
institution it became altogether necessary. St. Cyril, of Jerusalem, thus
addresses the Catechumens: “Whosoever thou art who art about to descend into
the water, do not look to the mere water, but accept salvation in the power of
the Holy Ghost: for without both it is impossible to be initiated. It is not I
who say this, but the Lord Jesus Christ, on whose will it depends: for He says,
‘Unless a man be born again,’ and He adds, ‘of water and the Spirit,’ he cannot
enter into the kingdom of God.” St. Chrysostom is in strict harmony with the
other Fathers, in his interpretation of these words of Christ: “He that is not
born of water and the Spirit, cannot, He says, enter into the kingdom of
heaven, because he wears the mantle of death, and malediction, and corruption,
and has not yet received the symbol of the Lord: he is a stranger and foreigner,
and has not the king’s badge: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the
Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.’ “ St. Ambrose writes: “No one
ascends into the kingdom of heaven without the sacrament of baptism, for
‘unless one is born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the
kingdom of God.’ “ St. Basil says, “The Jew delays not circumcision on account
of the threat, that ‘every one that shall not be circumcised on the eighth day,
shall perish from among his people;’ and you put off the circumcision, which is
not made by hands, and does not consist in the stripping of the flesh, but is
perfected in baptism, though you have heard the words of the Lord: ‘Amen, amen,
I say to you, unless a man be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the
kingdom of God.’ “ I forbear for the present other quotations, and content
myself with observing, in the words of Wall, a celebrated Anglican divine: “All
the ancient Christians, (without the exception of one man) do understand that
rule of our Saviour, John 3:5, of baptism.” This writer denies the charge of
the abandonment of this doctrine by those of his communion. In reply to Mr.
Stennet, who asserted that Protestants had justly abandoned it, he observes:
“If he mean the principle of an impossibility of salvation to be had, according
to God’s ordinary rule and declaration, any other way than by baptism, I shall
by and by show, that not all the Protestants, if any, have abandoned it.” That
some have abandoned it is apparent from the words already quoted of Bishops
Hopkins, McIlvaine, and Onderdonk.
To this celebrated passage in our Lord’s discourse
to Nicodemus, we may add the words of the commission given by Him to the
Apostles: “Go into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature; he
that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” Baptism is clearly marked as a
condition for salvation in regard to all those to whom the gospel is preached:
and although such as have not the use of reason are not capable of hearing
preaching, yet as the terms are so emphatic, it is not a great stretch of
reasoning to maintain that every creature—every child of Adam—is embraced by
the Gospel, and may be made partaker of its benefits. But if the rigour of
scriptural exegesis will not allow us to maintain the universal necessity of
baptism, by an inference of this kind, the obligation of receiving it at least
must be admitted to be co-extensive with the preaching, which embraces all
capable of hearing. It has been observed, that our Lord menaces the unbeliever
with perdition, and omits any penalty for the non-reception of baptism: but the
reason is obvious. Unbelief supposes a rejection of baptism, the duty of
receiving which, in obedience to the principles proclaimed by the preachers of
the Gospel, had been already clearly stated. There was no just reason for
speaking of baptism in connexion with faith as a condition for salvation, if
the believer neglecting it could be saved. Hence all the illustrious christian
writers of antiquity have proclaimed in unqualified terms its absolute
necessity. “Without baptism,” says ST. CHRYSOSTOM, “we cannot obtain the
heavenly kingdom.” “It is impossible we should be saved without it.” The martyr
alone, or other who desired the laver, but could not receive it, was excepted.
Of the soldier who took the place of a weak apostate, and filled up the
glorious band of forty martyrs, ST. BASIL remarks: “he was baptized in Christ,
not by another, but by his own faith; not in water, but in his own blood.” “If
any one receive not baptism,” says ST. CYRIL, of Jerusalem, “he is void of
salvation, unless the martyrs alone, who without water receive the kingdom: for
the Saviour having ransomed the world by his cross, and his side being pierced,
water and blood issued from it, so that in time of peace some are baptized in
water, and others, in time of persecution, are baptized in their own blood: for
the Saviour calls martyrdom baptism, saying: ‘Can you drink the chalice which I
drink, and be baptized with the baptism wherewith I am baptized?’ “
What then must we believe to be the lot of those
who die without baptism? If they have obstinately refused it, when sufficient
proofs had been presented to them of its divine institution, there can be no
doubt of their having sinned grievously, and incurred the penalty of eternal
death. Whether the prejudices of education united with a disposition to know
and do the will of God may plead for others, who, in virtue of this
disposition, may be considered as having implicitly desired it, even when under
the delusion of false principles they expressly refused it, it were rash to
affirm. We can entertain greater hope for such as never heard of its
institution, if with all their heart they sought God, under the influence of
His grace, and with an earnest desire to accomplish His will in all things. But
for such as may be guiltless in not having received it, because they were
ignorant of its divine institution, salvation is not secure. Their
delinquencies against the natural law are a just subject of condemnation: “for
whosoever have sinned without the law, shall perish without the law.” It is not
for us to excuse, or to condemn, but simply to recognize baptism as a necessary
means of salvation. This article of our belief does not lead us to deny salvation
to such as have desired it sincerely, although they did not actually receive
it; and it does not force us to scrutinize the divine counsels in regard to
those in whom the desire may be deemed implicit. It must, however, be
remembered that salvation, and the means of attaining it, are the gratuitous
gifts of divine bounty, and that the judgments of God, though just, are
unsearchable. When a condition of salvation is proclaimed on divine authority,
it is rash to indulge in speculation; it is impious to arraign the decree at
the tribunal of our erring reason. Our duty is to obey, to fulfil the
condition, and await in futurity the full manifestation of its justice: “O! the
depth of the riches of the wisdom and of the knowledge of God! How
incomprehensible are His judgments, and how unsearchable His ways!” What
madness is it not, to deny a condition of salvation so clearly stated in
Scripture, and so fully admitted by the christian world for eighteen centuries!
But what shall we believe in regard to infants who
die without baptism? We must hold, according to the words of our Lord, that
they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven. The Catholic church dare not add
or take away from the divine sentence. Their exclusion from the glory of heaven
is the privation of supernatural bliss to which no one can have the remotest
title unless from the gratuitous bounty of God. They bear the penalty of the
sin of the first parent, which was the common act of the human race represented
by him as their head and source. They are children of wrath, not admitted to
the sight of their heavenly Father. The wicked, who by their wilful
prevarications have provoked the divine justice, are punished with eternal
torments: but even the harmless infants, who knew no guile, and violated no law,
by their own act, are excluded by a just decree of God from his beatific
presence. “Believe not,” said Augustin, speaking the language of ancient faith,
“assert not, teach not that infants seized by death before the reception of
baptism can obtain the forgiveness of original sin, if you wish to be a
Catholic.” “Whosoever shall say that even infants departing from this life
without partaking of this sacrament, shall receive life in Christ, truly
opposes the apostolic preaching, and condemns the whole church, in which they
hasten and run with children to have them baptized, because it is believed
without doubt that they cannot otherwise at all live in Christ.” This truth,
maintained by the Catholic church in the fifth century, against the errors of
Pelagius, was expressed in the thirteenth by Innocent III. in these words: “The
punishment of original sin is the privation of the vision of God; and the
punishment of actual sin is the torment of hell-fire.” What then will the
condition of infants be? If we listen to ST. GREGORY, of Nazianzum, he will
tell us: “They will neither be glorified nor punished by the just Judge;
because although not baptized, they have no personal malice, and are rather ill
sufferers than ill-doers. Not every one that does not deserve to be punished,
deserves to be honoured, and he who is not worthy of honour, does not always
deserve punishment.” The church does not teach authoritatively any thing save
their privation of all supernatural beatitude. On this the Scripture is clear,
as the Fathers unanimously testify: “Whilst, however,” says Hinton, “the
Fathers of the fourth century differed respecting the exact condition of
infants dying unbaptized, they generally agreed that they missed of heaven.”
Some recent writers have indulged in speculation
as to the condition of infants, and supposed that they would enjoy natural
happiness. This opinion might at first seem like that which St. Augustine
brands as Pelagian heresy: “Let no one promise unbaptized children as it were a
middle place of rest or happiness of any kind or any where, between damnation
and the kingdom of heaven;” but he is answering Vincentius Victor, who taught
that they could attain to the pardon of original sin, and be in paradise, as
the penitent thief, although they could not reach the kingdom of heaven. This
fanciful opinion, which promised such infants a kind of supernatural happiness,
was justly rejected, and their state was called by the strong term of
damnation, because they are totally deprived of all supernatural felicity: but
the opinion which supposes them to be naturally happy, is not to be confounded
with that which Augustin rejects, since he elsewhere intimates that existence
may still be for them a favor. Although occasionally dwelling in strong terms
on their unhappy lot, in order utterly to explode the Pelagian error, he does
not venture to assert that it may not be better for them to exist in that state
of privation than not to exist at all: “Who can doubt,” he says, “that
unbaptized infants, who have only original sin, and are not loaded with sins of
their own will, will be in the gentlest condemnation of all? Which, as I am not
able to define, what or how great it will be, so I dare not say, that it would
be better for them not to exist at all, than to exist in that state.”
From the strong language which St. Augustin
sometimes employs, some have thought that he literally held unbaptized infants
to be with the devil, in hell-fire; which sentiment is put forward by Hinton,
to throw odium on the doctrine of original sin, and of the necessity of baptism
to salvation; but the comparison of the various passages in which he treats of
the future state of unbaptized infants, warrants the mildest interpretation of
the severe language which he sometimes uses. St. Thomas of Aquin, his great
admirer and disciple, explains him as meaning utterly to exclude the Pelagian
error, which ascribed to infants supernatural beatitude. St. Bonaventure
understands him in the same manner; and the general sentiment of Catholic
theologians harmonizes with this interpretation, so that, as Sarpi himself
confesses, the contrary belief of the first Reformers narrowly escaped
condemnation in the Council of Trent. Wall says: “Upon the Reformation, the
Protestants generally have defined that the due punishment of original sin is
in strictness damnation in hell.” “Father Paul mentions their (the Fathers of
the council) disputes among themselves, whether they should condemn as
heretical that proposition of the Lutherans, that the punishment for original sin
is hell-fire, and says it missed very narrowly being anathematized.”
Is not this, however, even in its most mitigated
form, a gloomy dogma? So many millions of harmless infants necessarily excluded
from the kingdom of God; so many millions of adults, for the want of a washing
with water, involved in eternal perdition. Let it be remembered that the glory
of heaven is a gratuitous supernatural favor: and that the pains of hell are
the just punishment of voluntary actual transgression. Having explained the
limits of the dogma, I have nothing to offer in mitigation of its severity, but
the proofs of its revelation. God is just and merciful, and if His
dispensations seem severe, we must nevertheless adore them, and await with
patience the full manifestation of their justice in the light of glory. We
cannot, against the express authority of Christ, promise entrance into His
kingdom to such as are not born of water and the Spirit. We cannot question a
condition for salvation recognized by the whole church of God during so many
ages. Charity suggests that we should urge our fellow-men to comply with it,
and leave to God the vindication of His own justice and goodness.
Is it not a lamentable proof of the unbelieving
spirit of our age, that whereas, in ancient times, as Augustin testifies, they
ran with the new-born infant to the Baptistery, fearing lest it should die
without this divine laver, and believing that it could not be saved without it,
large bodies of professing Christians now utterly discard the practice, and
large numbers of those who theoretically admit it, are indifferent and
negligent in respect to it. It were esteemed cruelty to withhold from the
delicate infant a remedy for some malady, or necessary nourishment to support
life; yet without remorse baptism is denied it, which all ancient Christianity
believed to be the remedy of the primeval sin, and the indispensable means for
attaining to life eternal. I would fain appeal to the human sympathies of the
maternal breast, and implore, from the tenderness of a mother’s love, what is
denied to the authoritative command of religion. Take pity on your infants, and
even if you disbelieve, or doubt of the necessity of baptism, procure it for
them, lest you should, by following a false conscience, be the occasion of
their losing the sovereign happiness of enjoying God’s glorious presence for
eternity.
“BAPTISM,” according to the Baptists, “is an
ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party
baptized, a sign of his fellowship with Him in his death and resurrection; of
his being engrafted into Him; of remission of sins; and of his giving up unto
God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.” This
definition is borrowed from the Westminster confession, the word “ordinance”
however being substituted for sacrament, and the words, “not only for the
solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church,” being omitted:
as also the concluding words, “which sacrament is, by Christ’s own appointment,
to be continued in His church until the end of the world.” In neither
definition is any efficacy ascribed to baptism, which is regarded as a mere
sign. Presbyterians make its efficacy dependent on divine predestination, so
that “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.” Baptism in this system imparts no grace, although one of God’s elect may
receive grace on that occasion, or at some other time, since its “efficacy is
not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered.” The reprobate
receive no grace whatever. “Some of them,” says the learned Anglican divine,
Wall, when speaking of Predestinarians, “have used such expressions, as that
they seem to think that even among the infants of faithful parents, some are so
reprobated by the eternal decree of God, that though they be baptized and die
in infancy, yet they will be damned.” Many Predestinarians are found among the
Baptists, and are called Calvinist Baptists, whilst others are styled Arminian
Baptists. Among those who hold the predestination of the elect, some reject the
reprobation of the wicked, by the mere decree of God. Hinton, having declared
his most cordial belief that “all who are grafted into Christ, will be found in
him at the last day,” observes: “I repudiate, however, with feelings of strong
aversion, not to say disgust, Calvin’s doctrine of some being foreordained to
everlasting death; a doctrine pardonable, indeed, even in a great man, living
in the age in which Calvin’s lot was cast, but for the perpetuation of which
ecclesiastical bodies in the present day are utterly inexcusable.” Calvin
speaks of baptism in these terms: “At whatever time we are baptized, we are
washed and purified for the whole of life: whenever we have fallen, therefore,
we must recur to the remembrance of baptism, and arm our minds with the
consideration of it, that we may be always certified and assured of the
remission of sins.”
Alexander Campbell maintains that immersion is a
divine institution, designed for putting the legitimate subject of it in actual
possession of the remission of his sins; and that to every believing subject it
does formally and in fact convey the forgiveness of sin. Faith, however, is
considered by him as necessary to obtain forgiveness: “He that goes down into
the water to put on Christ, in the faith that the blood of Jesus cleanses from
all sin, and that he has appointed immersion as the medium, and the act of
ours, through and in which he actually and formally remits our sins, has, when
immersed, the actual remission of his sins.”
The Anglican article approaches more to the
Catholic doctrine, although its wording is such as may be accommodated to the
Calvinistic view: “Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of
difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not
christened; but it is also a sign of regeneration, or new birth, whereby, as by
an instrument, they that receive baptism rightly are grafted into the church;
the promises of forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God
by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed; faith is confirmed, and grace
increased, by virtue of prayer unto God.” The ambiguous wording of this
article, intended probably to convey the views of Calvin, and yet to present a
semblance of Catholic language, to satisfy those who retained something of
Catholic belief, has given rise to two classes of divines in the Anglican
communion, differing altogether in their doctrine on the nature and effects of
baptism. Hopkins, Bishop of Raphoe, says: “Baptism is a means of our external
and relative sanctification unto God; because, by it, we are separated from the
visible kingdom of the devil, and brought into the visible kingdom of Christ,
and are devoted by vow and covenant unto the service of God.” Other testimonies
to the same effect are alleged by the modern representative of the Calvinistic
sentiment, Bishop McIlvaine. Dr. Pusey represents the other class of Anglican
divines; but is more unequivocal than most of them in his admission of the
Catholic doctrine of the regenerating and sanctifying influence of this
sacrament. In an elaborate treatise on this subject, he has presented an
admirable array of Scripture and traditional testimony in support of this
doctrine, and avowed that baptismal regeneration was the doctrine of the
universal church of Christ in its holiest ages.
Bishop Onderdonk distinguishes two kinds of
regeneration, namely, ecclesiastical and moral, and ascribes to baptism the
former, whereby the baptized are constituted members of the visible church, and
in this sense children of God: but the moral regeneration, which consists in a
change of character, is considered by him to be independent of baptism. “The
change of state, which is the transition from being out of the visible church
to being within it, is, in the Christian church, effected in baptism, and by the
Holy Spirit, the minister being His agent. And this operation of the Spirit,
is, in Scripture, called regeneration.” “That change of character, which is
recovery from the dominion of sin to victory over it, and when combined with
baptism, from its curse to pardon, is ordinarily effected in the use of the
means of grace, yet by the Holy Spirit, by His power only; and the change is
gradual and progressive.… In baptism, as one of the sacraments, devoutly
received by an adult, piety is furthered; and, in both adults and infants,
‘grace is increased by virtue of prayer unto God;’ this, however, being an
element of the change of character, is not to be confounded with the change of
state then effected.” These views are acknowledged by the bishop to be the
result of his own reflections and at variance with his earlier impressions. The
terms sound strangely. We believe they are most easily reconcileable with the
opinion of those divines of his communion, who deny the sanctifying and
regenerating power of baptism. They are certainly opposed to the teaching of
the Fathers, as the bishop ingenuously states: “It is not uncommon for the
Fathers to regard the moral and the baptismal as one regeneration, and
connected with the sacrament of the font.”
It is easily perceived that the doctrine of
baptismal regeneration found little favor with the American Protestant
Episcopal Convention, that in 1789 remodelled the Book of Common Prayer, for
although they suffered it to be said that a baptized “child is regenerate and
grafted into the body of Christ’s church,” they took care to expunge those
passages wherein regeneration is expressly ascribed to baptism, as Bishop
Onderdonk testifies; “In the English form of receiving into the congregation
infants that have been privately baptized, it is declared, ‘that this child is
by baptism regenerate,’—and in a previous part of the office, ‘is now by the
laver of regeneration in baptism, received into the number of the children of
God, and heirs of everlasting life.’ These passages are not in our Prayerbook;
and the omission is judicious—1. because while the connection of baptism with
regeneration is sufficiently declared elsewhere, there is avoided too close and
rigorous a definition, which furthers contrariety, rather than unity in doctrine—and,
2. because it is not quite correct to say that a certain predicate ‘is now,’ or
may ‘now’ be made, which was true at a previous time.” Many will dissent from
the views of the bishop on this point, and think that the omission severed
another link of the chain that bound together the American Episcopalians with
their Anglican brethren, effaced one of the remaining memorials of Catholic
doctrines, and opened the way to the spread and increase of what Dr. Pusey
terms low, rationalistic and carnal views of the sacrament. “We deny,” says
Bishop Onderdonk, “that any deposite is given in baptism, such as may be
figuratively called a seed, germ, or leaven of a moral grace, as essentially
connected with the rite.”
The general sentiment of all the Protestant sects
in America seems to be, that baptism is a mere rite of association to the
visible church; imparting no grace—impressing no character, and producing no
internal effect whatever. “One text misquoted,” as Dr. Pusey remarks, “in order
to disprove the absolute necessity of baptism, has ended in the scarcely
disguised indifference or contempt of an ordinance of our Saviour.” Bishop
Onderdonk indeed protests against ecclesiastical regeneration being regarded as
a mere outward grace, and asks: “Is not the covenant title to moral grace,
itself a grace—is not the title to forgiveness of sins, and to heaven, a
grace—and is it not conferred on the soul—and is not this gift to the soul ‘an
inward grace,’ truly and properly—an inward spiritual grace, ‘given unto us’ by
the ‘one Spirit who baptizes us all into the one body?’ “ Notwithstanding these
interrogations, most persons will consider ecclesiastical regeneration as an
outward relation to the visible church, which, though it be supposed to give a
title to grace, actually gives no grace whatever. With the exception of such
divines of the High Church party as have embraced the Oxford views, I believe
the actual communication of sanctifying grace in baptism is generally denied by
Episcopalians, as well as by other Protestants.
According to the Catholic belief, baptism, like
every other sacrament, contains an inherent efficacy. It washes away the stain
of original sin, and whatever actual stains may have been contracted by the
adult receiver: it regenerates the child of Adam, and makes him a child of God:
it imparts grace and sanctity, and so thoroughly and perfectly purifies and
sanctifies, that where no obstacle is presented by the receiver, no cause of
condemnation remains in him, so that if summoned immediately out of life,
nothing whatever would withhold him from the kingdom of heaven. This grace is
said to be inherent in baptism, inasmuch as it is attached to it by the divine
institution of our Redeemer; and is infallibly imparted, unless when the
incredulity or perverseness of the receiver opposes an obstacle to its
operation. There is no virtue, however, ascribed to the sacrament, except as a
means divinely chosen to apply to our souls the merits of the sufferings and
death of our Lord. The power of God, and the merits of our Redeemer are the
sources of sacramental efficacy, and a proper state of mind in adults—faith,
repentance, hope, and a commencement of love—are required to receive the grace
which the sacraments convey.
The passage already quoted which declares the necessity
of a new birth of water and the Spirit, proves that regeneration takes place by
means of this sacred ablution. The Spirit cleanses the defiled child of Adam,
gives him a supernatural birth, and a title to an everlasting kingdom. He is
born again of water and the Holy Ghost, and therefore can enter the kingdom of
God. Thus he who was conceived in iniquity and was naturally a child of wrath,
is cleansed and made a beloved child, in whom God takes complacency. “Our
birth,” Dr. Pusey well remarks, “(when its direct means are spoken of,) is
attributed to the baptism of water and of the Spirit, and to that only.” All
actual sins which the soul had committed are at the same time cancelled—even
deicide itself was expiated by the baptismal waters: “Do penance,” said Peter
to the Jews whom he had reproached with crucifying the Lord, “and be baptized
every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins.”
Ananias, addressing Paul, pointed to baptism as the means of obtaining
remission of sin: “Now, why delayest thou? Rise up, and be baptized, and wash
away thy sins, calling upon his name.” The Apostle St. Paul ascribes to this
laver this purifying, regenerating, and saving virtue: “We ourselves also,” he
says, “were some time unwise, incredulous, erring, slaves to divers desires and
pleasures, living in malice, and envy, hateful and hating one another. But when
the goodness and kindness of our Saviour-God appeared: not by the works of
justice which we have done, but according to His mercy, He saved us, by the
laver of regeneration and renovation of the Holy Ghost, whom He hath poured
forth upon us abundantly, through Jesus Christ our Saviour: that being
justified by His grace, we may be heirs, according to hope, of life
everlasting.” Salvation, in its principle and commencement, is given in the
laver, which gives us a new birth, and a new supernatural existence, by the
divine operation of the Holy Ghost. He is poured on us abundantly, and the
infusion of water is but the emblem and instrument of this abundant
communication. By His grace we are justified from all our past sins, and made
heirs of life eternal in hope; the actual possession of our inheritance being
still dependant on the preservation of the saving grace bestowed on us. This text
considered in connexion with the words of Christ concerning the new birth by
water and the Spirit, harmonizes so admirably, that each illustrates the other.
“One is almost ashamed,” says Dr. Pusey, “to go about to prove that a text so
plain applies to baptism, or that the Holy Church Universal always so held it.
The proof which one person can bring, can be but a sample of what remains
behind. The proof is the same in kind as before, and may be useful to those
who, (because they have never examined,) doubt even whether there be such a
thing as catholic consent and agreeing interpretation in christian antiquity.
First, then, no passage from any Father can, or has been pretended to be
adduced, which shall imply any other explanation; next, there is the large body
of Fathers from every church, who do interpret the text as a matter of course,
of baptism; thirdly, all the liturgies, in all the different ways in which it
is possible to apply it.” The souls washed in baptism are those for whom Christ
offered up in a special manner His death, that they might come forth from the
water, renewed, regenerated, without any trace of their former defilements:
“Christ,” says the Apostle, “loved the church, and delivered Himself up for it,
that He might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water, in the word of
life, that He might present it to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or
wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy, and without blemish.”
Hence, after enumerating the vices of the Heathen, the Apostle observed to the
Corinthians: “Such some of you were: but you are washed; but you are
sanctified; but you are justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and in
the Spirit of our God.” The washing of the body in this sacrament is
accompanied with the ablution of the soul from the defilements of sin:
sanctification and justification are imparted. The power of Jesus Christ
operates: His merits plead for the sinner: the grace of the Holy Ghost
descends; and the baptized person becomes a tabernacle in which He dwells. “He
that believeth, and is baptized,” says Jesus Christ, “shall be saved.” In
baptism salvation is granted him in its germ, which cherished by the genial
warmth of charity, will mature into a tree of life.
With such divine testimonies before us declaring
the virtue of baptism, it is astonishing that men should fancy it to be but a
sign and token. The passage of St. Peter which furnishes “the Friend” with an
argument against the use of water, serves the Baptist and others, to prove that
water does not purify the soul, but faith, which may be styled the examination
of a good conscience towards God. The text, however, says, that baptism saves
us, that is, imparts grace unto salvation; and when it is added, that it is not
the cleansing from corporal defilement, but the answer of a good conscience,
the necessary disposition to receive this saving grace is indicated, together
with the consequence of its reception, whereby the soul is directed to God, and
placed in intimate relation with Him.
The affected spirituality of those who deny the
divine efficacy of baptism was unknown to the ancient Fathers, who, it is
admitted by Taylor, Hinton, and other adversaries of sacramental grace, “did
constantly speak of baptism as intrinsecally holy, and as conveying holiness.”
Bishop Onderdonk admits that they considered regeneration as connected with the
font.
The evidence of the scriptural testimonies does
not strike some minds so forcibly as the difficulty of believing so great
efficacy in a rite so simple. Yet this, as TERTULLIAN remarks, is a motive for
admitting it, since it more plainly marks a work of divine power. “O wretched
unbelief! that denies to God his perfections—simplicity and power! What then
must we not be astonished that death should be destroyed by the laver? It is on
that account the more worthy of belief, if it be disbelieved because it is
wonderful. For what does it become the works of God to be, unless such as
surpass all admiration? We ourselves are astonished, but because we believe it.”
ST. BASIL never tires describing the effects of baptism: “Baptism,” he cries,
“is the prisoner’s ransom, the debtor’s release, the death of sin, the
regeneration of the soul, the splendid garment, the inviolable character, the
chariot of heaven, the assurance of the celestial kingdom, the gift of adoption
… Now that it is declared that your soul, which you have defiled with every
crime, can be renewed and regenerated by baptism, you disregard so great a
benefit.” Hinton admits that from the third century regeneration was generally
ascribed to baptism. “That the doctrine of the regeneration of the soul by
baptism, in the case of infants especially, was held by all the Fathers from
the third century, is too well known to admit of a doubt.” Those who deny the efficacy
of baptism, urge for the most part rationalistic objections, and direct their
efforts to weaken and destroy the force of the scriptural testimonies. Had not
the principle of justification by faith alone been cherished by Protestant
interpreters, they could never have thought of questioning the efficacy of
baptism, which is so strongly and clearly declared in the sacred writings: but
the error being once admitted, every scriptural passage was bent and wrested,
to make it fit the system. Happily the leading error is now exploded by a large
body of Anglican divines, and is proclaimed by them to be a heresy, destructive
of christian morality, and subversive of all revelation; whence we may hope
that the obvious meaning of the passages in Scripture regarding baptism will
soon be by others also unhesitatingly acknowledged. It is impious to ask, what
can avail a washing with water to the purification of the soul? The sovereign
power of God can make the simplest things instruments for effecting the
greatest ends. When Naaman, the Syrian general, received a message from the
prophet Eliseus, who ordered him to bathe seven times in the Jordan, in order
to be cleansed of his leprosy, he felt indignant, as if the remedy were too
simple to be efficacious. He had expected that the prophet would have waited on
him, and invoked divine power in his behalf, and by the touch of his holy hand
cleansed him from his leprosy. Disappointed in his hopes, he hastened his
departure, spurning the waters of Jordan, as having no healing virtue, above
the Abana and Pharphar, rivers of his own country. At that moment his servants
approaching said to him: “Father, if the prophet had bid thee do some great
thing, surely thou wouldst have done it; how much rather what he now hath said
to thee: Wash, and thou shalt be clean?” The haughty soldier yielded to the
remonstrance, and after he had bathed seven times, according to the directions
of the man of God, he found himself entirely cleansed. It is pride and
incredulity that make men regard the water of baptism as inadequate to produce
the purification of the soul. They should consider the infinite power of God,
and His goodness equally boundless, which prompt Him to bestow His gifts, by
this channel, on the children of men. We address each one of them in the words
of ST. BASIL: “We call you, O man, to life: why do you shun our invitation? You
are invited to partake of good things: why do you spurn so great a favour? The
kingdom of heaven is prepared. He who calls you does not deceive: the path is
easy: there is no need of length of time, expense, or toil: why do you tarry?
why do you turn away?”
The critical examination of the various texts of
Scripture, according to the general principles of interpretation, will fully
sustain the Catholic doctrine: but again I appeal to the ancient witnesses of
the faith, who whilst they testified what they believed, and what was the
doctrine of the church in their time, will manifest the meaning which the
sacred text naturally presented to minds unsophisticated and unbiassed. The
very ancient author of the epistle ascribed by some to ST. BARNABAS, explaining
a passage of the forty-seventh chapter of Ezechiel, says: “He means, that we,
indeed, descend into the water full of sins and defilement, and come up from it,
bringing forth fruit, having in our heart the fear and hope in Jesus, through
the Spirit.” ST. JUSTIN, the Martyr, having spoken of the preparations of the
applicants for baptism, adds: “they are then conducted by us to a place where
there is water, and they are regenerated, after the same mode of regeneration,
wherein we ourselves were regenerated, for they then are washed in the water,
in the name of the Father and Lord God of all, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ,
and of the Holy Ghost.” The repetition of the term regeneration might seem a
studied effort to inculcate the virtue of the sacrament, did not the passage
occur in a simple narrative of christian practices. It is plain then that the
washing with water in the name of the Divine Trinity, in the mind of Justin,
and of the faithful generally, was identified with regeneration. “This passage
indeed,” says Isaac Taylor Hinton, “appears to indicate that the identification
of baptism and regeneration was gaining ground in the time of Justin.” In another
place he writes: “Since unconsciously and of necessity we were born in our
first generation.… in order that we may not continue to be children of
necessity, or of ignorance, but of election and knowledge, and may obtain in
the water the remission of the sins which we previously committed, the name of
the Father and Lord God of all is invoked on him who wishes to be born anew,
and who repents of his transgressions.” ST. IRENAEUS says: “Committing to His
disciples the power of regeneration (to God,) He said to them: ‘Go teach all
nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Ghost:’ “ and he elsewhere complains of heretics who “frustrate the
baptism of regeneration unto God.” I may be allowed to adduce TERTULLIAN once
more: “Blessed is the sacrament of water,” says he, “wherewith being washed, we
are freed from the sins committed during our former blindness, and are prepared
for life eternal.” The whole book of this very ancient writer on baptism is a
splendid monument of the faith of its efficacy which had come down from the
Apostles.
Without calling up in regular succession all the
witnesses of the ancient faith on this subject, 1 shall summon only a few more
of the most distinguished. ST. CHRYSOSTOM, explaining the address of St. Paul
to the Corinthians, wherein he styled them sanctified in Christ Jesus, asks:
“What is sanctification? THE LAVER, the purification. He reminds them of their
uncleanness from which it freed them.” Elsewhere he says: “This purification is
called the laver of regeneration: for ‘he saved us,’ says the Apostle, ‘by the
laver of regeneration and renovation of the Holy Ghost.’ “—”Although one be
effeminate, although he be a fornicator, although he be an idolater, although
he have perpetrated any enormity whatever, and be defiled with any iniquity
which man can contract, when he has fallen into this vase of water, he comes
forth from these divine streams purer than the rays of the sun.… Hear the
Apostle: ‘Such indeed you were, but you have been justified, in the name of our
Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God.’—He did not merely say: ‘you
have been washed,’ but also: ‘you have been sanctified, you have been
justified.’ “
St. Gregory Nazianzen says: “The illumination (by
this he understands baptism) is a help of our infirmity. The illumination is
the putting off of the flesh, the following of the Spirit, the communion of the
Word, the rectifying of the creature, the deluge of sin, the communication of
light, the dispelling of darkness. The illumination is the approach to God, the
pilgrimage with Christ, the support of faith, the perfection of the mind, the
key of the kingdom of heaven, the change of life, the end of servitude, the
loosing of chains, the transformation into another state of being. What more
shall I add? It is the best and most splendid gift of God: for as the Holy of
Holies and the Canticle of Canticles are so called to denote their
comprehensive and excellent qualities, so this is the holiest of the
illustrations which are given us.… We call it a gift, a favor, baptism,
unction, illumination, the garment of incorruption, the laver of regeneration,
the seal, and every honorable name. It is a gift, because bestowed on those who
contribute nothing: it is a favor granted to debtors: it is baptism, sin being
buried with them in the water: it is an unction, because a sacred and royal
rite: for priests and kings were anointed: it is an illumination, because
splendid: it is a garment covering our shame: it is a laver washing away sin:
it is a seal, to preserve us and mark to whom we belong. The heavens rejoice at
it: the angels glorify it, on account of its kindred splendor; it is the image
of their beatitude: we wish to praise it with hymns, but we cannot equal its
excellence.”
The harmony of the ancient Fathers in interpreting
the sacred oracles in regard to the regenerating and sanctifying influence of
baptism, is an evidence of the clear and strong character of the Apostolic
teaching, the echo of which still remained in the church. There is no text of
Scripture whereby the obvious meaning of the passages already adduced, and on
which the Fathers dwell with emphasis, can be rendered questionable: but all
concur to show that sin is washed away, and the soul is clothed with Christ in
this sacrament. “The doctrine of baptism (Heb. 6:2)” says Dr. Pusey, “is
declared as explicitly, as incidentally, and as variously, as that of our
blessed Lord’s divinity, or the saving truth of the Holy Trinity, with which
its administration is inseparately blended, the belief in which it very chiefly
upholds. For both, we have the same uniform testimony of the Church Catholic;
in both cases alike, those who have refused to listen to the church, have
failed to find the truth in Holy Scripture.… They who say, that ‘water and the
Spirit’ means ‘the Spirit only,’ or that ‘the washing of regeneration’ means
‘spiritual regeneration independent of any actual washing,’ however they may
commiserate the misguided people, who assail other Catholic truth, have nothing
assuredly to allege against them for forced interpretations of Holy Scripture.
It was in their own school that these systems of interpretation were learnt.”
How, we are asked, is an unbeliever, or obstinate
sinner regenerated, who, with hypocritical professions, submits to the
baptismal rite? The efficacy of the sacrament is not taken away, because an
individual deprives himself of its benefit. Fire has the property of burning,
even though a moist substance resist its power: water can cleanse, although it
may fail to remove deep stains: medicine can heal, although the restlessness
and rashness of a patient may frustrate its application. Every thing sublime
and holy proclaimed concerning baptism in the Scriptures, and by the Fathers is
verified, provided such be the inherent efficacy of the laver, although many,
through their own vicious dispositions, fail to experience these happy effects.
It is not necessary to have recourse to a distinction of two species of
regeneration in order to meet this difficulty, since the Fathers, who
confessedly knew not the distinction, satisfactorily accounted for the
different results; and the Scriptures speak of but one regeneration, the new
birth of the soul, whereby she becomes a child of God, and heir of heaven. The
latitude with which the terms “children of God” are used, do not warrant us to
give to the term “regeneration” a like extension. When, by her perverse
disposition, the soul remains in sin, although externally washed with the
purifying stream, she receives indeed the character of a child, although she be
not lovely, because destitute of sanctifying grace: when, through weakness, a
regenerated soul violates her baptismal engagements, she forfeits the
privileges of a child, without ceasing to bear the impress: wherefore, as Dr.
Pusey observes, “men are not taught to seek for regeneration, to pray that they
may be regenerate; it is nowhere implied that any Christian had not been
regenerated, or could hereafter be so.” In a general sense all baptized men are
children of God, because they have received that character by means of the
sacrament of regeneration: but their final acceptance depends on their
correspondence with the grace by which they have been raised to that dignity.
The distinction between the character impressed by the sacrament and
sanctifying grace, is the proper solution of the difficulty which has led
Bishop Onderdonk to conceive a twofold regeneration.
Baptism was believed by the ancients to impress a
spiritual character, even on the unworthy receiver, whereby the baptized person
was distinguished from one who had not been baptized, and which never could be
effaced; wherefore it was deemed sacrilege to attempt to baptize anew such as
had been previously baptized. St. Basil, addressing the believer in Christianity,
who neglected baptism, tells him that for want of this mark, the angels will
not recognize him as a disciple of Christ. “No one will know whether you belong
to us, or to the enemy, if you do not manifest, by the mystic symbols, that you
are of the household; if the light of the countenance of the Lord be not signed
upon you. How shall the angel claim you? how shall he rescue you from the
enemies, unless he recognize the seal? how shall you say: I am of God; when you
bear not the distinctive marks? Do you not know that the destroying angel
passed by the houses that were marked, and slew the first born in such as
wanted the mark? A treasure which is not sealed up, can easily be laid hold on
by thieves: a sheep without a mark, may be taken away with impunity.” St.
Augustin compares the spiritual character which baptism impresses, with the
mark or brand, whereby soldiers were anciently distinguished: “Do the Christian
sacraments,” he asks, “remain less impressed than this mark on the body, whilst
we see that not even apostates lose baptism, who therefore do not receive it
anew, when they return penitent, because it is judged inamissible?” “That the
wicked have, and give, and receive the sacrament of baptism appeared
sufficiently evident to the pastors of the Catholic church spread throughout
the world, by whom the original custom was subsequently confirmed by the
authority of a plenary council: also that the sheep which strayed without the
fold, and had received the impress of the Lord from deceitful plunderers, when
it comes to the salvation of Catholic unity, its wandering should be stopped,
its bondage terminated, its wound healed, but the Lord’s character should be
recognized in it, rather than reprobated, since many wolves impress that
character on other wolves.” This belief of the ancient church is supported by
various passages of Scripture, wherein Christians are declared sealed in
Christ. The passages may be referred to confirmation, rather than baptism, but
there is no incongruity in supposing both to be embraced. Dr. Pusey has
eloquently expressed the force of the several passages: “We are declared to be
‘sealed by the Holy Spirit,’ being taken out of our state of nature, and
marked, guarded, conformed to our Lord;—marked by the sprinkling of His blood,
that the destroyer may pass over us, and Satan have no power upon us; guarded
as his purchased possession and peculiar treasure, whereon He has affixed His
seal; conformed, in that it places again upon us the Creator’s image, renewing
us after His likeness, and impressing His cast, and to speak the high truth,
His features upon our souls, as a seal gives its stamp to the body, whereon it
is impressed. And not a present gift only, but an earnest also of larger gifts,
proportioned to our youth, since the Holy Spirit was then first imparted to us
as Christians, and as His Temple, and the ‘earnest’ then given us is a pledge,
that unless we wilfully break off the seal, we shall be carried on to eternal
life, with larger instalments of our promised possession, until ‘the possession
purchased’ for us, by Christ’s precious blood-shedding, shall be fully bestowed
upon us, and God’s pledge be altogether ‘redeemed.’ “ The ancient Liturgies, as
Pusey has shown, agree in declaring baptism to be a seal whereby we are marked
as consecrated to God. “East and West agree in calling baptism a seal, an
impress, a guardian mark to those baptized; the baptized themselves (in the
language of the Revelations) ‘the sealed.’ The Liturgies, variously as they use
the term, still harmonize wholly with the Fathers, using it in exactly the same
references, and thus the more evince how Christian antiquity was of one mind,
the agreement of the Fathers attesting the antiquity of the Liturgies, the
consent of the Liturgies proving the more that we have, in this consent of the
Fathers, not an accidental agreement of the opinions of individuals, but the
voice of their respective churches.” In our time, the ignorance and disbelief
of this spiritual character is such that without hesitation many preachers
baptize anew those who join their sect; and what was once regarded as an
enormous sacrilege, has become a matter of daily occurrence, and is perpetrated
without a feeling of remorse. Even the bold Reformers themselves, could they
re-appear on earth, might weep for the frequent profanation of this divine
rite; and could they send messengers from the world of spirits to those who
call them brethren and fathers, they would no doubt warn them not to trifle
with the institution.
The necessity of faith and other dispositions for
the due reception of baptism, in no way interferes with the intrinsic efficacy
of the sacrament itself. “As in His bodily miracles,” Dr. Pusey remarks, “He
could not do many mighty works because of their unbelief, and He required in them
who would be healed, faith in Him the Saviour of all, and telleth them, ‘Thy
faith hath saved thee,’ yet was it not faith alone which healed them, but
rather His ‘virtue,’ which ‘went out of Him,’ and faith was only a necessary
condition, which, in the fitness of things, He required in those upon whom He
should exercise His goodness; so, in this His spiritual miracle of our new
birth, faith removes the obstacle which sin presents to our receiving the
divine influence; it turns us to God, who by Adam’s fall were turned away from
Him; it replaces us in a condition of dependence upon Him; it presents us
willingly before Him to receive that life, which He is and communicates
(according to their measure) to all His creatures, who depend upon Him. By one
universal law, from the highest angel, or dominion, or power, who ‘always
beholdeth the face of our Father which is in heaven,’ to the ‘young ravens
which cry unto Him,’ or the ‘young lions,’ who, ‘roaring after their prey, do
seek their meat from God;’ (yea, and the ‘thirsty land,’ which gapeth for the
dew and rain from heaven, expresses the same law,) He hath appointed dependence
upon Him to be a condition of receiving His gifts. Yet is not our dependance
the gift for which we depend upon Him; the raven’s cry is not the raven’s food;
the archangel’s fixed, unvarying gaze on our Father’s countenance is not ‘the
Light which in His light he seeth;’ our faith is not our baptism, nor God’s
gift in it.”
SHORTLY after the revolt of Luther from the
Catholic church, Thomas Muncer, one of his adherents, a native of Zwickau, in
Misnia, pursuing to their legitimate consequences the principles of his master,
denied the propriety of infant baptism. Luther had taught him that the personal
persuasion of the individual of his justification in Christ was the means or
condition of justification, and that the sacraments are destitute of all
inherent efficacy. Muncer justly concluded that infants, being incapable of
this personal disposition, could not be fit subjects for baptism. In
conjunction with Nicholas Storck, John Leyden, and others, he declaimed against
infant baptism, and baptized anew such as consented to his teaching; whence his
followers were called Anabaptists, from the Greek terms corresponding to
re-baptizers. It does not appear that the mode of baptism was as yet made a
matter of dispute; but before the middle of the following century, a Friesland
peasant of the name of Uke Wallis gave rise to a sect, or branch of
Anabaptists, who received the name of Dompelers, i. e. Dippers, from their
plunging into the water all who sought baptism at their hands. About the same
time the English Anabaptists, who claim to be derived from the Mennonists, or
Minnists of Holland, a milder branch of the original stock, in a profession of
faith which they published in 1644, declared: “The way and manner of dispensing
of this ordinance the Scripture holds out to be dipping or plunging the whole
body under water.” Featley, an Anglican divine, who wrote in 1646, speaks of
this as a novel tenet recently ingrafted on the sect: “This article is wholly
sowred by the new leaven of Anabaptisme. I say the new leaven, for it cannot be
proved that any of the ancient Anabaptists maintained any such position, there
being three wayes of baptizing, either by dipping, or washing, or sprinkling,
to which the Scripture alludeth in sundry places.” Stephen Marshall, also, a
Presbyterian divine, who in the same year combated the English Anabaptists,
represents this as a novelty, whilst he reproaches them with retaining all the
obnoxious errors of their German brethren: “Verily,” he says, “one egge is not
more like another than this brood of new opinions, (lately hatched in England,
and entertained among them who are called Anabaptists) is like that spawne
which so suddenly grew up among the Anabaptists in Germany.”
In Holland the Anabaptists still use infusion:
“The candidate kneels, the minister holds his hands over his head, the deacon
pours in water, which runs through on the top of the head.” Many of the
obnoxious tenets of the German Anabaptists are utterly discarded by the
Baptists of the present day, though some of them were professed by the early
English Anabaptists, if we believe Marshall, or if we may argue from their being
held by “the Friends,” whose founder was originally of their body. Immediate
revelation was claimed for each individual, the lawfulness of bearing arms and
of taking oaths was denied, and the power of the civil government not fully
admitted. In these respects “the Friends” follow on their footsteps, although
they repel as a slander the imputation of disaffection to the constituted
authorities, and assert “that such of them as keep true to their principles,
are as good members of civil society as any other people, and have never been
found in any plots or combinations against the governments which in the course
of providence have been set over them.” The Baptists bear arms and take oaths;
and as well as the Quakers reject polygamy, which was a favorite tenet of the
German Anabaptists. The Encyclopaedia Americana says, that the Baptists are not
to be confounded with the Anabaptists, whose principles they formally
disclaimed. It dates the rise of the Baptists from the year 1620. It would
appear that they were originally Arminians, who adopted the practice of
immersion, and rejected the baptism of infants, and formed thereby a new sect.
Their first confession of faith, published in 1644, was charged with the tenets
of Arminius. In it they complain of the appellation of Anabaptists commonly
given them: “In their confession printed this year,” says Featley, writing at
that time, “they find themselves agrieved with the name of Anabaptist, saying,
they are falsly so called.… if Anabaptists be their nickname, what is their
right name, whereby they may be distinguished from other Christians, Catholike
or Hereticks? They have hitherto been known in general by no other names then
of Anabaptists, or Catabaptists, and never a barrell better herring.” The
strict followers of Calvin were soon found in their ranks, and accordingly in
1689 a confession of faith was published by a hundred congregations in England
and Wales, which is for the most part a transcript of the Presbyterian
confession, sanctioned by the Westminster Assembly in 1647. This is the general
standard of American Baptists, who formally adopted it in an assembly held at
Philadelphia, September 25, 1742; but several Baptist congregations in the
western part of Pennsylvania, and in Ohio and Kentucky, have abandoned it, and
adopted the latitudinarian plan of Campbell, who rejects all creeds. In
England, in the reign of Queen Anne, a large body of Baptists differed from the
established church, chiefly on the subject of infant baptism, as Wall informs
us: “In the first year of her present majesty, is published a draught of
articles by some Antipædobaptists (the same I guess) to manifest their nearness
in union with other of her majesty’s Protestant subjects. There are 36 of ‘em.
They are verbatim (except 2 or 3 clauses of no moment) the same with 36 of the
39 articles of the church of England; save that in the article of baptism they
leave out that clause about infants’ baptism.”
Some Baptists claim a much higher origin, and
assert that they have existed ever since the days of the Precursor; which they
attempt to prove by the admitted fact that baptism by immersion was practised
in all ages: but this does not at all establish their claims to antiquity;
since the question is not confined to that practice, but to the tenets which
constitute them a distinct society, or sect. They have, therefore, deemed it
necessary to point to several sects which from time to time are noticed in the
annals of the church, especially the Vaudois, and Albigenses, and Brethren of
Bohemia; but hitherto they have never been able to show any society whose
tenets harmonize with theirs. The Brethren of Bohemia were a branch of the
Calixtins, who, in 1457, separated themselves from the other followers of Huss.
They indeed rebaptized those who came to their sect, because they had not been
baptized by their ministers; but they practised infant baptism and admitted the
seven sacraments, as appears from their confession of faith, presented to King
Ladislaus in 1504. The Albigenses in the twelfth century were Manicheans, who
denied baptism in water, and the lawfulness of marriage, and of oaths, and
considered the Trinity and Incarnation as allegories. The Vaudois in the same
century were originally rather schismatics than heretics, although subsequently
they fell into several errors, but not such as the Baptists profess. They
baptized children, admitted the seven sacraments, and other doctrines which
these deny. The attempt to show the existence of a sect holding the tenets of
the present Baptists, must always prove abortive, since history is utterly
silent; and it is in vain to say that the church was hidden in the wilderness
during a long lapse of ages, for such an assertion is gratuitous, and merits no
attention. Public credulity is sported with, when men are called on to believe
a fact unsustained by the least evidence, and asserted merely in support of an
hypothesis otherwise untenable. Isaac Taylor Hinton, after an awkward attempt
to trace the history of the Baptists, and several apologies for the want of
documents, says, “That there has been, since the days of our Saviour, an
uninterrupted succession of Baptists, if not of Baptist churches, I have not a
moment’s doubt.” His conviction, however, may not satisfy all his readers,
especially as he frequently betrays an anxiety for “documentary evidence which
may yet throw additional light on this point.” “The name of Baptist,” as is
observed by Adams, in his History of the Religious World, “is only of modern
date and of local application. Anabaptists and Antipaidobaptists have been the
usual epithets by which Christians who believed that the immersion of believers
was baptism, had been called by their opposers.” At present, according to the
testimony of Alexander Campbell, “the Baptist society exhibits a greater
variety than any other society in Christendom.” This writer seeks to unite all
in religious communion, by discarding all creeds and formularies of faith, and
taking the Bible alone as the basis of union: and large bodies of Baptists
throughout the Western states have embraced his views.
So manifest was it in the twelfth century that
there had existed no body of professing christians which had rejected the
baptism of infants, universally practised throughout the church, that the
novelty of the system, for the first time avowedly advocated by Peter de Bruis
and Henry the Monk, called forth the animated remonstrances of the venerable
Peter of Cluny: “Were all past ages,” he asked the innovators, “so senseless,
as to give a mock baptism to so many thousand infants, during more than a
thousand years, and from the days of Christ down to you, to make not real but
fantastic christians? Has the universe been so blinded, and wrapt in such
darkness down to this time, that to open its eyes, and dissipate the obscurity of
so long a night, after so many fathers, martyrs, pontiffs and rulers of all the
churches, it has waited so long for you; and to correct its long continued
error, has it chosen Peter de Bruis, and Henry his satellite, as recent
apostles? Was the world thus lost until it brought forth its new reformers; and
even with the children of light and truth were all things carried on in
darkness and falsehood; so that since all those of our age, or within our
memory have been baptized, and have received the christian name in infancy, and
have been promoted at suitable times to the various dignities of the church, no
bishop of bishops, no priest, no deacon, no clerk, no monk, not one (I say) of
such a numberless multitude was even a christian? For he that was not baptized
with the baptism of Christ was not a christian. If he was not a christian, he
could not belong to the clergy, nor people, nor church. If so, it is manifest
what an absurdity follows: For since all France, Spain, Germany, Italy, and all
Europe, during three hundred years, or almost five hundred years, has had no
one who was not baptized in his infancy, it had no christian. If it had no
christian, it had no church. If it had no church, it had not Christ. If had not
Christ it was utterly lost.”
OPPOSITION to the baptism of infants may be
considered as the original distinguishing tenet of the Baptists, although they
are now more remarkable for the practice of immersion. They teach, in their
profession of faith, that “those who do actually profess repentance towards
God, faith in, and obedience to our Lord Jesus, are the only proper subjects of
this ordinance.” The Presbyterians, on the contrary, say: “Not only those that
do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of
one or both believing parents are to be baptized;” thus virtually excluding the
infants of parents, neither of whom claims to possess justifying faith. The
Anglican articles declare: “The baptism of young children is in any wise to be
retained in the church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ.” The
Catholic church holds that all infants are capable of baptism, independently of
the piety or faith of their parents, although the children of unbelievers are
not to be baptized, against the will of their parents, or in circumstances that
expose the sacrament to manifest profanation.
The necessity of baptism for salvation being
established, the admissibility of infants to this divine rite naturally
follows. All of us are by nature children of wrath, being stained by sin:
baptism is the laver wherein sin is washed away: it must, then, be applicable
to the infant, unless it be maintained that the blood of the New Testament was
not shed for the remission of the hereditary sin. The child of earth needs a
heavenly birth: he must be born anew to God of water and the Holy Ghost; for
the sentence is most express: “unless a man be born again of water and the Holy
Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” The term τις
has been already shown to imply any one, and to regard every member of the
human family. Infants then must be capable of baptism, unless they be incapable
of salvation. Who would venture to deny that they can be saved of whom Christ
has said: “Suffer children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is
the kingdom of God?” This argument was urged with much force by Peter, Abbot of
Cluny, against the followers of Peter de Bruis, in the twelfth century: “Jesus
embraced them. Jesus laid his hands upon them. Jesus blessed them. Will you any
longer, not with manly constancy, but with pertinacious malice, dare repel
infantile innocence from Christ? Will you, against the will of Christ himself,
snatch the children from Christ who embraces children, from Christ who lays his
hands on children, from Christ who blesses children?” Baptists contend that our
Lord meant such persons as resemble children in simplicity and innocence: yet
as children were the subject of His observation, they must at least be
comprised in His words. Besides, Baptists hold that children attain to the
kingdom, even without baptism, and reproach us with establishing a condition
for salvation, whereof our Lord made no mention, in circumstances which seemed
to demand it. Had He not on other occasions declared the necessity of the new
birth by water and the Spirit, for each one who is born of flesh, we should not
surely allege such a condition: but in the face of His positive declaration, we
dare not promise it on any other terms: and the manifestation of His
condescension and love towards children, is evidence of His will that they
should be thus born anew, and find entrance into His kingdom. The occasion did
not require that our Lord should then state this condition: and the omission is
no plea against His positive law elsewhere recorded.
All the scriptural texts which speak of baptism as
a washing, a renovation of the Holy Spirit, warrant the baptism of infants:
they must be washed in the blood of the Lamb from the hereditary defilement:
they must be renewed by the sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit, that bearing
the image of God, they may be associated with the blessed spirits of His
kingdom. “Where the language of Holy Scripture is unlimited,” says Dr. Pusey,
“we are not to restrain it. But Holy Scripture speaks universally; it says ‘the
washing of regeneration and of the renewing of the Holy Ghost,’ ‘born of water
and the Spirit;’ how then are we to say, that because our infants are not in
like way decayed, through actual sin, as were those adults to whom St. Paul
wrote, therefore they are not regenerated and renewed? This would involve the
very error of Pelagius, that they needed no renewal, no ‘new birth,’ having no
‘birth sin.’ “ Christ loved children, and delivered Himself up for them, that
He might sanctify them, in the laver of water. They therefore come forth from
the font purified, justified, sanctified, having no spot or wrinkle, or any
such thing. They are objects of the gratuitous bounty of God: they are fruits
of the plentiful redemption of Christ, and in them is fulfilled the prophecy of
the Psalmist: “Out of the mouth of infants and sucklings thou hast perfected
praise.”
The words of the commission given by Christ to the
Apostles, appear to some to confine baptism to those who, being taught, believe
the gospel, “go teach all nations, baptizing them:” “preach the gospel to every
creature. He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved.” But candor would
avow that both texts are at least inconclusive against the baptism of infants:
for as Christ was then sending the Apostles to preach His gospel to the world,
the mention of baptism must naturally follow instruction and faith, since it is
only thus men could be prepared for its reception. Whether infants should be
baptized, cannot be inferred with certainty from the words of the commission,
although their universality warrants their application to every one who needs
to be washed from the hereditary defilement. It is bad logic to say, that
because the gospel is to be preached to adults, and their faith in its truth is
to be required before baptism be administered to them, infants are to be
treated after the same manner.
The objections usually taken from the requisition
of faith and repentance in adult candidates for baptism, are of no avail whatever
with regard to infants: they only prove the necessity of these dispositions in
adults without at all indicating that infants are not capable of the sacrament,
because they cannot conceive faith or repentance. Peter justly exhorted the
Jewish converts to cherish the sentiments of compunction which they began to
experience, that so they might be disposed to receive the remission of sins in
baptism. Philip required the sincere faith of the eunuch, that he might be made
partaker of the sanctifying sacrament. But in neither instance was it declared
that these dispositions were so essential as to confine the administration of
baptism to adults capable of faith and repentance. We, no less rigorously,
require faith and compunction in the adult candidates for baptism, though we
constantly administer the sacrament to the tender infant.
But, then, it may be asked, on what authority can
they be baptized? If the commission do not regard them, they are necessarily
beyond its reach, and the attempt to baptize them is an unauthorized measure. I
care not to answer with some that the term rendered “teach,” may be understood
of making disciples, and initiating into the school of Christ. Neither shall I
allege, as a matter of mere inference, the divine command that each male infant
on the eighth day after his birth should be circumcised, and thus incorporated
with the people of God: whence, it is said, the Apostles must have understood
that infants should be admissible to the Christian rite which supersedes
circumcision, especially inasmuch as the children of proselytes are said to
have been washed with water, when their parents were admitted to Jewish
privileges. I do not at all allow that the Apostles were left to guess their
Master’s will from any such circumstance, but I maintain that they were
instructed by Him in the sacred functions entrusted to them, and were enlighted
by the Holy Spirit, that they might not err. The divine ordinance on this point
must be learned from their teaching and their acts, as recorded in Scripture,
or in the want of decisive evidence of this sort, from the teaching and
practice of the church which they founded.
That circumcision, indeed, had yielded to baptism,
is evident from the teaching of St. Paul, who addresses the faithful as
circumcised spiritually, by their death and burial with Christ in baptism: “In
whom also you are circumcised with circumcision not made by hand, in despoiling
of the body of the flesh, but in the circumcision of Christ: buried with him in
baptism.” It would be easy to exhibit a series of ancient witnesses, who,
following the Apostolic teaching, speak of the Christian rite as a spiritual
circumcision, freed from the limitations which circumscribed the carnal
observance. St. Justin, St. Cyprian, with the fathers of the council of
Carthage, St. Gregory of Nazianzum, St. Epiphanius, St. Chrysostom, St.
Augustin, in a word, all the Fathers point to baptism as to Christian
circumcision. I shall only recite the testimony of St. Chrysostom: “Our
circumcision, I mean the grace of baptism, is a remedy which gives no pain, and
is to us the instrument of numberless blessings, and fills us with the grace of
the Spirit. And it has no determinate time as circumcision had; but it is
lawful to receive the circumcision which is not made with hands, at the
tenderest age, and in manhood, and even in old age itself. There is no labor to
be endured, but we have only to cast off the burthen of our sins, and accept
the pardon of all our transgressions in our past life.”
We are challenged to show that the Apostles
baptized infants. Had we a detailed enumeration of their ministerial acts, the
challenge would be reasonable; but the book styled their Acts contains only
some of the chief facts which marked the origin, and proved the divine
authority of the Christian church. Yet even there it is said that Lydia “was
baptized and her household,”* and the jailor “was baptized and presently all
his family;”† and St. Paul testifies that he “baptized also the household of
Stephanas.”‡ It cannot indeed be proved that infants were in these families;
but the presumption is that there were, and the general expressions naturally
lead us to consider the baptism of all the children as following the conversion
of the parent.
The ancient practice of baptizing infants, of
which the origin at any period subsequent to the Apostolic age cannot be
pointed out, is the strongest presumptive evidence of their practice.
St. Justin the Martyr speaks of “many persons of
both sexes, sixty or seventy years old, who from childhood had been devoted to
Christ, and persevered in virginity unto that age.” Although the terms employed
do not express their baptism in infancy, they certainly afford ground for
believing it, for their early instruction in the doctrines of Christ, and their
enrolment among his disciples, are easily understood on this hypothesis.
Besides, Justin elsewhere calls baptism circumcision: “We have received
circumcision, not that which is according to the flesh, but spiritual, such as
Enoch and such like had; but we have received it by baptism, since we had been
sinners, and have obtained mercy from God, and all can obtain it in like
manner.” ST. IRENAEUS, who flourished not long after, is more express on this
point: “Christ,” he says, “being our Master, sanctified every age by the
similitude which was after His own model: for He came to save all through
Himself, all, I say, who are BORN ANEW to God through Him, infants and little
ones, boys and youths and aged persons.” Infants, then, in the middle of the
second century, were believed to be BORN ANEW to God, and sanctified in Christ.
These terms were already consecrated to express the effect of baptism, since
Ireneus calls the Apostolic commission to baptize the power of regenerating,
and Justin speaks of it as regeneration: both writers evidently alluding to the
new birth of water and the Holy Ghost, the necessity whereof our Divine
Redeemer had declared to Nicodemus. ORIGEN, speaking of original sin, observes:
“Of it David must be considered as speaking when he says: ‘in sins hath my
mother conceived me:’ for no sin of his mother is recorded in history. For it
also the church received the tradition from the Apostles to give baptism even
to infants. For they to whom the secrets of the divine mysteries were entrusted
knew that there was in all real defilement of sin, which should be washed away
by water and the Spirit, on account of which the body itself is called the body
of sin.” This positive evidence given by a writer not much more than a century
distant from the Apostolic age, is strengthened by the fact that every where
throughout the church the practice of baptizing infants then existed, and that
no vestige appeared of its introduction subsequently to the time of the
Apostles. Two centuries later, St. Augustin urged this argument with
considerable effect.
A splendid testimony was given in the middle of
the third century to the expediency of the earliest possible administration of
baptism to infants. Fidus, a prelate of the African church, regarding
circumcision as its type, thought it desirable that it should not be conferred
before the eighth day, that thus the reality might correspond with the figure.
He communicated his views to St. Cyprian, who with sixty-five other bishops
held a council at Carthage. Hear the answer of CYPRIAN and his colleagues: “As
to what regards the cause of infants, who, you said, should not be baptized on
the second or third day after their birth, but that the law of ancient
circumcision should be considered; so that you did not think, that the child
should be baptized before the eighth day: far different was the judgment of all
in our council: for no one assented to that which you thought expedient; but on
the contrary we all judged that the mercy and grace of God should be denied to
no human being from the moment of his birth.… If even to the greatest
delinquents, who have previously sinned much against God, the remission of sins
is granted, when afterwards they believe, and no one is repelled from baptism
and grace; how much less should the infant be repelled, who being recently
born, has committed no sin, but being carnally born according to Adam, has
contracted at his first birth the contagion of the ancient death? He the more
easily approaches to receive the remission of sins, for this very reason, that
not his own sins, but the sins of another are forgiven him.” In this decision
St. Augustin observes that St. Cyprian made no new decree, but maintained most
firmly the faith of the church.” “The matter was not determined or established
in the council as something new, or as something that suffered any
contradiction on the part of any one.… It was judged in the council that on any
day aid should be given to man after his birth, lest he be lost for ever.”
So manifest was the tradition and faith of the
whole church in regard to infant baptism, that Pelagius and his abettors,
whilst they denied original sin, did not venture to call in question the
propriety of baptizing infants: “They granted,” says ST. AUGUSTIN, “that
children should be baptized, not being able to run counter to the authority of
the universal church, delivered beyond doubt by Christ and his Apostle.”
Pelagius, in a letter addressed to Pope Innocent, complained that “he was
slandered as denying to infants the sacrament of baptism, and promising the
kingdom of heaven to some without the redemption of Christ” … and said “that he
had never heard any heretic, however impious, affirm such things concerning
infants.” They contended nevertheless that it was admintered, not to wash away
any hereditary defilement, but to give the infant a title to the kingdom of
heaven. Augustin, and with him the whole church, maintained that the sacrament
was necessary for the forgiveness of original sin, as well as to entitle us
through Christ to supernatural beatitude.
The practice of the Africans was so uniform on
this point, that in the great schism of the Donatists, they, as well as the
Catholics, continued to baptize their infants, and no doubt was ever excited as
to the validity of the act, or the propriety of the practice. Various canons
were made in the councils of Carthage, celebrated at the close of the fourth
century, and beginning of the fifth, concerning the ordination of persons
baptized in infancy by the Donatists, which was sanctioned.
Pope SIRICIUS, writing to Himerius, Bishop of
Aragon in Spain, reproves the custom of baptizing adults on many festivals of
the year, and orders the general practice of baptizing only at Easter and
Pentecost to be observed: but declares it to be his will that infants, and
persons in danger be baptized at any time without delay: “As we affirm that the
respect for the Paschal solemnity should be in no respect lessened, so it is
our will that infants, who on account of their tender age cannot yet speak, and
all who for any necessity may have need of the sacred waters of baptism, should
be assisted with all speed: lest it tend to the injury of our souls, if having
denied the sacred fountain to those who desired it, each one going forth from
the world lose both the kingdom and life.”
The known practice and faith of all christian
antiquity led the council of Carthage in 418, to anathematize whosoever
assailed the baptism of infants, or denied that it was conferred for the
remission of sin. The council decreed that “whosoever denies that infants newly
born should be baptized, or says that they are baptized indeed for the
remission of sins, but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam,
which should be expiated by the laver of regeneration, (whence it follows that
the form of baptism for the remission of sins is understood to be not true, but
false, in their regard) let him be anathema. Since what the Apostle says: ‘By
one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed on
all men, in whom all have sinned;’ is to be understood no otherwise than as the
Catholic church every where diffused has always understood it. For an account
of this rule of faith, even infants, who as yet could commit no sin themselves,
are truly baptized for the remission of sins, that what they have contracted by
generation, may be cleansed by regeneration.”
It is satisfactory to find the argument drawn from
tradition urged by Anglican divines, although inconsistently with their
opposition to the teaching and practice of the church on other points. Featley
says: “this argument, if it bee well weighed, is of very great moment, and may
convince the conscience of any ingenuous christian. For no christian doubteth,
but that the Apostles were inspired by the Holy Ghost, and Christ promised his
Spirit to leade his church into all truth; which promise he hath hitherto made
good in such sort, that it cannot be proved that ever the whole church of
Christ universally erred.” The qualifying terms thrown in cannot weaken the
force of the authorities and reasoning. He elsewhere recurs to the same
argument on another point, observing that it is not the mere antiquity and
universality of the practice on which we rely, but the promises of Christ to
his church by which she is guaranteed from error: “The strength of the argument
lyeth not in bare antiquity, and the universality of this practice, (for we
know many errours are ancient, and some abuses very spreading) but in the
nature and condition of the catholike christian church, to whom Christ hath promised
his perpetual presence, and the guidance of his Spirit into all truth; in which
regard the Apostle styleth it ‘the pillar and ground of truth.’ “
The Anglican Bishop Taylor observes: “Since the
efficacy of the sacraments depends upon divine institution and immediate
benediction, and that they produce their effects independently upon man, in
them that do not hinder their operation; since infants cannot, by any acts of
their own, promote the hope of their own salvation, which men of reason and
choice may, by acts of virtue and election; it is more agreeable to the
goodness of God, the honour and excellency of the sacrament, and the necessity
of its institution, that it should in infants supply the want of human acts and
free obedience: which the very thing itself seems to say it does, because its
effect is from God, and requires nothing on man’s part, but that its efficacy
be not hindered. And then in infants the disposition is equal, and the
necessity more; they cannot ponere obicem and by the same reason cannot do
other acts, which, without the sacraments, do advantages towards our hopes of
heaven, and therefore have more need to be supplied by an act and an
institution divine and supernatural.” To suppose, as some do, that a wrong is
done to infants in subjecting them by baptism to the observance of the laws of
God and of His church, is not rightly to appreciate the privileges it confers.
Man cannot withdraw himself from the authority of God, and it is therefore an
inestimable happiness to find himself by baptism placed in close relation to
the Deity, with a title to receive through Christ all necessary aid for the
fulfilment of the divine commands. “Who can tell,” writes Dr. Pusey, “to how
many thousands, or tens of thousands, this same doctrine has been the blessed
means of a continued child-like growth in grace, who have been silently growing
up, supported by the inestimable privilege of having been made God’s children,
before they themselves knew good or evil; who have on the whole been uniformly kept
within Christ’s fold; and are now ‘heartily thanking their heavenly Father for
having called them’ thus early to this state of salvation, into which, had it
been left to their frail choice, they had never entered; who rejoice with ‘joy
unspeakable and full of glory,’ that they were placed in the ark of Christ’s
church, and not first called, of themselves to take refuge in it out of the
ruins of a lost world.”
Against the weight of testimony, by which the
general practice of baptizing infants, in the fourth, third, and second
centuries, in virtue of the precept and examples of the Apostles, is
established, Baptist writers struggle in vain. Sometimes they contend that no
proof exists of it, save the solitary testimony of Origen: but they forget that
he does not speak of the practice of a particular place, much less of a fact
known only to himself, but of the general practice of the church derived from
the tradition of the Apostles; and that his testimony is fully sustained by St.
Cyprian and his colleagues in council, who not long after, maintained the
usage, and rejected a slight modification of it. Before him Tertullian avowed
the practice, whilst following the natural severity of his disposition, he
endeavoured to modify it, by suggesting that the children of unbelievers should
not be admitted to baptism, until they were instructed in the christian
mysteries, lest they might prove recreant to the engagements made in their
names by their sponsors. “Therefore,” says he in his book on baptism,
“according to the condition and disposition, and even age of each one, the
delay of baptism is more useful, particularly with regard to children. For what
necessity is there, unless it be altogether necessary, that their sponsors
should be even involved in danger, who themselves dying may leave their
promises unaccomplished, and may be deceived by the event of a perverse
disposition. The Lord indeed says: Forbid them not to come to me. Let them,
therefore, come in youth: let them come when they learn: let them come when they
are instructed whither they come: let them become christians, when they can
know Christ. Why does the innocent age hasten to the remission of sins? Greater
caution is used in worldly affairs, so that the divine substance is intrusted
to him, to whom all earthly substance is not intrusted. For no less reason the
unmarried should also be delayed, in whom temptation is ready, for virgins on
account of their maturity, for widows on account of their wandering, until they
are married, or fortified in continence. Those who understand the importance of
baptism, will fear rather its reception, than its delay.”
It may be said that there is nothing in the text
to confine the suggestion of delay to the children of unbelievers; but the
danger on which he grounds it, and the circumstances of the times warrant this
interpretation; and Tertullian himself, explaining the words of St. Paul, that
the children of a believing parent yoked with an unbeliever are holy, observes
that the Apostle “gives us to understand that the children of the faithful were
designed for holiness, and thereby for salvation: that the pledges of this hope
might sanction those marriages, which he had judged should remain inviolate.
Otherwise he was mindful of the sentence of the Lord: ‘Unless one be born of
water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God,’ that is, he
shall not be holy. Therefore every soul is considered in Adam, until it be
numbered in Christ, and it is unclean until it be so numbered, and it is sinful
because it is unclean.” Since then Tertullian acknowledges that even the
children of the faithful are destitute of holiness, and of Christian
privileges, nay, defiled and sinful, until born of water and the Holy Ghost, we
are authorized to believe that he would not have them left in that condition,
on account of the remote danger of their violating their baptismal engagements,
a danger which parental care might almost entirely remove. He himself expressly
directs that laymen should baptize in case of extreme necessity, lest the
infant, for want of this sacrament, be deprived of life eternal: “Let it be
sufficient for you to use the right, if the circumstance of the place, or of
the time, or of the person compel you to do so. For the boldness of him who
succours is excused when the circumstance of danger is impending. Since he must
be held guilty of the loss of a human soul who omits to do what he might have
freely performed.” He did not doubt of the validity of baptism administered to
infants, even in cases wherein he deemed it inexpedient because of the danger
of subsequent apostacy, since he said that for the same reason the baptism of
young maids and widows should be delayed, to whom certainly it could be validly
administered.
Hinton, perceiving the proof of the practice of
infant baptism afforded by the opposition of Tertullian to it in those special
cases, dissents from the Protestant German critics, and from all theological
writers generally, to follow Robinson, who considers Tertullian as disputing
the propriety of baptizing grown children, not babes. This new discovery is
sustained by supposing that Tertullian speaks of children who come and ask for
baptism; whereas, he suggests the delay that they may come and ask for it. The
mere inspection of the text, which Hinton has strangely mistranslated, takes
away all semblance from this curious hypothesis. Tertullian expressly speaks of
little ones in the age of innocence, and willingly agrees that they should be
admitted to baptism in adolescence.
That Tertullian speaks of a practice generally
prevailing, which he only sought in a slight degree to modify, in regard to a
certain class of infants, is sufficiently clear: and the testimonies of Origen
and Cyprian, following within less than half a century, show that the baptism of
infants was common to the whole church. Besides, let it be observed, that
Tertullian held those principles with which infant baptism is closely
connected, according to the avowal of Baptist writers. He held baptism to be a
means of cleansing the soul from the defilement of sin, an incorporation with
Christ, a new birth of water and the Holy Ghost, and a necessary condition for
salvation: whence it would be fair to infer, even if we had not positive
testimony affirming it, that he admitted the baptism of infants. Hinton points
out “the doctrines always found in direct connection with the fact of infant
baptism. First, then, we find the idea that the administration of the outward
ordinance to the infant, is invariably attended with immediate and concurrent spiritual
blessings of the highest consequence.” “The doctrine of the fathers of infant
baptism,” it is thus he brands those who merely acted on the precedents of the
Apostles, “was, that the soul was regenerated in the act of baptism. When it
came to be believed that regeneration could, except in very particular cases,
(of which infancy was not deemed one,) be had only in baptism, it became
clearly an act alike of duty and benevolence to baptize babes, and in cases of
danger, at the earliest possible opportunity.”
St. Gregory, of Nazianzum, proposed the delay of
baptism until the age of three years, that the infant might have some
perception of the rite; but in cases of danger he willed that the infant should
be at once baptized, judging it “better that he should be sanctified
unconsciously, than that he should depart from life unsealed and uninitiated.”
“Have you an infant?” he asks: “let not malice be beforehand; let him be
sanctified from infancy: let him be consecrated to the Spirit from tender age.”
And he proceeds to show that the fear of their future misconduct is not a
ground for withholding the sanctifying sacrament from them: so that on this
point he explodes the reasoning of Tertullian. In a subsequent part of his
discourse he returns to the same point, and explains himself as favorable to
the delay of baptism until children attain the age of three years; when no
danger is imminent: “What do you say of infants, not yet sensible of their lost
condition, or of the baptismal grace? Shall we baptize them likewise? By all
means, if any danger impends: for it is better that they should be sanctified
unconsciously, than that they should depart unsealed and unitiated: and for
this practice circumcision, which was performed on the eighth day, affords us a
reason, inasmuch as it was a typical seal, and was applied to those destitute
of the use of reason.… As to others, I give my opinion, that the age of three
years, or a shorter or longer time, should be awaited, when they may hear
something of the mysterious rite, and may answer, although not perfectly
understanding, yet being imbued therewith, may be sanctified in soul and body
by the great mystery of perfection.” He observes that they are not accountable,
until they attain to the full use of reason, but that they should,
nevertheless, be sanctified by baptism, at least at this period: “for the
faults committed through ignorance they are not responsible, on account of
their tender age, but it is altogether desirable that they should be protected
by the laver, on account of the sudden attacks and dangers, and the strong aid
which it affords.” He expressly refutes the objection taken from the age at
which Christ was baptized, by observing that he did not need baptism. Hinton
acknowledges that Gregory deemed baptism necessary to infants.
Some particular instances of baptism, received in
adult age, are usually objected against us, but which in no way establish the
general principle, that it cannot be validly or lawfully administered in
infancy. The only grounds for delay among ancient Christians, were the great
sanctity of the sacrament, and the purity of disposition with which it should
be received, the desire of receiving its full benefit in death, and the dread
of forfeiting the grace bestowed by falling from the baptismal engagements.
These motives were not sufficient to justify delay, wherefore the Fathers
uniformly inveighed against it as an abuse: “That baptism,” says Jeremy Taylor,
“was amongst the ancients sometimes deferred, was not always upon a good reason,
but sometimes upon the same account as men now a-days defer repentance, or put
off confession and absolution, and the communion till the last day of their
life; that their baptism might take away all the sins of their life.”
The peculiar circumstances of some families easily
account for the delay which sometimes occurred in presenting children for
baptism.
It is indeed alleged, that St. Gregory of
Nazianzum was baptized in adult age, although his father was a bishop: but
learned critics maintain that at the time of his birth the father was not even
a Christian. St. Jerom, when adult, received at Rome the garment of Christ, not
by baptism, but by ordination. Patricius, the father of St. Augustin, was a
heathen, and the delay of the baptism of Augustin may have been, in the first
instance, owing to his opposition, and subsequently to the anxiety of his pious
mother to preserve him by precious instruction from the danger of forfeiting
baptismal grace. It does not appear that in any case the baptism of children was
delayed under the persuasion that an infant might not lawfully be baptized; but
solely in consequence of the peculiar circumstances of the parents, or through
fear of the violation of the baptismal engagements.
But was not the Eucharist anciently given to
infants, and the necessity of receiving it sustained by an appeal to Scripture,
and urged in terms equally strong as those which are applied to the baptism of
infants? Infants were made partakers of the precious blood of Christ: children
were feasted with His divine flesh: but not through a belief that this was
equally necessary as baptism. It was considered their privilege and blessing,
because they had been baptized; nor could it ever have been thought of were not
the custom of baptizing infants universal. Afterwards circumstances being
changed, it was deemed advisable to withhold from them the gift, which was
acknowledged not to be essential to their salvation; and in exercising her
discretionary power, the Church has abandoned no principle, and no wise
weakened the force of the proofs drawn from her uninterrupted practice in
baptizing infants. The Scriptural and traditionary evidences of the necessity
of baptism for children are of a far different kind from the arguments which
ingenuity might devise for vindicating the practice of affording them the
Eucharist.
In favor of infant baptism we have the most solemn
declarations of councils and pontiffs in the fifth century, and the universal
practice of Christians loudly proclaimed by Augustin, and fully admitted by
Pelagius: we have the practice of the Christian world in the fourth century,
attested by Chrysostom, Gregory of Nazianzum, Ambrose, Basil, and a host of
others: we have the solemn judgment of sixty African bishops in the third
century, with the clear testimonies of Cyprian and Origen, to say nothing of
Tertullian: we have the incidental reference to it of Ireneus and Justin in the
second century. This is such evidence as should satisfy the inquirer after
Christian truth. Considering the paucity of the writings, which remain from
that ancient period, and the subjects whereof they treat, it is not wonderful
that we should have no more than incidental references to this practice. Like
most Christian usages and principles, it was chiefly brought to view, when
assailed by the temerity of some one, who sought to modify it, conformably to
his own fancy. Tertullian, in the first instance, disputed its expediency in
particular cases, and Fidus subsequently sought to reduce it to an affected
conformity in point of time with the ancient rite of circumcision.
The baptism of infants is known to be practised by
Greeks, Armenians, Syrians, Abyssinians, Cophts, and other nations, comprising
Nestorians, Eutychians, and various other sects: who all regard it as a practice
coeval with the Christian church. It is likewise admitted by the vast majority
of Protestants in Germany, England, Denmark, and other countries; so that if
those, who oppose it constitute the church, the number of the followers of
Christ would be exceedingly small.
The early, constant, universal practice of
baptizing infants, presupposes and manifests Apostolic precedent and teaching,
and the texts which declare the baptism of individuals with their whole
household, correspond admirably with this presumption. The general terms of the
Apostolic commission, which extends to all nations, and embraces every creature
of God, capable of grace and salvation, are most rationally understood to
include infants; especially when the divine decree is present to our minds,
that without the new birth by water and the Spirit, entrance into the heavenly
kingdom is not granted.—On these grounds we may safely rest our cause, and
follow on the footsteps of our ancestors, baptizing the tender infant, to make
him a child of God and heir of life eternal.
ALTHOUGH opposition to the baptism of infants
originally distinguished those who are now called Baptists, nevertheless as it
is common to the “Friends,” and as the neglect of baptizing infants widely
prevails among Protestant sects generally, the practice of immersion, and the
tenet of its being the only true baptism, may now be considered the popular
characteristic of this sect. The practice itself might be considered their
distinctive mark, were it not occasionally, at least, adopted by others, since
preachers of various sects are sometimes known to suit the taste of their
proselytes, and sprinkle, or immerge them, as they may prefer. Immersion is
also practised by those called “Campbellites,” the followers of Alexander
Campbell, who nevertheless are disowned by regular Baptists. The Mormons,
likewise, have adopted the same usage. The tenet that immersion alone is
baptism is held by Baptists generally, who therefore regard infusion and
aspersion as vain and nugatory.
The Baptist Confession of Faith says: “Immersion
or dipping of the person in water, is necessary to the due administration of
this ordinance. It may be doubted whether this excludes the validity of other
modes of baptizing; but the prevailing sentiment is adverse to it; although
from the two great divisions of the sect into close-communion Baptists and
open-communion Baptists, the other opinion seems not without advocates. The
close-communion Baptists admit none to the communion table who have not been
immersed; whilst the open-communion Baptists invite all, without regard to the
manner in which they have been baptized, to come forward and partake of the
Lord’s Supper. These may be supposed to admit the validity of baptism
administered in any way, since they cannot be thought to invite unbaptized
persons to partake of the other sacrament.
Hinton, a strenuous defender of immersion,
remarks: “There are clearly circumstances, however, in which overwhelming is
truly baptism; when, for instance, baptizing in the sea, or lake, as the
candidate is laid down by the administrator, a wave rolls over him; by no means
an unfrequent occurrence.” This seems like an abandonment of the contest. The
laying down of a man in a dry channel, or on the sea shore, is not literally an
immersion, even though the opening of a sluice or the rushing of a wave should
be immediately expected to cover with water the prostrate individual: and if
such be truly baptism, it is vain to clamor about dipping. A man standing under
a shower bath may be said to be baptized with at least equal plausibility.
According to Catholic principles, the man thus laid down by a preacher to be
covered by the approaching wave, would not be baptized, although the water
should completely envelop him, for the application of the water by the minister
of the sacrament is required, that he may say with truth: “I baptize thee,
etc.” As it seems this mode is of frequent occurrence, it follows that many are
not at all baptized, who imagine they have been immersed.
With equal injury to the sacrament, the words
accompanying the immersion were changed by some of the early Anabaptists: “One
sort of them,” says Wall, “do count it indifferent whether they baptize with
these words: ‘In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Spirit:” or with these: “In the Name of the Lord Jesus:’ and do in their public
confession allow either of these forms. And I have heard that some of’em do
affectedly choose the latter.” In the Baptist confession, adopted in America,
it is said: “the party is to be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the
Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” In some places the preacher premises: “In
obedience to the Lord Jesus Christ,” to the ordinary form. As individuals
consider themselves judges of what is most suitable to the original
institution, and the whole stress is generally laid on the act of plunging, it
is to be feared that little care is used to pronounce the form prescribed,
simultaneously with the immersion: and yet without that form there can be no
baptism.
The Presbyterian Confession, in reference to the
mode of baptizing, says: “Dipping of the person into the water is not
necessary, but baptism is rightly administered by pouring or sprinkling water
upon the person.”
The English Book of Common Prayer directs, that
“if the sponsor certify that the child may well endure it, the minister shall
dip it in the water discreetly and warily: otherwise it shall suffice to pour
water upon it:” but since the days of Elizabeth, the practice of dipping has
been discontinued. The American edition of the Book of Common Prayer leaves it
entirely optional to dip the child, or pour the water on it: whence the latter
practice has prevailed. The Protestant Episcopal Bishop in Kentucky has lately
avowed his conviction, that immersion is the only proper mode of baptism, and
has immersed his infant child, having previously declared it advisable to send
some Episcopalians to Greece, that they might obtain immersion from those who
had practised it in regular succession from the Apostles, and on their return
restore the practice quietly and without noise throughout his communion. It is
not necessary to show the extravagance of this suggestion, which is, I believe,
original, although several Anglican divines have expressed a like opinion as to
the irregularity of the modes of baptism prevailing among them. Wall contends
that persons holding opposite views on this subject should still remain
externally united in religious communion.
The Episcopal Methodist discipline directs that
the minister shall sprinkle or pour water on the infant, or if desired, immerse
it in water. It is right to remark that the disbelief of the inherent virtue of
the rite of baptism has led to a most deplorable carelessness in its
administration by Protestant preachers generally. Some merely fillip a wet
finger and thumb over a child’s head; some shake a wet finger or two over the
child; some dip the hand in a bowl, and then lay it gently on the forehead;
some sprinkle lightly towards the person’s face, the head being covered with a
bonnet, so that a well-founded doubt arises in many cases whether an ablution
of any kind can be said to have been performed. Hence it has become customary
to baptize under condition, converts from Protestant sects.
The practice of immersion of the head is continued
in the Catholic Church at Milan; and in various parts of the East some kind of
immersion is practised. Elsewhere infusion most generally prevails, which is
alone used in America. The Roman Ritual directs that either infusion or
immersion be used, according to the local custom, but recognises aspersion
likewise, as one of the modes of baptizing.
To establish the principle that immersion alone is
true baptism, the testimony of St. Paul is adduced: “Know ye not that all we
who are baptized in Christ Jesus, are baptized in His death? For we are buried
with him by baptism unto death.” All then, it is said, presented in baptism the
image of sepulture, by sinking under the water. Such is the inference usually
drawn from this text by Baptist writers, which, were it confined to the general
mode of baptizing, I should not care to combat. But it should be observed, that
in connexion with the allusion to burial, St. Paul speaks of the crucifixion of
our old man, and of our being planted together with Christ; which warrants the
belief that he urges rather the duties implied by baptism, than the mode in
which they had been baptized. As we, however, admit that immersion was
generally practised, we can have no objection to any moral instruction
connected with that mode: and although the image may not appear so manifestly
in other modes of baptizing, yet as baptism is essentially the same, all may be
said to have been buried with Christ by baptism unto death, because all, in whatsoever
way they may have been baptized, by the act were deemed to die with Christ to
sin, and to be buried with Him. “In immersion,” ST. THOMAS, of Aquin, well
remarks, “the image of the burial of Christ is more strikingly exhibited.… but
in the other modes of baptism, it is also, in some respect, represented, though
not so expressly, for in whatever way the ablution be made, the body of the
individual, or some part of it, is under the water, as the body of Christ was
under the earth.”
It is dangerous to endeavour to establish a
principle of doctrine on a mere allusion: but those who rely on such proofs
should not forget that similar arguments can be adduced to sustain the other
modes of baptism. Isaias, describing the triumphs of Christ, says: “He shall sprinkle
many nations.” David imploring pardon of his sin, makes allusion to the legal
purification by aspersions with a branch of hyssop, and in the Hebrew style of
poetry, in the corresponding member, identifies it with an entire washing:
“Thou shalt sprinkle me with hyssop, and I shall be cleansed: thou shalt wash
me, and I shall be made whiter than snow.” It were not rash to suppose that
prophetically this regards the christian rite. “I will pour upon you clean
water,” says the Lord by Ezechiel; “and you shall be cleansed.” “Let us draw
near,” cries the Apostle, “with a true heart in fulness of faith, having our
hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with clean
water.” “According to his mercy he hath saved us by the laver of regeneration
and renovation of the Holy Ghost, whom he hath poured forth upon us abundantly
through Jesus Christ our Saviour.” By the alternate use of these allusions, the
indifference of the mode is sufficiently insinuated, whilst its essence is
declared by styling it a laver. How unsafe it is to argue from figurative
expressions, such as all these manifestly are, may be gathered from the words
of the Apostle: “knowing this, that our old man is crucified with Him.” Must we
seek in baptism an image of the crucifixion? “As many of you as have been
baptized in Christ, have put on Christ.” Must we again look for a mode of
baptism like the putting on of clothes? Where the essence of a christian
sacrament is to be determined, we must decline admitting allusions as proof,
since the evidence should be clear and unequivocal. On grounds so slight the
received modes of baptism, sanctioned by the usage of ages, and by the
authority of the church, cannot be called in question. That each of them was
used according to circumstances by the Apostles and their fellow labourers
cannot be reasonably doubted, since in many instances the use of immersion must
have been absolutely impracticable: “Doubt not, beloved,” says ST. CHRYSOSTOM,
“for the grace of God is perfect: the place is no obstacle, whether you baptize
here, or in a ship, or on a road: Philip baptized on a road: Paul in prison.”
What the Apostle had in view in the various passages which have reference to
baptism, was not to derive an argument from the mode of baptizing, but to
inculcate the duties that resulted from the reception of this sacrament, and to
point out the conditions on which the attainment of its ultimate effects
depended. Baptism is death to sin, burial and crucifixion with Christ, a
putting on of Christ, a resurrection to a new life, because whosoever is
baptized is bound to renounce sin, and embrace the law which Christ delivered.
“For he that is dead is justified from sin. Now if we be dead with Christ, we
believe that we shall live also together with Christ.”
The Apostle St. Paul having styled baptism in more
than one place “a laver,” we are justified in regarding it as essentially
requiring an ablution: but the mode of the laver is not thereby determined. A
bath corresponds most fully with the term; yet we find Christ addressing Peter:
“If I wash thee not, thou shalt have no part with me;” when He meant only to
wash his feet. He used the same term in directing the blind man to go wash in
the pool of Siloe, although from the term employed when the order was fulfilled,
it would seem that the man washed only his hands and eyes. The washing of the
head, usually practised by Catholics, may with still greater propriety be
called a washing of the person, since it is the noblest part of the human body,
and in it the soul seems enthroned.
To understand the essence of a rite divinely
instituted, the object had in view should be specially considered. Had baptism
been instituted for corporal purification, a copious ablution should be made.
Had Christ declared that it was intended to represent in a striking manner his
descent into the grave, and his resurrection, the descent of the body beneath
the water, and its subsequent elevation above the water, should be held
necessary: but as an ancient Greek canon, styled Apostolic, observes: “Jesus
did not say: ‘baptize in my death:’ but: ‘Go, teach all nations, baptizing them
in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” The end had
in view was to wash, to renovate the soul; and the external exhibition of this
divine work is presented, strikingly indeed in the entire washing of the body
by immersion, but also, in a manner highly expressive, by the infusion of
water, emblematic of the Holy Ghost, who is poured out on us abundantly; or by
copious aspersion, which reminds us of “the sprinkling of the blood of Christ.”
ST. THOMAS, of Aquin, has well remarked: “water is
used in the sacrament of baptism for the purpose of corporal ablution, by which
the interior ablution from sins is signified: and ablution with water can be
made, not only by immersion, but by aspersion, or infusion.”
The practice of the church in the earliest ages is
deservedly looked up to as an evidence of the genuine nature of the
institutions of Christ. To it an appeal is made with the utmost confidence by
the advocates of immersion. They recite the testimonies of Justin, Tertullian,
and others, wherein the catechumens are represented as descending into the
water, and coming forth from the laver, and they insist that no other mode of
baptizing was known or practised, or at least indubitably held as legitimate.
In this, however, they are not sustained by the authorities to which they
appeal. It is undoubted that immersion was used in solemn baptism, although the
mode of immersion was different from that now practised. The applicant
descended into the font, and when the priest at its verge pressed his hands on
his shoulders, he sunk beneath the waters; or the priest plunged his head, or
poured the water on him. Thus Severus, patriarch of Alexandria, describes
baptism: “The priest lets the person to be baptized down into the baptistery,
looking to the East, and puts his right hand on his head, and with his left
hand raises up the water thrice, from the water in front, behind, and at either
of his sides, and says these words: ‘N. is baptized in the name of the Father,
Amen, and of the Son, Amen, and of the Holy Ghost, Amen, for life eternal.’ “
But in the less solemn administration of the sacrament other modes were used.
Tertullian intimates that aspersion was sometimes
used, since speaking of penance, he says: “The sinner, before obtaining pardon,
should mourn over his state, for the time of penance is a time of danger and
fear. I do not deny that the divine favor, that is, the abolition of sins, is
altogether secure for those who enter into the water; but diligence must be
used to prepare for it. For who will vouchsafe to you, so faithless a penitent,
a single sprinkle of any water?” He nevertheless is cited to prove that the
Apostles, like John, baptized in rivers, by immersion; yet his testimony only
proves that all water is fit matter for baptism, being made the instrument of
sanctification by the Holy Spirit. He, indeed, supposes some to have been
baptized by Peter in the Tiber; but he does not insinuate that a river is the
only suitable place for this function: “The virtue,” he says, “imparted to the
genus redounds to each species: and therefore it matters not whether one be
washed in the sea, or in a pool, in a river, or fountain, in a lake, or channel:
nor is there any difference between those whom John baptized (tinged) in the
Jordan, and whom Peter baptized in the Tiber; unless, perchance, that eunuch
whom Philip baptized on the road with water presented fortuitously, received
more or less of saving grace. Therefore all waters, when God is invoked,
receive the mysterious virtue of sanctification, in consequence of the ancient
privilege imparted at the commencement. For the Holy Ghost immediately comes
from heaven, and is over the waters sanctifying them of himself, and being thus
sanctified, they imbibe the power of sanctifying.” He also mentions the manner
in which some attempted to account for the baptism of the Apostles: “Some, in a
manner quite forced, pretend that the Apostles underwent a kind of baptism,
when in the boat they were sprinkled and covered with the waves; and that Peter
himself, walking on the sea, was sufficiently immerged.” This idea, however far
fetched, could scarcely have occurred, if sprinkling or partial immersion were
altogether foreign to the practice of the church.
Sprinkling must have been used on some occasions
to afford ground for the remarks of Tertullian; probably even in cases where
the catechumen actually entered the water, as the mode of baptizing was not
always to plunge the head, but sometimes to pour the water, or sprinkle it on
the individual already standing or kneeling immersed in it. It is certain that
aspersion and infusion were generally used in regard to persons applying for
baptism when at the point of death, or in dangerous sickness. In the middle of
the third century, Magnus, probably a layman, consulted St. Cyprian, the
illustrious Bishop of Carthage, concerning persons so baptized, to know whether
they should be regarded as legitimate Christians, entitled to the same
privileges as their brethren, who in health had been baptized by the more
solemn method of immersion. He did not speak of the practice as recently
introduced: he did not inquire whether the baptism should be considered as of
no account: but fully convinced, according to the general persuasion of the
whole Christian church, that they obtained the grace of God, he asked only,
whether considering the circumstances in which they sought it, after long and
culpable delay, and the manner in which they obtained it, by an abridged rite,
they should share equal privileges with their more diligent brethren: “Thou
hast inquired, most beloved child,” says Cyprian, in reply, “what I think of
those who in their infirmity and languor obtain the grace of God, whether they
are to be esteemed as legitimate Christians, because they have not been washed
with water, but received it by infusion.” The holy prelate unhesitatingly
answered, that the effect of the sacrament was the same, in whatever way it was
conferred: “The divine favors can in no degree be mutilated and weakened, for
the defilements of sin are not cleansed in the salutary sacrament in the same
manner as the defilements of the skin and body are washed away in the carnal
and worldly bath In the sacraments of salvation, necessity urging, and God
granting his indulgence, THE DIVINE COMPENDIUM confers all on believers. Nor
should any one be moved, because he sees that the sick are sprinkled, or
receive infusion, when they obtain the grace of the Lord, since the holy
Scripture, by the prophet Ezekiel, speaks and says: ‘I will sprinkle on you
clean water, and you shall be cleansed from all your uncleanness, and I will
cleanse you from all your idols, and I will give you a new heart, and I will
put a new spirit in you.’ “ He proceeds to quote various passages of Moses,
wherein legal purification is attached to the sprinkling of the water prepared
for that purpose; and regarding this as the type of baptism, he infers: “whence
it appears that the sprinkling of water has the same force as the saving
laver.” He reproves those who sarcastically styled clinics such as had been
baptized on their beds in sickness: and he challenges them to rebaptize them on
their recovery, if they call in question their perfect sanctification. As no
one attempted to rebaptize them, he shows the absurdity of questioning the
degree of grace which they had received. “If any one supposes that they have
obtained no advantage, but are empty and void, inasmuch as they were merely
perfused with the saving water, let them not be deceived, but if they escape
the danger and recover, let them be baptized: but IF THEY CANNOT BE BAPTIZED,
WHO ARE ALREADY SANCTIFIED BY BAPTISM administered in the church, why are they
molested to the scandal of their faith, and in derogation of the divine
indulgence? Have they, indeed, obtained the grace of the Lord, but with a more
sparing communication of the divine gift and of the Holy Spirit, so that they
are to be reckoned Christians, and yet not placed on an equality with others?
Yea, rather the Holy Ghost is not given by measure, but is wholly infused on
the believer. For since the day dawns for all alike, and the sun sheds his
light with equal brilliancy over all, how much more does Christ, the true sun
and day, shed the light of eternal life over all in his church? We see a type
of this equal distribution of grace in Exodus, when the manna fell from heaven,
and prefiguring future events, pointed out the nourishment of heavenly bread,
and the food which Christ, when He should come, would give. For there the
measure of a gomor was alike gathered by all, without distinction of sex or
age. Whence it appeared that the indulgence and heavenly grace of Christ, which
was afterwards to ensue, is equally divided to all without difference of sex,
without distinction of years, without acceptation of persons, and the gift of
divine grace is poured out on the entire people of God. Truly the same
spiritual gift, which is equally received in baptism by believers, is
afterwards either lessened or increased in our conduct, and acts, as in the
gospel the divine seed is equally sown, but according to the difference of the
soil some is wasted, some produces fruit thirty fold, sixty fold, a hundred
fold.”
Although St. Cyprian gives his sentiments with the
modesty which usually marks great and holy men, it is clear from his statement,
that the validity of baptism conferred by infusion, or aspersion, was an
undisputed point, and that the equality of the grace imparted by these modes
with that attached to immersion, was deducible from the certain and avowed
principles of the Church. In his day a circumstance occurred, which appeared
most likely to induce the denial of the validity of aspersion, or infusion.
Novatian had received baptism in sickness by infusion, as he lay on his bed.
Having subsequently recovered, he neglected to seek the gift of the Holy Ghost
by the imposition of the bishop’s hands in confirmation. Yet he contrived to
advance to sacred orders; and his ambition finally led him to usurp the chair
of Peter. Cornelius, the legitimate Pope, opposed his pretensions, upbraided
him with his having delayed to receive baptism until terrified by the approach
of death, and with his neglect to receive confirmation on his recovery: but he
did not deny the validity of the baptism, as he most certainly would have done,
were there any grounds for calling it in question, since this would utterly
destroy all the pretensions of the schismatical usurper. It is fair to conclude
thence, that its validity was indisputable.
The canons of the ancient councils prohibit the
promotion to sacred orders of persons baptized in sickness, because their
neglect to receive baptism previously, supposes criminal delay: but they make
an exception in favor of such as may be especially fervent; and thereby clearly
recognize the validity of the baptism. The ancient council of Laodicea
manifestly admits it, since it teaches, that “it behoves such as receive
baptism in sickness, and afterwards recover, to learn fully the faith, and know
that they have been made worthy of the divine gift.” And the council of Elvire
declared it lawful for the laity to baptize catechumens in danger of death, if
no Priest be at hand. The Council of Arles, not long after, directed persons
baptized in sickness to be presented, on their recovery, to the bishop, to
receive the solemn imposition of hands. Thus the validity of baptism
administered in this way, was recognized by numerous assemblies of Christian
bishops in the East and in the West, in the commencement of the fourth century.
Besides the express testimony of St. Cyprian in
the third century, we have on record particular instances of baptism conferred
in circumstances which clearly show that immersion was not used. Eusebius,
speaking of Basilides, who was cast into prison for the name of Christ, says:
“the brethren gave him the seal of baptism, and the next day, having confessed
our Lord, he was beheaded.” This took place in the year 211. In the martyrology
of Ado, it is related of Pope Callistus, who died in 222, that after enjoining
fasting, and catechizing a candidate, water having been brought, he baptized
him. In the acts of St. Lawrence, who suffered martyrdom in the year 250, it is
related that Romanus, one of the soldiers, being suddenly converted, brought a
pitcher of water to the martyr, asking him to baptize him. This baptism is
represented in an ancient picture preserved at Rome, wherein St. Lawrence
appears pouring water on the head of Romanus. The acts of St. Cornelius speak
of Sallustia, who, being converted, presented to the Pontiff a vessel with
water, wherewith he might baptize her. Five martyrs of Samosata, in the year
297, when in prison for the faith of Christ, sent for the priest James,
entreating him to come, and bring with him a vessel of water to baptize them.
If any one is skeptical as to the authenticity of these acts, which, however,
have passed unscathed through the ordeal of criticism, he must at least
acknowledge that the persuasion of the validity of the baptism thus administered
was prevalent at the time the acts were composed: otherwise the writer would
not have made the statement. The testimony of Eusebius admits of no dispute;
and we cannot doubt that many similar instances of baptism in prison occurred,
which it is utterly improbable were performed by immersion.
The baptism of the sick, which was confessedly by
infusion or aspersion, is constantly spoken of by the Fathers of the Church
generally, no less than by St. Cyprian, and the councils already quoted, as
conferring the same grace as solemn baptism by immersion.
St. Chrysostom, addressing those who were
preparing for baptism, praises their zeal in seeking it in health, and
contrasts it with the torpor of those who delay until their last moments:
“Although,” he remarks, “the same gifts of grace are bestowed on you, and on
those who are initiated at the close of life, your free choice and preparation
are different: for they receive it on their bed, you in the bosom of the
Church, the common mother of us all; they sorrowing and weeping, you rejoicing
and exulting; they sighing, you giving thanks; they in a lethargy from fever,
you full of much spiritual delight.”
Whilst inveighing against the delay of baptism,
the Fathers dwelt on the danger to which this delay exposed the catechumen not
to receive it even in the extremity of life; but never threw a doubt on the
efficacy of the rite thus performed, when immersion was impracticable. ST.
GREGORY, of Nazianzum, delivered a discourse on baptism, in which he reviewed
and refuted all the pretexts by which sinners excuse themselves for delaying to
receive it. He cautions them lest they be suddenly cut off, or be without the
necessary sense of the baptism itself, when it may be administered in their
last illness; but he nowhere insinuates that it will be impossible to
administer it because immersion will then be impracticable. This, which would
be so conclusive an argument against delay, he would surely not have passed
over, if the matter even lay open to doubt. ST. BASIL uses similar arguments
against delay, and warns sinners that they may be in their last moments unable
to express a wish; and perhaps at night there may be no one at hand to baptize
them: “Take care,” he cries, “lest putting off from year to year, and not
providing yourself with oil to feed the flame, that day arrive which you do not
expect, when the means of prolonging life shall fail, and on all sides doubt
and inconsolable distress shall torment you; the physicians, and even your own
family despairing of your recovery. Frequent and dry breathing will oppress
you; a violent fever will burn and consume you; from your very heart you will
heave forth deep sighs, and you will find none to comfort you. If you utter
something in a faint and faltering manner, it may not be understood: every
thing you say will be disregarded as the raving of a dying man. Who will give
you baptism then? Who will remind you of it, when you will be sunk in deep
lethargy? Relatives are in affliction: strangers take no interest: friends are
loath to alarm you by the warning. Perhaps even the physician deceives you: and
you do not know your situation, being blinded by the love of life. It is night,
and there is no one to succour: there is no one at hand to baptize you.”
Should the sinner who delayed to receive baptism
be fortunate enough to receive it in death with proper dispositions, ST. BASIL
expressly admits that he obtains its immediate advantages, although he depart
void of the merits, which he might have secured, had he been baptized at an earlier
period of life, and employed with zeal the baptismal grace: “Why do you await
to be seized with a fever, to receive baptism? Then, perhaps, you may be unable
to utter the saving words, scarcely may you hear them distinctly, the disease
affecting your head especially: it may not be in your power to raise your hands
to heaven, to stand on your feet, or to bend the knee in adoration; you may not
be able to receive instruction profitably, nor to confess diligently, nor to
enter into covenant with God, nor to renounce the enemy of salvation, nor
perhaps to follow up with consciousness the mystic rite, whilst it is
performed, so that the bystanders may doubt whether you are conscious of the
grace, or are insensible to all that is done. And although you may understand
the gift you receive, you have indeed the talent, but you do not bring with it
the increase.”
The Fathers generally extol the effects of baptism
independently of the mode of its administration, and the quantity of water. ST.
AUGUSTIN expressly admires the divine virtue of the word accompanying the
water, whereby the little infant is wholly cleansed from the original stain,
however slight may be the ablution of the body: “This is the word of faith
which we preach, whereby baptism also is doubtless consecrated that it may
cleanse. ‘For Christ loved his church, and delivered himself up for her.’ Read
the Apostle, and see what he adds: ‘that he might sanctify her,’ says he,
‘cleansing her with the laver of water in the word.’ This purification would by
no means be attributed to the liquid and transient element, were it not added,
‘in the word.’ This word of faith is so powerful in the church of God, that by
means of her believing, offering, blessing, tinging even in a slight degree, it
cleanses the infant.” ST. AMBROSE applies to baptism the words of the Psalmist,
wherein he speaks of purification by aspersion: “You took afterwards the white
garments,” says he, addressing the neophytes, “to indicate that you cast away
the cloak of sin and put on the spotless robes of innocence: whereof the
prophet said: ‘Thou shalt sprinkle me with hyssop, and I shall be cleansed:
thou shalt wash me, and I shall be made whiter than snow.’ For he that is
baptized, seems to be cleansed both according to the Law and the Gospel:
according to the Law, since Moses with a bunch of hyssop sprinkled the blood of
the lamb: according to the Gospel, because the garments of Christ were white as
snow, when in the Gospel he showed the glory of his resurrection. He whose sins
are forgiven, is made whiter than snow.” GENNADIUS, a writer of the fifth
century, remarks that: “the catechumen after his profession of faith is either
sprinkled with water, or dipt in it: and the martyr is either sprinkled with
his own blood, or dipt in fire.”
These testimonies and facts prove, that baptism by
aspersion and infusion was practised in the primitive times, and recognised as
valid by the Fathers and councils of the church. The solemnity of immersion was
dispensed with, when danger impended; whilst it was observed, in general, to
signify to the catechumen the entire change which became him, and the entire
purification which the sacrament effects. The death with Christ to sin, and the
resurrection to a new life, and the washing away of sins, were strongly impressed
on his mind, by the rite of immersion: and he rose from the font a new man,
having put on Christ, and adopted his maxims as the rules of his belief and
conduct. The same grace, nevertheless, was received, even when the rite was
less solemn and impressive, and the same obligations were contracted: because
neither the quantity of the water determined the measure of grace, nor the mode
of its application limited its efficacy. It was still an ablution made in the
name of the three Adorable Persons; and it regenerated, by the power of the
Holy Ghost, those whom it touched even slightly.
The absolute necessity of baptism, which is
apparent from the words of our Divine Redeemer, and the perpetual belief of all
Christian antiquity, warrants the presumption that a mode generally so
difficult, and in numberless instances absolutely impracticable, has not been
established as essential. The prisoner in his dungeon, the sick man on his
death-bed, the tender infant about to give up life, just after it has commenced
to live, and innumerable others, in an endless variety of cases, cannot be
immersed. We must then admit that Christ established as a necessary means of
salvation, what can be rarely and with difficulty applied: or we must, against
the obvious force of his emphatic language, and the solemn testimony of the
ancient church, deny that baptism is necessary for salvation. This alternative
has been embraced by those who advocate immersion. Without remorse they suffer
not only infants, but even adults to die, and refuse them this laver of
regeneration; and even boast of the refusal as a proof that they do not attach
over-much importance to forms, whilst they clamor incessantly about plunging:
“A case,” says Hinton, “occurring under my own ministration is in point. I
visited a young lady who lay at the point of death; she gave evidence of piety,
and expressed some desire to be baptized. I assured her that it could make no
possible difference to her acceptance with God, whether, in her circumstances,
she was baptized or not.” Let this language be compared with that of Cyprian,
Basil, Chrysostom, Augustin, and the other lights of antiquity. The decree of
Pope Siricius, at the close of the fourth century, harmonizes with the teaching
of these ancient doctors: “Whosoever is in danger of shipwreck, or of hostile
attack, or of siege, or whose life is despaired of on account of any corporal
disease, and demands to be succoured by the sole aid of faith, let him obtain
the favor of regeneration which he desires, the very moment at which he desires
it.
If immersion of actual believers be the only valid
mode of baptism, as Baptists affirm, none are really baptized who have not been
immersed: and whatever Catholics may say, who believe that baptism administered
by an unbaptized man is valid, I know not whether Baptists are ready to
maintain that baptism was utterly lost by the immense majority of the
professors of Christianity, until unbaptized men, discovering the fatal error,
restored it by giving, one to the other, that rite of which both were
destitute. Yet this must plainly have been the case. At the time when Storck,
Muncer, and others, called Anabaptists, cried out in Germany against the
baptism of children, all the Christian world for ages had been baptized in
infancy: and if infant baptism was null, baptism had utterly perished. The
Anabaptists, for a century after their rise, regarded the sprinkling of the
head as sufficient. However, then, their authors may have contrived to supply
the defect of their own baptism, they certainly neither received nor
transmitted immersion. Is any one prepared to say, as he must necessarily do,
if he deny the validity of infant baptism, as well as of the modes of infusion
and aspersion, that the visible Church of Christ had utterly vanished from the
earth for a long series of ages, until some unbaptized men restored it in the
seventeenth century? Roger Williams “was driven by his views of consistency to
his immersing principles, to declare that Christian ordinances had been lost,
and there was no church in the world, and could not be until other apostles
should come with miraculous powers.”
The custom of the Greeks who baptize by immersion,
does not establish the necessity of this mode, even were it shown that they
believe it to be essential: which cannot be shown, since they made no
difficulty about it when reunion with the Latins was in question, however
individuals may taunt the Catholics on this and other points. Their mode of
immersion is, however, such as partakes of infusion, and may be designated in
either way. The infant is placed in the baptismal vase with its face downward,
supported by the left arm of the Priest, who, with his right hand, pours the
water on it.
The cause of the variety of mode in the solemn
administration of baptism is not to be sought for in any positive enactment of
such a change by the Roman Pontiffs, or any other Church authority. To this day
there exists no ecclesiastical law forbidding the use of immersion; but on the
contrary, the Roman Ritual directs, as I have already stated, that immersion,
or infusion, be used according to the established usages of the particular
portions of the Church wherein the sacrament is administered. In Milan the
Catholic Priest observes the Ambrosian rite, by the slight dipping of the head:
in Greece, not only the followers of Photius, but the faithful ministers of
religion united in communion with the successor of Peter, conform scrupulously
to the rite prescribed in the Euchology: in this country, as most generally
throughout the world, the mode of infusion is observed, in conformity with
usage long established. To depart from the peculiar rite sanctioned by the
authority of the Church, would be a violation of order; and consequently the
individual Priest or layman, that in this country would practice immersion,
would indeed validly baptize, but incur the guilt of insubordination and
temerity, by favoring the error of those who allege that infusion is
insufficient.
When religion had consummated her triumphs over
Paganism in the various countries of Europe, and the regenerated parents were
diligently instructed in the duty of presenting their children to be baptized
at the earliest period possible, ages passed away without scarcely an instance
of the baptism of adults. Hence the necessity of receding from the mode of
immersion became still more frequent, since the tender infant oftentimes could
not be immersed without peril to its life. The cases thus multiplying, the more
solemn method fell into gradual disuse, until it has, in most places, been
entirely superseded.
Another cause contributed to render universal the
mode of infusion. A class of females formerly existed in the church, under the
name of Deaconesses, who, amongst other exercises of piety, instructed and
prepared for baptism, the catechumens of their sex, and performed some of the
ceremonies preparatory to its administration. They particularly accompanied the
proselyte to the font, that when she had entered into the water, they might
give the sacred minister notice to approach to its verge, and perform the
ablution. This, and several other precautions were employed by the piety of our
ancestors to guard the holy institution from the slightest indecorum. This
class of females, from a variety of causes having ceased, it became expedient
to abstain from the immersion of females.
In the present mode of immersing, this difficulty
may seem obviated: but such is not the case. The manners of our age are
different from those in which immersion was practised; and although we may not
surpass our ancestors in purity of morals, there is a delicacy of feeling
peculiar to us which revolts at the public exhibitions which are now made in
the presence of congregated multitudes. It was worthy of the divine wisdom of
Jesus Christ, to leave with his Apostles and their successors, a discretionary
power, to be exercised according to the difference of times and places, as to
what regards the mode of administering this necessary sacrament.
THE chief argument of Baptists is that the term
“baptize,” in its obvious meaning, implies immersion, and that it can be
understood in no other sense in the solemn commission of Christ to his
Apostles. This presents a subject of inquiry very ill suited to the mass of
mankind, and on which learned men themselves may not easily pronounce with
certainty, since words have generally secondary as well as primary
significations, which vary by the usages of nations, and with the revolution of
time. As George Campbell well remarks: “In process of time, words in every
tongue vary from their original import, in consequence of the gradual influence
of incidental causes, and the changes in manners and sentiments which they
occasion.”
In entering on the critical examination of the
term baptize, a sophism must be guarded against, which frequently occurs in
Baptist writers. They say that the Greek and Hebrew languages had distinct
terms for sprinkling, pouring, dipping, and that the term which naturally means
dipping having been employed, the others are necessarily excluded. This,
however, is not a fair consequence; for whatever term might be employed, it
would remain to be seen, whether that term should be taken in its strictest
sense, and whether so taken it excluded the others. We do not contend that
Christ specially instituted aspersion as the essential mode of baptism: for in
such case we should show that to baptize means to sprinkle, and cannot receive
any other signification. The same may be said as to infusion. We simply say,
that He instituted an ablution with water, which may be made by immersion,
conformably to the primary signification of the term employed by the
Evangelists to designate it; but which may also be made in a less solemn
manner, since the popular use of the term admits much latitude, and there is no
solid reason for believing that our Divine Redeemer determined the precise mode
of the ablution.
The learned author of the Greek Lexicon, Henricus
Stephanus, gives as the primary meaning of the term baptize, to dip, or
immerge, as we dip things for the purpose of dying them, or immerge them in
water to wash them. He gives an example from Plutarch’s work on Superstition,
where speaking of the vain phantoms wherewith the imagination of the
superstitious is troubled, he represents impostors as counselling a man to
baptize himself, that is, to plunge himself into the sea, and then to sit
during an entire day on the land; as if this could serve to avert impending
calamities. Lucian also uses the term to express the violent plunging of another,
in order to drown him. In his dialogue concerning Timon, he represents him,
after having found the treasure, resolving to live entirely for himself, and to
repel all others, who might desire his assistance. If an unfortunate man
carried away by a flood, stretched forth his hands for relief, this misanthrope
resolves rather to push him off, and plunge him head downwards into the water,
lest he should by any possibility escape. In the second book of True Histories,
Lucian relates that voyagers discovered men with feet of cork, and saw them
running on the waters, and were surprised that they were not baptized, that is,
did not sink, but kept above the waters. In this sense it is frequently used by
classical, Jewish, and ecclesiastical authors. Josephus speaks of the ship in
which the prophet Jonas was, as on the point of being baptized, that is of
sinking, or being overwhelmed by the waves, when the mariners resolved to throw
him overboard. ST. GREGORY, of Nazianzum, says, that Christ sustains and
lightens those who are about to sink, which he calls to be baptized. In most of
such examples either meaning will suit, since a ship may sink between two
waves, which open to swallow her up, or may be overwhelmed by a rushing billow.
In many passages it is manifestly taken by the classic authors for the being
sunk in water, the water coming over and covering, either partially, or
entirely, the object thus said to be baptized. Diodorus Siculus describing the
overflowing of the Nile, says that “many of the land animals overtaken by it
are destroyed, being baptized,” that is overwhelmed and sunk in the water. In a
book “concerning wonderful narratives,” published among the works of Aristotle,
and supposed by Erasmus, to have been compiled from different authors, it is said:
“They relate concerning the Phenicians who inhabit Gadeira, that sailing beyond
the pillars of Hercules with an east wind, they came in four days to certain
desert places, full of bulrushes and sea-weeds; which, on the reflux of the
tide, are baptized; but when it is full tide are covered over.” The term seems
here to mean the being left uncovered, although somewhat sunk in water; or if
the negative be supplied, as the text is commonly cited, it means covered over
with water. In neither passage can it mean plunged into the water. It is plain
that without any violence to the term, according to classic usage, it may be
applied to a person sunk in water, or covered with it, although he may not
have, been plunged, or dipt into it. In the life of Theseus, founder of the
city of Athens, Plutarch mentions a line of the Sybil, in which Athens is
compared to a blown bladder, that may be somewhat pressed down, but cannot
sink. This, which is called to be baptized, does not imply total immersion.
Lucian, as Henricus Stephanus assures us, uses the noun for a laver. It is very
often taken figuratively for being overwhelmed with affliction, as when
Heliodorus says: “thy misfortunes baptize thee. It also frequently signifies
intoxication, as many examples quoted by Henricus Stephanus plainly show.
Lucian speaks of a river in India, whereof he who drinks, becomes like a man
thoroughly baptized, that is totally intoxicated. The pouring in of liquor to
excess is here styled baptizing.
The force of the term as employed in the New
Testament, is not however to be determined by the use of the classic authors of
Greece, so much as by reference to the corresponding term in Hebrew, and to the
Septuagint interpreters of the Old Testament, and to the Jewish books composed
in Greek. George Campbell justly observes: “Though the New Testament is written
in Greek, an acquaintance with the Greek classics (that is, with the writings
of profane authors in that tongue in prose and verse) will not be found so
conducive to this end, as an acquaintance with the ancient Hebrew Scriptures.”
“It must be remembered,” says he afterwards, “that all the penmen of the New
Testament were Jews, the greater part Hebrews, not Hellenists; but whether they
be Hebrews, or Hellenists, as they wrote in Greek, the version of the LXX.
would serve as a model in What concerned propriety of expression on religious
subjects.” “In a language spoken, as Greek was then, in many distant countries,
all independent of one another, there inevitably arise peculiarities in the acceptations
of words in different regions.” It must be manifest that the inference drawn
from classic usage is not conclusive. “Classical use,” Campbell remarks, “both
in Greek and Latin, is not only in this study sometimes unavailable, but may
even mislead. The sacred use and the classical are often very different.”
As we have not the Syriac original of St. Matthew,
we must learn the corresponding Hebrew term, by having recourse to the version
of the Old Testament by the Septuagint, where the Greek term is found, and then
consulting the Hebrew text. In speaking of Naaman, the Syrian general, who, by
order of the prophet Eliseus, bathed, or washed himself seven times in the
river Jordan, the Septuagint use this term, so that it might be literally
rendered, “he was baptized seven times.” Here the classical signification of
dipping to wash himself is sustained; and the usual classical term for bathing
or washing is employed in the same narrative to express the order of the
prophet. The Hebrew terms vary accordingly, the one expressing simply the order
to wash; the other its fulfilment by bathing or dipping himself. This, however,
it may be insisted on, proves the assertion of Baptists, because the meaning
plainly is, that he dipped himself seven times in the Jordan.* Yet let it not
be forgotten, that the two Hebrew terms which express washing and dipping, are
here used as synonymous, and the Greek terms in like manner: whence it is fair
to conclude, that in giving the term baptize the meaning of bathing, or washing,
the manner of washing by dipping was not necessarily implied, since a bath can
be had by infusion, or even by copious aspersion. Many prescriptions of the old
law require the washing of the body, which they always express by the term
washing, without assigning the mode of doing so. In general this washing was to
be the act of the individual himself: but even when Aaron was ordered to wash
his sons in water, previous to their consecration as priests, the same term was
used, without any reference to the manner. It does not appear that any
importance was attached to the mode of ablution.
In the book of Judith it is related, that she went
out by night from the camp of Holophernes, for the purpose of prayer, and
washed at a fountain of water in the valley of Bethulia. The Greek text may be
literally rendered: “she was baptized in the valley on, or at, the fountain of
water.” This does not necessarily suggest the idea of bathing, and still less
the peculiar mode of dipping; but I shall leave the reader to his own
conjectures, and hasten to a more decisive example. In the book of
Ecclesiasticus, the term baptized is used to express the purification from the
legal uncleanness contracted by touching a corpse. The Greek text is literally
rendered: “He that is baptized after touching a corpse, and toucheth it again,
what hath he profited by his washing?” From reference to the law prescribing
the mode of expiation, we have reason to conclude that baptized here means
sprinkled with the water of expiation. It was ordained that a red heifer should
be immolated, and burnt, and water thrown on her ashes, to serve for legal
purifications. If a man touched a corpse, he was considered unclean for seven
days, and on the third day, and on the seventh, he was to be sprinkled with this
water: “Every one that toucheth the corpse of a man, and is not sprinkled with
this mixture, shall profane the tabernacle of the Lord, and shall perish out of
Israel, because he was not sprinkled with the water of expiation, he shall be
unclean, and his uncleanness shall remain upon him.” The washing of the body on
the seventh day was enjoined on the person who made the aspersion, not on the
person who had contracted the defilement: whence the purification is uniformly
referred to the aspersion, and is thus spoken of by St. Paul: “the ashes of an
heifer being sprinkled sanctify such as are defiled to the cleansing of the
flesh.”
In connexion with this, I may refer to Josephus,
the famous Jewish historian, who was contemporary with the Apostles, and who speaks
of this ceremony of purification on occasion of touching a corpse, as
consisting in an aspersion made on the third and seventh day. He uses also the
term baptize, not indeed to express the act of aspersion, as some maintain, but
rather the dipping of a branch of hyssop into the water wherein the ashes lay,
to sprinkle therewith the defiled person. This preparatory act being most
frequently designated by the corresponding Hebrew term, there is such a
connection between it and the aspersion which follows, that it would not be
strange if one term should be popularly and consequentially used for the whole
rite. It is certainly manifest that baptize, as used by Josephus in this place,
has a meaning widely different from total immersion. Carson, a Baptist writer,
pretends that it means plunging the ashes into the water: but this can scarcely
be admitted, since the casting of the ashes into the font had already been
expressed.
The word baptize is used in a figurative meaning
by the Septuagint, in the translation of Isaiah, where the terrors which seized
on Balthassar, and overwhelmed him, are described. “My heart is astray, and
iniquity baptizes me, my soul has been struck with fear.” The meaning here is
to overwhelm, in which sense baptize is frequently used by the classic and
ecclesiastical authors.
No other examples are afforded us, in the
Septuagint, to determine the meaning in which to baptize was understood. These,
however, prove that it meant to bathe, or wash, and that it sometimes was taken
for a partial ablution or aspersion.
Waiving this latter point, if it be granted that
it was the popular term among Hellenistic Hebrew writers for bathing, as the
examples adduced must at least be admitted to show, the employment of it by the
sacred writers, when recording the Apostolic commission, and when speaking of
this rite, would only prove that a bathing, or washing, was prescribed. No
proof could be fairly drawn from the original force of the term, that a
peculiar mode should be observed in this bath, or washing. The passages in
which it is actually called a bath, or laver, would harmonize with this view,
and the question then would simply be, what could be esteemed such; not, after
what manner it should be given.
From St. Mark it is apparent that the term baptize
was used among the Jews in the time of our Saviour, for an ablution customary
before meals, on returning from the market-place: “when they come from the
market, unless they be baptized, they eat not.” It can scarcely be imagined
that this was the immersion of the whole body. Rosenmuller supposes it to have
been the mere dipping of the hands in water. Spencer, in his learned treatise
on the ritual observances of the Jews, explains it of the dipping of the hands
up to the wrist. Bloomfield thinks that it implies the washing of the bodies,
“in which, however, is not implied immersion.” The evangelist applies the term
baptisms to express the Jewish purificatory rites derived from ancient
tradition, namely, “the washings of cups and of pots, and of brazen vessels and
of beds.” The learned lexicographer Henricus Stephanus, refers to this passage,
and to a similar one from St. Luke, as presenting the meaning of washing, or
making an ablution. St. Paul calls the various ablutions of the old law, many
of which were by aspersion, divers baptisms: in contradistinction to the one
baptism of Christ. Thus it appears manifest that the term was, in his time,
used indiscriminately for all kinds of ablution.*
Baptize is used in a figurative sense, when it is
said: “He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire.”† As figurative
language has always some reference to the literal force of terms, it is obvious
that baptize cannot mean exclusively to dip, or plunge, since it would be
absurd to say: He shall dip you in the Holy Ghost and fire. The communication
of the Holy Spirit is uniformly represented in the Scriptures as an infusion,
and tongues of fire sat on each of the disciples when he descended into their
hearts. However abundant the communication of this Divine Spirit may have been,
it is clear that it is signified in Scripture by infusion, rather than by
immersion. Taking to wash or cleanse, as the popular signification of the term,
its figurative use can be understood, since fire serves to cleanse and purify.
An attempt is made to determine the Scriptural
acceptation of the term, by reference to its application to the rite performed
by John. As to the mode in which John baptized, many circumstances favor the
opinion that it was by some kind of immersion. It was performed at, or in, the
river Jordan, into which, if the instance of our Saviour be considered an
example of the mode generally observed, the candidate descended, and thence
came up to the bank. The place Enon, near Salem, was chosen, because there were
many streams, or, as others will have it, much water there. Yet the manner of
baptizing is by no means beyond question, since the vast multitudes that
thronged from Jerusalem and Judea generally, could not, without difficulty, be
immersed by John; especially as he necessarily devoted considerable time to
their instruction, and to receive the confession of their sins. It is not to be
forgotten, that the legal purifications of great multitudes were all performed
by aspersion; which renders it not improbable that this mode was followed by
the Precursor, at least when a number was to be baptized. As to the particular
instance of the baptism of our adorable Saviour, His descent into the water
shows rather His partial immersion by Himself, inasmuch as a great part of his
body may be presumed to have been under water; but His immersion by John is not
thence safely inferred, unless the term “baptize” can be proved to imply it. It
is worthy of observation, that the most ancient paintings, some of which are
traced to the fifth century, represent John pouring the water on the Saviour
already immersed above his waist: which shows that even in times when immersion
was practised in solemn baptism, it was not thought that the sacred narrative
implied the plunging of the whole body of our Saviour by the hands of the
Precursor. Such an action is scarcely reconcilable with the reverence due to
his Divine Person, and seems never to have occurred to the ancients.
I have no difficulty however in granting that
those baptized by John may have been immersed; but I should think this to be
true, if they advanced into the water to a considerable depth, and there were
either sprinkled, as their number may lead us to suppose, or received the
infusion of water from the hands of the Baptist; their position in deep water
being a real, although not a total immersion. As the washing of the body in the
Old Law was not prescribed to be done in any peculiar way, I can see no reason
for supposing that John attached any importance to the mode: his object being
to indicate by the rite itself, the washing of the soul from sin, by the tears
of repentance.
Some examples from the Fathers will show that
washing was considered the force of the term, and little attention was paid to
the primary meaning of dipping.
ST. JUSTIN, in his dialogue with Trypho, the Jew,
shows that the prophecies do not regard the mere legal purifications, but
christian baptism, which when received with a knowledge of divine truth, and
with penitence, serves for the expiation of sin. He asks what is the use of
their baptism, except to cleanse the flesh: “Let your soul be baptized,” he
says, “from anger and avarice, envy and hatred, and your body will be pure.”
This use of the term, although figurative, shows that its popular signification
was to wash, or cleanse; since as the body was washed by the Jew in various
circumstances, so he directs the soul to be purified from passion and vice.
CLEMENT, of Alexandria, speaking of the ablutions
used by the Gentiles, preparatory to prayer and sacrifice, considers that they
present an image of baptism, and supposes the poets to have derived the idea of
them from Moses. Thus “Penelope, with clean garments covering her body, being
purified by water, approached prayer; and Telemachus, after having washed his
hands in the foaming sea, offered his vows to Minerva. Like to this was the
Jewish usage, as also frequently to be baptized after coition.” Although the
term baptized seems here used for the washing of the body, it does not appear
to refer necessarily to the act of dipping, but to be taken in a sense
equivalent to bathing, expressed by classic authors by the term
λονομαι. The examples adduced show that even
the dipping of the hands, and the various Heathen lustrations before sacrifice
or prayer were considered images of baptism. It is known that these ablutions
sometimes were mere sprinklings; sometimes the washing of the hands, or of the
head, and sometimes of the whole body.
ORIGEN thus addresses the Pharisees: “Whence were
you led to think, that Elias when he should come, would baptize, who, in
Achab’s time, did not baptize the wood upon the altar, which required a
washing, in order that on the Lord’s appearing in fire, it might be burnt? For
he ordered the priests to perform that. He, therefore, who did not himself then
baptize, but assigned that work to others, how was it likely that he should
baptize, when he was to come according to the prediction of Malachy?” The
pouring of water on the wood is here expressed by the term baptizing. ST. BASIL
considers the same action as the type of baptism, which unites us to God.
The impartial examination of the Fathers will, I
am persuaded, show that the term baptize with them was equivalent to the
classical term for bathing, or washing the body, and that this use of the term
was derived from the Hebrew Hellenistic writers. It will be easily perceived
that no stress whatever was placed by them on the manner in which this might be
done; although with reference to the solemn mode then generally observed, they dwelt,
as occasion offered, on the instruction conveyed by their representative burial
with Christ, beneath the baptismal waters: but they likewise dwelt, with no
less emphasis, on their entire spoliation of all earthly impediments and
attachments, and their return to the state of primeval innocence, and their
conformity with their Saviour exposed naked on the cross, by their entire
nudity on entering the purifying stream.
I trust it is now evident, that as the Hebrew term
which originally signified to dip slightly before aspersion, was in a secondary
sense used to signify bathing, so the corresponding Greek term, which in its
origin implied dipping, was by Hebrew Hellenistic usage taken for washing, and
that the consequential signification was retained in cases where the manner
which gave rise to it was not observed. When Christ, therefore, ordered his
Apostles to baptize, he was necessarily understood to enjoin a washing with
water, but there was no sufficient reason for supposing that any stress was
laid on the manner in which it was to be performed. Can we suppose the
christian institution to be more formal than the Mosaic, which left the mode of
such ablutions of the body undetermined? Was there any peculiar virtue attached
to the manner of performing a rite, the obvious end whereof was to exhibit
externally that purification of the soul which divine grace interiorly
effected? Washing with water represents this internal purity; but plunging has
no necessary connexion with it.
I am aware how difficult it is for persons not
conversant with the Hebrew and Greek languages to perceive the justice and
force of these remarks: and this shows the absurdity of leaving a christian
rite to be determined by each individual according to his idea of the meaning
of a Greek word. Christ cannot have left an institution of such universal
necessity dependant on a critical inquiry of this kind: but as He appointed
ministers to perform it, so must He have guarantied their acts, and imposed the
duty of receiving it from their hands. Otherwise not only the unlettered, who
form the immense majority of mankind, but the learned themselves would be in
interminable doubt from the great latitude and variety of the meaning of words:
and even were its classic import clear, they could not satisfy themselves, that
a term employed to designate a christian rite, should be taken in the sense
which it bore before it was applied to this new and sublime purpose.
IN order to simplify the investigation, I have
confined my remarks to the term βαπτιζω. It
is proper, however, to observe that the Hebrew term טבל, which in 4 Kings 5:14, is rendered by
βαπτιζω, is generally rendered
βαπτω, and that most writers, both among Baptists and
their opponents, agree that the terms are equivalent. William Hague replying to
Towne, says: “they are, as Mr. T. observes, both from one root, and so nearly
identical in meaning as to allow our speaking of them as one word.” Review of
Hints to an Inquirer, p. 11. The ordinary meaning of the Hebrew term, and the
corresponding Greek, is to dip the finger, or some instrument in a liquid for
the purpose of aspersion. Hence they are used to express the dipping of the
finger in blood, or the dipping of a bunch of hyssop in water to sprinkle
therewith. See Lev. 4:6, 14:6; Num. 19:18. It sometimes expresses the dipping
of food in vinegar, or sauce, to give it relish. See Ruth 2:14. The dipping of
the tip of the rod of Jonathan in honeycomb is expressed in the same way, 1
Kings 14:27. The Greek term is used in the New Testament to express the act of
Judas dipping the bread in the dish, John 13:26; and the dipping of the tip of
the finger of Lazarus in water, which the condemned glutton prayed for, to
mitigate the burning of his tongue. Luke 16:24. The setting of the soles of the
feet of the priests bearing the ark, in the waters of the Jordan, is expressed
by the same Hebrew verb, and rendered by the Greek verb in a compound form.
Josue 3:13. The dipping of the feet in oil is used to express the abundance of
olive plantations in the territory of Aser. Deut. 33:24. Nabuchodonosor is said
to have been thus dipped in the dew of heaven, that is wet as if dipped, in a
sense analogous to an actual dipping. Dan. 4:30. This is imitated in Milton’s
Comus:
A cold shuddering dew
Dips me all o’er.
From both these examples, it is apparent that a
certain resemblance in effect led to the employment of the term, where no kind
of dipping had taken place. The dipping of the coat of Joseph in the blood of a
kid, in order to present it besmeared with blood to his father, is expressed by
the same Hebrew term, but rendered in Greek ἐμολυναν,
“they defiled.” Gen. 37:31. The warrior, returning from battle with his
blood-stained garment, as described by Isaiah, is said by St. John to have his
garment βεβαμμένον ἀιματι sprinkled or stained with blood. Apoc. 19:13. “It is obvious,”
Hague acknowledges, “that a thing may be coloured by being sprinkled, but,” he
adds, “bapto does not designate that act, and could never be used in connection
with it in a literal sense, unless it were to express the idea that the
substance had become thoroughly drenched, or wet, as if it had been dipt.” This
is an acknowledgment that it may be used by analogy where no dipping has taken
place; and the examples show that even a thorough drenching is not required.
It appears clear, from the passages quoted, that
the Scriptural use of the Hebrew and Greek terms generally denotes dipping, but
mostly of a slight kind, preparatory to sprinkling, and quite different from
total immersion: and that it sometimes is taken, by analogy, or as some would
say, consequentially, for an effect bearing some resemblance to what would be
the consequence of dipping, although the person or object was in no way dipt.
The classical use of the Greek term is to dip,
generally for the purpose of dyeing, as wool or other material is dipt: whence
it is frequently used to signify dyeing, or colouring, without any regard
whatever to the process of dipping. Aristotle, treating of colours, applies the
term to flowers: τά
βαπτόμενα τῶν ἀνθῶν.
L. De color. Lucian describes courtesans as painting their cheeks, and uses
this term to express it. See Tryphæna et Charmides, also, Cynicus, De moribus
philosophorum. The tinging of the clouds with blood in a battle which the same
author has fancifully described, is called by this term. Lib. 1. Ver. hist.
βαπτω, from signifying to
dip for the purpose of dyeing, signifies by implication to tinge, to dye, as
Robinson, in his Lexicon remarks; and as a vessel is dipt for the purpose of
drawing up water, it in like manner signifies to draw up water. Callimachus
says: “To-day, ye bearers of water draw none” μη
βαπτετε. Nicander says: ἀυτην
αλα βαπτε, draw the sea water itself.
Hence Donegan’s Lexicon says that the verb means, “to draw out water by dipping
a vessel into it.” By analogy it might be used where a vessel is filled with
water without dipping it.
In the same way, it being conceded that
βαπτιζ ω means originally to dip, or immerse
the person; yet as the immersion is for the purpose of washing, to signify by
the external act the purification of the soul, it may be applied to any kind of
washing, without regard to the manner which gave occasion to the term. It is in
this sense Beza said: “βαπτιζω. does not
signify to wash, except by consequence.” Turretin speaks to the same effect.
Schleusner, in his Lexicon, states, that as immersion and dipping in the water
is usually done for the purpose of washing,
βαπτιζω secondly signifies to wash, or
cleanse with water.
IN order to decide the question of what is
essential to christian baptism, it were of great importance that we should know
the practice of the Apostles, who, doubtless, acted in perfect accordance with
the will of their Divine Master: yet it has pleased the Holy Spirit so to guide
the pen of the inspired writers, that we are left, in most instances, to
conjecture the mode that may have been adopted. In the first most solemn
instance of its administration, when three thousand souls were added to the
church on the day of Pentecost, at the preaching of Peter, no details are
furnished us of the manner of their baptism: “They therefore that received his
word were baptized: and there were added in that day about three thousand
souls.” The most obvious inference from this statement is, that they were not
baptized by immersion: whence ST. THOMAS OF Aquin refers to it as an instance
of baptism by aspersion, although he wrote when immersion was practised: but
the sacred writer being silent as to the mode, nothing can be affirmed with
certainty. I am content with referring to this case as calculated to check the
confidence with which immersion is asserted to be essential. The circumstances
of the baptism of the jailor and all his family in the night, in his own house,
which was doubtless immediately connected with the prison, lead to a like
inference. Paul and Silas “spoke the word of the Lord to him and all that were
in his house. And he taking them in the same hour of the night washed their
wounds, and he was baptized, and presently all his family.” Cornelius and his
family were baptized, after Peter had instructed them; but as to the mode, we
are again left to conjecture: yet the language of the Apostle and the
circumstances in which he spoke, being in the house of Cornelius, do not
present the idea of immersion: “Can any man forbid water, that these should not
be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?” The baptism of
the disciples at Ephesus immediately followed the instruction of Paul, and was
succeeded by the imposition of hands, and no intimation is given of the delay
which immersion might require: “having heard these things they were baptized in
the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had imposed his hands on them, the
Holy Ghost came upon them, and they spoke tongues and prophesied.” The baptism
of Saul himself was performed by Ananias, who visited him then blind, in the
house of a private individual: “He received his sight, and rising up he was
baptized.” The only instance favourable to the supposition that immersion was
used, is that of the eunuch baptized by Philip: in which case the occurrence of
water by the road-side, as they journeyed along, gave occasion to the baptism.
The tradition of the country testified by Eusebius, St. Jerom, and by modern
travellers, states that it was a spring near Bethsoron, whose waters are forth
with drunk up by the earth.
It is remarkable that in no instance of the
administration of christian baptism, is it stated, that a river, or stream, was
sought out for the purpose. Without affirming any thing positively where
positive proof does not exist, we can fairly say that the sacred narrative is
highly favourable to the belief that immersion was not exclusively adopted.
Although from the descent of our Lord into the
water, when He was baptized by John, and from the descent of the eunuch into
the water, in order to receive baptism from Philip, and from the most obvious
meaning of the term baptize, presumptions may arise that the Apostles ordinarily
baptized by some kind of immersion, yet candour should admit that there is no
conclusive proof of it in Scripture: the greatest argument in favour of it
being the acknowledged fact that immersion was the ordinary mode used by their
successors, who must doubtless be presumed to have adhered to their example.
Those who rely on the Bible alone, may well be bewildered with the various
inferences drawn from the facts there recorded, and the testimonies in which
reference is made to baptism; but with the light of ancient tradition, derived
from the Apostles, we can attain to a high degree of probability as to their
ordinary practice, which, in those circumstances, added to the solemnity of the
rite itself, and which in no way disproves the validity of the less solemn
modes, which in later ages have so generally prevailed.
In giving the commission to baptize, our Divine
Redeemer added His warranty for the integrity and efficacy of the rite: “behold
I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world.” No stronger or
more solemn assurance could be given, that the Apostolic ministry would always
baptize, teach, make disciples, and perform the other sacred functions in the
spirit of their Divine Master. The terms: “I am with you;” in scriptural style
express the effectual assistance of God; and if Christ effectually assist his
ministers in baptizing, who can suppose that they can pervert the institution,
and generally adopt and solemnly approve a method at variance with His will? He
is with them when they teach; and by His grace He disposes the minds of their
hearers to receive with docility the words of salvation which they announce in
His name: He is present with them, enlightening them that they may be the light
of the world. He is with them baptizing, communicating His grace, and baptizing
in the Holy Spirit those whom they wash with water in the name of the three
Divine Persons. He guards them against any corruption of so sacred an
institution, which would deprive His disciples of the benefit which He meant
should be imparted by it. It is impossible, consistently with so solemn a
promise, that that ministry could ever adopt and sanction a mode of baptizing
contrary to His institution. The promise embraces the successors of the
Apostles to the consummation of the world. It does not regard each
individually, unless inasmuch as he is a member of the ministry, and acts in
union with it: but it manifestly embraces the ministry itself, the body, of
which the Apostles were the first members, and which received a charter of
perpetuity from the Sovereign who called it into existence. To them Christ gave
the authority: on them He imposed the charge: and He pledged His own effectual
presence, not merely to encourage and animate them, but to give us an unfailing
voucher of the integrity and efficacy of their ministry. “Let a man,” says St.
Paul, “so account of us as of the ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of
the ministers of God.” It is the duty of the faithful to receive the sacraments
from their hands: and Christ is surety that they shall be properly
administered. He has not left us to ascertain the means of salvation by
literary investigations, wherein the mass of mankind must necessarily depend on
the authority of a few, who themselves are discordant; but He has authorized a
class of men to administer, and promised His effectual co-operation. How
absurd, then, is it to find thousands who know not how to read, and thousands
who barely can read, and are utterly unacquainted with the learned languages,
determining for themselves the nature of this important rite, by reference to
the term by which it is expressed in Greek! How presumptuous is it even for
learned men to decide a point of this character by the etymology, or primary
signification of a term, which, in its transition from the classic writers of
Heathenism to Jews and Christians, may easily have suffered a modification and
change of meaning!
By lodging in the same persons the power of
teaching and baptizing, Christ has left us to learn from the Apostolic ministry
what is to be considered true baptism, and to receive it from their hands. If a
question be mooted as to the nature, manner and effects of baptism, their
sentence must be final, for they alone are constituted our instructors. This is
the warranty of Christ, against which no exception can be advanced. If we
receive baptism from the hands of those whom He has commissioned to baptize,
how can we be held responsible for the mode in which it is administered? They
are the public officers, with the most solemn vouchers for their acts: it
cannot be the first duty of a believer to sit in judgment on the ministers of
religion; and before he is initiated into christianity, to determine whether
they may not have utterly mistaken the nature of its primary institution.
INFANTS are cleansed in baptism from original
sin and adorned with sanctifying grace by the mere mercy of God, through the
merits of Christ, without any disposition or co-operation on their part. It was
one of the bold paradoxes of Luther that they were divinely enlightened at the
moment to conceive justifying faith: to whom Catholic divines replied in the
words of St. Augustin: “They certainly cannot believe with the heart unto
justice, and confess with the mouth unto salvation … on the contrary crying and
screaming, whilst the mystery is celebrated in them, they drown the mystical
words: although no christian would venture to say that they are baptized in
vain.” Bishop Onderdonk says: “they are not subjects for the moral change;”
which is true of that change of disposition to which he gives the name of moral
regeneration: but the Scriptures and Fathers leave no doubt of their capacity
to receive that divine gift of grace whereby they are born of God. “Salvation
is perfected in them, as the entire church holds:” “the grace of the Almighty
fulfils in them what their tender age renders impossible.” Those who attain to
maturity without the development of the intellectual faculties, such as
absolute idiots, are justly considered admissible to baptism, in the same way
as infants, since they are naturally incapable of any personal preparation.
All who enjoy the use of reason, even children who
have just attained to it, must be instructed, in a manner suited to their age
and capacity, before they are admitted to baptism. The divine command to teach,
and by teaching make disciples, must be fulfilled: the Gospel must be made
known to them: the whole counsel of God must be declared: all things whatsoever
Christ delivered to the Apostles, and the Apostles to the church, must be
propounded; and the assent of faith must be given to all, at least in the
principle by which all are embraced, before they are admitted to the sacred
laver. The mystery of Three Divine Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, under
whose invocation, and by whose authority, baptism is administered, must be in
the first place believed; for it is only in the faith of this Divine Trinity
that sin can be washed away. The Divinity of JESUS CHRIST, our Lord and Redeemer,
must be explicitly professed: “This is eternal life: that they may know Thee,
the only true God, and JESUS CHRIST whom Thou hast sent.” “He that believeth in
the Son hath life everlasting: but he that believeth not the Son, shall not see
life, but the wrath of God abideth on him.” “Neither is there salvation in any
other. For there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be
saved.” Hence full unreserved belief was required by Philip of the eunuch
demanding to be baptized: “If thou believest with thy whole heart, thou mayest:
and he answering said: I believe that JESUS CHRIST is the Son of God.” When the
jailer demanded of his holy prisoners what he should do to secure his
salvation, Paul answered: “Believe in the Lord Jesus:” and Paul and Silas
“spoke the word of the Lord to him, and to all that were in his house.” It was
only on assenting to this teaching, that he and all his family were baptized.
The Samaritans, in like manner, “when they had believed Philip preaching the
kingdom of God, in the name of JESUS CHRIST, men and women were baptized.” This
faith in Christ is the captivity of the understanding in obedience to His
divine authority, and the levelling of every height of human pride that raiseth
itself up against the knowledge of God. It recognizes Christ as the Son of the
living God, to whose declaration of high mysteries every created intellect must
bow. It adores Him as the Only-begotten of the Father, who is in the bosom of
the Father, and has revealed all things whatsoever He learned from the Father
to be communicated to man: and it receives, on His testimony and teaching, all
things whatsoever He revealed. It contemplates Him always present with the
Apostolic ministry, teaching all truth, and by His light, grace, and power, making
the church the pillar and ground of truth.
The practice of scrutiny, or examination, on seven
different days, observed in the primitive church, was grounded on the necessity
of instruction and faith. The catechumen was interrogated as to his belief in
the leading articles of religion, in which he was specially instructed at
stated times: and he was taught the ancient symbol, styled of the Apostles,
which he recited as he approached the laver. In this preparatory process was
literally fulfilled “the examination of a good conscience towards God, by the
resurrection of Jesus Christ.”
The adult applicant for baptism is also required
to pledge himself to the observance of the whole Divine Law; wherefore he is
taught to observe all things whatsoever Christ our Lord commanded. His
obedience, as well as his faith, must be unreserved. He must abjure all that is
contrary to the maxims and law of Christ: he must renounce Satan, his works and
pomps. He must cast away from him all his iniquities whereby he has transgressed,
and, with a new heart and spirit, enter on a course of virtue, conformable to
the standard of the Gospel. The false maxims of the world—the depraved customs
of society—the vices and disorders to which most men are enslaved, must be
forsaken; since he is told that his entrance into life depends on keeping the
divine commandments: “If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.” The
ceremony of renouncing Satan is mentioned by Tertullian and Origen, and
explained in detail by ST. CYRIL, of Jerusalem, in his discourses to neophytes:
“In the first place,” he says, “you entered into the vestibule of the
baptistery, and standing towards the west, you listened, and were ordered to
stretch forth your hand, and you renounced Satan, as if he were present.… You
hear the command given to say with outstretched hand, as if addressing him: I
RENOUNCE THEE, SATAN. In the second formulary you are taught to say: AND ALL
THY WORKS. The works of Satan are all kinds of sin, and must be renounced, as
one fleeing from a tyrant, seeks to be beyond the reach of his weapons. Every
kind of sin is numbered among the works of the devil. And know ye that whatever
you utter in that awful moment is recorded in the book of God. Should you,
then, do any thing to the contrary, you will be condemned as a prevaricator.
You renounce the works of Satan—all thoughts and deeds contrary to reason.
Afterwards you add: AND ALL HIS POMP.”
Sorrow for past offences is a necessary condition
for receiving their forgiveness in baptism. Without it, it is impossible they
should be cancelled. When the Jews “had compunction in their heart, and said to
Peter and to the rest of the Apostles: What shall we do, men brethren?” “Peter
said to them: Do penance, and be baptized.” This implied that they should
cherish the feeling of compunction which they had begun to experience, and weep
over the enormity of their crime. The applicants for the baptism of penance,
which John administered, were wont to testify their compunction by confessing
their sins; and of christian converts we read: “Many of those who believed came
confessing and declaring their deeds.” As an evidence of their sincerity, they
committed to the flames the superstitious writings by which they had been
previously led astray. I do not undertake to decide whether the persons here
spoken of were applicants for baptism, or neophytes: but although sacramental
confession cannot be made previously to baptism, and no kind of confession is
enjoined by divine precept on unbaptized persons, it was certainly a part of
ancient discipline to prepare catechumens for the remission of sins in baptism
by the humiliating exercise of confession, and by penitential works. ST. JUSTIN
mentions fasting: “Such as are persuaded and as believe the truth of the things
taught and said by us, and promise to live after this manner, are instructed to
pray and ask of God, with fasting, the forgiveness of their past offences, and
we unite with them in prayer and fasting.” TERTULLIAN specifies confession:
“Those who are about to receive baptism should prepare themselves by frequent
prayers, fasts, genuflexions, and vigils, accompanied by the confession of all
their past sins, that they may even exhibit the baptism of John. ‘They were
baptized,’ he says, ‘confessing their sins.’ We may feel happy, that we are not
publicly to confess our iniquity, or turpitude. For at the same time we satisfy
for our former offences, by the humiliation of the flesh and of the spirit, and
we fortify ourselves against the temptations that will follow.” ST. GREGORY, of
Nazianzum, exhorts catechumens to confession: “Do not deem it unworthy of you
to confess your sin, knowing how John baptized.” ST. CHRYSOSTOM explains the
end of all these penitential exercises to be, “that after the performance of
penance, they might come to the sacred mysteries.” Although the present
discipline of the church does not require any confession whatever before
baptism, yet it behoves the candidate seriously to review his life, in order to
discover what obligations he may be under, in consequence of past
transgressions—what reparation of injuries is due—what debts of justice are to
be discharged—what reconciliation with enemies is to be sought—and in case of
doubt, to consult confidentially his spiritual adviser. Besides this, he should
review, in the bitterness of his soul, the misspent years of life, and weep
before God for having so long neglected to love and serve Him, and for his many
and grievous sins. It is thus humbled and penitent he can approach with
confidence to the sacred laver: there to be washed, justified, and sanctified
in CHRIST JESUS.
THE essence of baptism consists in an ablution
made with water, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, with a view to
perform the rite instituted by Christ, which is practised in His church. Hence
we say: “I baptize thee, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Ghost.” Every thing else is ritual, or ceremonial, and may be omitted
without injury to the sacrament, although not without sin, in its solemn
administration. It is usual to speak of the simplicity of worship in the
Apostolic age; and were we to admit the usual negative argument as proof,
namely, that which is derived from the silence of the sacred writers of the New
Testament, the primitive worship must have been extremely simple. But we cannot
fail to observe that the Gospels are the compendious history of the life of our
Lord, and could not be expected to furnish details of the worship of the church
after her formal organization and establishment, and that the Epistles are
instructions on specific subjects directed to local churches already organized.
The Acts of the Apostles might be expected to furnish details; but a careful
perusal of them will convince the impartial reader that the sacred historian
had chiefly in view to place on record the chief facts that marked the origin
of the church, and the leading points in the history of St. Paul, his beloved
master. Nothing could be expected in such a book, but indirect or slight
notices of liturgical practices, so that the want of detailed statements does
not warrant the conclusion, that no ceremonies were used in the administration
of baptism.
It is an incontrovertible fact that a variety of
ceremonies employed on this occasion are mentioned by the christian writers of
the second century, and that they are not spoken of, as recently introduced,
but as the established ceremonial, of which the origin is justly referred to
the age of the Apostles. In the baptism of the three thousand first converts,
if it took place on the day of their conversion, as the sacred narrative most
naturally suggests, not many accompanying rites could have been employed. The
eunuch was baptized by Philip, probably without any additional ceremony,
although conjecture is free on this point: but at a very early period of the
church, much time was devoted to prepare catechumens for baptism, and a great
variety of rites were used for that purpose. The form prescribed in the Roman
Ritual, and used by us, far from being encumbered with modern rites foreign to
ancient simplicity, is a very brief compendium of the solemn ceremonial, which
was performed at stated intervals preparatory to baptism. Seven scrutinies
preceded the administration of this sacrament on Easter Saturday; three of them
were made on Monday, Wednesday, and Saturday of the third week of Lent; three
others on the same days of the fourth week, and the last on Easter Saturday
itself, immediately before the ablution. Three scrutinies only were made
previous to solemn baptism on the Saturday before Pentecost; one a week before,
the second on Thursday, and the third on the day of baptism.
The questions which the priest now puts to the
candidate, are taken from the ancient form of scrutiny, and are directed to
ascertain the object had in view by him, which should be no other than his
eternal salvation: “What dost thou ask of the church of God? Faith. What doth
faith procure thee? Life everlasting.” The questions concerning the
renunciation of Satan, and all his works and pomps, and the belief in the Three
Divine Persons, and in the Holy Catholic Church, were proposed in the ancient
scrutinies in the precise terms used at this day. They were repeated at each
scrutiny, the better to test the sincerity and fixed resolution of the
catechumen; and the Apostolic symbol was likewise recited.
The propriety of these questions when addressed to
adults is obvious: but it surprises some, that they should be used in the case
of infants, who cannot answer, or understand the reply made in their name by
their sponsors. The reason of this practice is to preserve a correspondence in
the rite of baptizing adults and infants, and to express the conditions on
which baptism is imparted, so that on coming to the use of reason the child may
learn at once his obligations and his privileges. “Not from perversity of
will,” says ST. AUGUSTIN, “but from the incapacity of age, they can neither
believe with the heart unto justice, nor confess with the mouth unto salvation.
Therefore, when others answer for them, that the solemnity of the sacrament may
be celebrated in their regard, it certainly serves to consecrate them, since
they themselves cannot answer.” They are justly styled believers, because they,
as it were, profess the faith, by the words of those who present them.” The
custom of using sponsors for this purpose is most ancient: and although they
stood forward to vouch for the sincerity and fidelity of adult candidates, it
is clear from Tertullian that they were also used in the baptism of infants.
The responsibility which they contract, in answering for the infant, is among
the reasons which he offers to induce the delay of baptism.
The breathing thrice on the face of catechumens is
an ancient rite mentioned by the first council of Constantinople. It is
likewise mentioned in a manuscript of above a thousand years antiquity. It is
accompanied by words which attest the faith of the church, that all unbaptized
persons are under the power of darkness, and that in baptism the Holy Spirit
regenerates the soul unto life. “Go forth unclean spirit from her, and give
place to the Holy Ghost the Paraclete.” St. Augustin speaks of the rite, and
proves from it original sin against the Pelagians. He states, that “it is not
since the rise of the pestilence of Manicheism, that it has become customary in
the church of God, to exorcise infants and breathe on them, to show, by the
mysteries themselves, that they cannot be transferred to the kingdom of Christ,
unless they be delivered from the power of darkness.” Those who feel disposed
to ridicule this significant rite, should remember its high antiquity, and its
reference to the mysterious action whereby the mould of clay was first
quickened into life, and to the breathing of our Lord on His Apostles, to
express the communication of the Holy Ghost.
The sign of the cross was also made on the
forehead, and on the breast, as appears from the ancient manuscript above
referred to, and the rite was accompanied with these words: “Receive the sign
of the cross on thy forehead, and on thy heart: be always faithful.” In the
sacramental work attributed to Pope Gelasius, to the last words these are
substituted: “take the faith of the heavenly commandments: and be such in thy
morals that thou mayst be the temple of God.” This is the form now used. St.
Augustin, in several places, speaks of the catechumen as receiving the sign of
the cross in the rites preparatory for baptism: “he bears the cross of Christ
already on his forehead, and he is not ashamed of the cross of the Lord.” “It
was a noble thing,” observes Wall, “that they designed by this badge of the
cross. It was to declare that they would not be ashamed of the cross of Christ,
never be abashed at the flouts of the heathens, who objected to them that the person
in whom they trusted as their God, had been executed for a malefactor; never be
scandalized, if it came to be their fortune to suffer it themselves.”
The imposition of hands with prayer was also used
in the reception of catechumens, as we learn from St. Augustin: “Sanctification
is not of one kind only, for I think that even the catechumens are in some
measure sanctified by the sign of the cross and the prayer of the imposition of
hands.” Constantine was thus received into the number of catechumens. To this
corresponds the rite now performed, to signify that the candidate is devoted to
God. The rite itself is familiar to all that have read the New Testament, and
is adopted for far higher purposes in the sacraments of confirmation and holy
orders.
The blessing of the salt, and the words pronounced
in giving it, are the same as in the sacramental book ascribed to Gregory the
Great. The ceremony naturally reminds us, that we are to be “the salt of the
earth,” by our wisdom in Christ, and that our “speech should be always in
grace, seasoned with salt.”
The exorcisms, or adjurations of the demon, are of
high antiquity, since their use was so firmly established throughout the whole
church in the days of St. Augustin, that he proved thereby the ancient faith
concerning original sin. He calls “the tradition of the church most ancient,”
“by which children are exorcised and breathed on, that being rescued from the
power of darkness; that is, of the devil and his angels, they may be
transferred to the kingdom of Christ.” Wall strangely mistakes the meaning of
the exorcisms when he says: “The requiring these obligations of the baptized
person, was called the exorcising him, or putting him to his oath.” The
reaching of the stole to the candidate, with an invitation to enter into the
church, is an ancient rite, performed after several preparatory ceremonies, as
the catechumen was led by the bishop, or priest, to the font. It is as
expressive as it is simple. By baptism, those who were afar off, come near, and
being admitted into the church on earth, receive a title to the everlasting
kingdom.
The recital of the Apostolic symbol and the Lord’s
prayer immediately follows. These were explained to the catechumens in the
primitive church on distinct days, and were recited by them after a proper
interval: the symbol in some places on holy Thursday, the Lord’s prayer on holy
Saturday. The creed has been in use from a very early period of the church. St.
Irenӕus seems to make reference to it: as also Tertullian. The marking of
the ears and nostrils with saliva, and the pronouncing of the Syriac word:
“EPHPHETA,” be thou opened, are spoken of by St. Ambrose, and their mystical
signification explained. Addressing the Neophytes, he says: “Open, then, your
ears, and take the good odour of eternal life which you have inhaled through
the sacraments, as we signified to you, when celebrating the mystery of the
opening, we said to you: ‘Epheta, that is, be opened:’ that each one coming
forward to baptismal grace, might understand the questions put to him, and
remember the answers which he should make. Christ celebrated this mystery, as
we read in the gospel, when he cured the deaf and dumb man.” The reference of
the rite to the mysterious actions of our Redeemer, in the cure of the deaf and
dumb man, and of the blind men, whose eyes he touched with clay mixed with
spittle, is sufficiently obvious. The pronouncing of the very word which fell
from his divine lips, in the very language in which he uttered it, cannot but
recall to our minds the miraculous cure of the deaf man, effected by it; whilst
it teaches us that our ears also are to be opened to the truths of eternal
life. The marking of the nostrils “for an odour of sweetness,” instructs us
that we are to be drawn by divine grace to run after the odour of his
ointments, and to become “the good odour of Christ,” by our edifying conduct.
God is represented as breathing into the nostrils of the first man the breath
of life; and holy Job expresses his determination to avoid sin to the end by
saying: “As long as breath remaineth in me, and the Spirit of God in my
nostrils, my lips shall not speak iniquity, neither shall my tongue contrive
lying.”
The anointing of the breast and shoulders with
oil, is a very ancient rite in the Roman church: the Greeks make the unction of
the whole body. The book of sacraments, ascribed to St. Gregory the Great,
makes mention of it, as well as several other Liturgical books of high
authority. St. Cyril, of Jerusalem, speaks of the unction of the whole body,
and St. John Chrysostom observes, that the catechumen is anointed like the
wrestlers before entering on the arena, that he may struggle successfully
against his spiritual enemy. The Latin rite also has an apt signification, that
“in the unction of the breast and shoulder, the firmness of faith and
perseverance in good works may be designated.” The grace of the Holy Spirit is
expressed in the Scriptures by unction: “his unction teacheth us of all
things.”* Anglican writers admit the antiquity of the rite.†
It was the custom at Rome for the catechumens to
repeat the symbol from a high place. St. Augustin informs us of Victorinus, a
celebrated Roman rhetorician, who, having become convinced of the truth of
Christianity, for a time postponed the public profession of it, but at length,
disregarding all human considerations, sought for baptism, and declining to
avail himself of the indulgence offered him by the priests, to make his
profession secretly, ascended the platform, and there, in the presence of the
faithful, recited aloud the Apostolic symbol, to the amazement of his pagan
friends and admirers, and to the unspeakable edification and joy of all the
faithful. “As he made his appearance on the rostrum, there was a suppressed
expression of joy, one whispering to another, VICTORINUS, VICTORINUS. Their
exultation at seeing him was quickly manifested, and silence immediately
ensued, through eagerness to hear him. With admirable composure he pronounced
the symbol of the true faith: and all eagerly desired to press him to their
heart.”
“Afterwards,” says St. Cyril, addressing the
Neophytes, “you were led to the holy font of baptism, as Christ from the cross
to the sepulchre. And each of you was asked, if he believes in the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: and you made a saving confession
of faith, and you went down thrice into the water, and came up from it thrice:
and then you enigmatically represented the burial of Christ during three days.
At the same moment you died, and were born, and the saving water was at once
your tomb, and your mother.… O! strange and wonderful event! We did not die in
reality; we were not really buried; we did not undergo a real crucifixion, to
rise again: but an image of these things was exhibited, and salvation was
really imparted.”
The catechumens, whether male or female, descended
into the font without the least covering: “As soon as you entered,” says St.
Cyril, “you laid aside your mantle, which was a symbol of putting off the old
man with his acts. You were stript, you were naked, imitating in this respect
CHRIST exposed naked on the cross: who, by that exposure, stripped
principalities and powers, and on the wood gloriously triumphed over them.
Since the adverse powers lurked within your members, you can no longer wear that
old garment: I mean not that which is seen, but the old man who is corrupted in
deceitful desires. May it never be put on again by a soul that has once cast it
away: but may she say, with the spouse of Christ, in the Canticle of Canticles:
‘I have put off my garment: how shall I put it on?’ O! amazing thing! you were
naked in the sight of all, and you were not ashamed. Truly you bore the image
of your first parent Adam, who was naked, and was not ashamed.” Although this
rite has ceased with the use of immersion, it were rash to condemn what was
once sanctioned by the practice of the church, as it would be unjust to judge
generally of the usages of ancient times, by the standard of modern sentiment
and feeling.
As the Neophytes ascended from the font, they were
received by their sponsors, who threw large white sheets around them. The
bishop afterwards gave them a white garment, emblematic of the innocence which
they had received in Christ, and bade them carry it without stain before His
tribunal. The same address is still made, when the white cloth is laid on the
head of the infant, or when the adult in solemn baptism is clothed in a white
robe.
St. Ambrose speaks of the white garments wherewith
the Neophyte was clothed: “You received afterwards white robes in token of your
having cast off the mantle of sin, and put on the chaste veil of innocence, of
which the prophet said: ‘Thou shalt sprinkle me with hyssop, and I shall be
cleansed: thou shalt wash me, and I shall be made whiter than snow.’ He that is
baptized appears to be cleansed according to the law and the gospel: according
to the law, since Moses with a bunch of hyssop made an aspersion of the blood
of a lamb: according to the gospel, since the garments of Christ were white as
snow, when He manifested the glory of his resurrection, in the gospel. He also
whose sins are forgiven is whiter than snow: wherefore the Lord says by Isaiah:
‘If your sins be red as scarlet, I will make you white as snow.’ “ It is
thought by some that the ceremony of laying a white cloth on the head, may have
more direct reference to the chrismal bandage formerly used, through reverence
of the chrism wherewith the crown of the head had been anointed.
The unction with sacred chrism on the crown of the
head, immediately after baptism, is mentioned in several ancient Liturgical and
Ritual books. The prayer which we use is found in an ancient Sacramentary of
the Roman church. It is also found, almost word for word, in the work on the
Sacraments, ascribed by some to St. Ambrose. Tertullian mentions the ceremony:
“Having come forth from the laver, we are anointed with blessed unction,
according to the ancient rite, whereby they were to be anointed for the
priesthood by oil from a horn.” The anointing of the head signifies the wisdom which
we have in Christ, who is to be our crown and happiness, as it is explained by
St. Ambrose, from whom it appears that the unction flowed freely: “Consider
what followed. Was not that done of which David spoke? ‘Like the ointment on
the head, which ran down on the beard, the beard of Aaron.’ Understand why this
is done, because the eyes of a wise man are in his head: it flows down on the
beard, for the sake of the young, on the beard of Aaron, that you may become a
chosen, priestly precious race: for we are all anointed with the spiritual
grace of the kingdom and priesthood of God.”
Protestant writers for the most part confound the
unction after baptism with the rite which we call the sacrament of
confirmation, and contend that this was originally no more than a ceremony
annexed to baptism. It is certain that on many occasions the confirmatory
unction was performed at that time, in order to perfect the Christian
character: but its distinction from the mere rite of anointing the crown of the
head, is apparent from the importance given it by St. Cyril, who compares it
even with the Eucharist, and from its separation in many instances from
baptism: wherefore it was customary for bishops to travel, in order to confirm
those who had been baptized by priests or deacons.
The light placed in the hand of the Neophyte is
mentioned by St. Gregory of Nazianzum, and is explained of the light of faith
and works, with which the soul is to prepare for meeting the heavenly spouse,
like the wise virgins.
Thus all the rites which are used in the
administration of baptism are full of signification, and are derived from
venerable antiquity. Some of them, such as the interrogations, exorcisms,
imposition of hands, signing with the cross, and unctions, may, without
temerity, be considered of Apostolic origin. To censure them, would be to
condemn the whole Christian church in the earliest and brightest ages, and,
indirectly at least, the Apostles themselves, to whom they may be fairly
ascribed.
THE wise Solomon, distinguishing the times for
the various affairs of life, and assigning to each one what is suitable, said:
“There is a time for all, and a time for every thing; a time to be born, and a
time to die.” But, making a slight change in the sentence of the wise man, in
proclaiming to you the saving Gospel, I say to you; there is a time to die, and
a time to be born. What reason is there for this inversion? Solomon treating of
birth and dissolution, in conformity with the nature of bodies, spoke of birth
before death, (for it is impossible to die without being born): but as I am
about to treat of spiritual regeneration, I place death before life: since it
is by dying to the flesh, that we come to be born in the Spirit; as even the
Lord says: “I will kill, and I will make to live.” Let us then die, that we may
live. Let us mortify the carnal feeling, which cannot be subject to the law of
God, that a strong spiritual affection may arise in us, through which we may
enjoy life and peace. Let us be buried together with Christ, who died for us,
that we may arise again with Him, who proffers new life to us. For other
matters there is a time peculiarly appropriate: a time for sleeping and for
waking, a time for war and for peace: but the whole period of man’s life is the
time for baptism. For as the body cannot live unless it breathe: neither can
the soul live unless she know the Creator: for ignorance of God is death to the
soul: and he that is not baptized, is not enlightened; and without light neither
can the eye perceive sensible objects, nor the soul contemplate God. All time,
then, is opportune to receive salvation through baptism—night or day, hour or
minute, even the least conceivable space of time. But it is just to regard as
more suitable, the time which is more nearly connected with it: and what time
is more closely connected with baptism than Easter day, since the day itself is
a memorial of the resurrection, and baptism is the powerful means for our
resurrection? On resurrection day, then, let us receive the grace by which we
rise again. On this account the Church with a loud voice calls from afar her
catechumens, that as she already has conceived them, she may at length usher
them into life, and weaning them from the milk of catechetical instruction,
give them to taste of the solid food of her dogmas. John preached a baptism of
penance, and all Judea went forth to him: the Lord proclaims a baptism whereby
we are adopted as children; and which of those who hope in Him, will refuse to
obey his call? That baptism was introductory: this is perfective: that
separated from sin: this unites with God. The preaching of John was of one man,
and he drew all to penance: and thou, instructed by the prophets: “Wash
yourselves: be clean:”—admonished by the Psalmist: “Come ye to Him, and be
enlightened:”—having the joyful proclamation of the Apostles: “Do penance and
be baptized, every one of you, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, for the
remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost:”—invited
by the Lord Himself, who says: “Come to me all you that labour and are
burdened, and I will refresh you:” (for all these passages have occurred in
to-day’s lesson)—thou, I say, tarriest, and hesitatest, and puttest off.
Although instructed in the divine word from thy infancy, hast thou not yet
yielded to truth? always learning, hast thou not yet attained unto knowledge?
through life an inquirer, a seeker even to old age, when wilt thou become a
Christian? when shall we recognize thee as our own? Last year thou didst await
the present time, and now again thou puttest off to a future season. Take care
that thy promises extend not beyond the term of thy life. Thou knowest not what
the morrow will bring forth. Do not make promises concerning things not subject
to thy control. We call thee, O man, to life: why dost thou shun the call? We
invite thee to partake of blessings: why dost thou disregard the gift? The
kingdom of heaven lies open to thee: he that invites thee cannot deceive: the
path is easy: there is no need of length of time, of expense, of toil: why dost
thou delay? why dost thou refuse? why dost thou fear the yoke, as a heifer that
never has borne it? It is sweet: it is light: it does not hurt the neck; but it
ornaments it: it is not a yoke put on forcibly: it must be cheerfully assumed.
Dost thou perceive that Ephraim is styled a wanton heifer, because, spurning
the yoke of the Law, she wanders far away? Bend then thy stubborn neck: submit
to the yoke of Christ, lest rejecting the yoke, and leading a loose life, thou
become an easy prey to wild beasts. “O taste and see that the Lord is sweet.”
How shall I make those who know it not, sensible of the sweetness of honey?
“Taste and see.” Experience is more convincing than any reasoning. The Jew does
not delay circumcision, being mindful of the threat, that “every soul that is
not circumcised on the eighth day, shall be destroyed out of her people:” and
thou delayest the circumcision—not that which is made by hands, in the
stripping of the flesh, but that which is accomplished in baptism, whilst thou
hearest the Lord Himself: “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless a man be born of
water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” And in that
ceremony pain was endured, and an ulcer was caused: but in this the soul is
refreshed with heavenly dew, and the ulcers of the heart are healed. Dost thou
adore Him who died for thee? Suffer then thyself to be buried with him by
baptism. Unless thou be planted together with him in the likeness of his death,
how wilt thou become partner in his resurrection? Israel was baptized in Moses
in the cloud, and in the sea, presenting therein types for thy instruction, and
sensibly exhibiting the truth which was to be shown in the latter days: and
thou shunnest baptism, not as typified in the sea, but really perfected: not in
the cloud, but in the Spirit: not in Moses, a fellow-servant, but in Christ,
our Creator. Had not Israel passed the sea, he would not have escaped Pharao;
and if thou pass not through the water, thou wilt not be delivered from the sad
tyranny of the devil. Israel would not have drunk of the spiritual rock, had he
not been typically baptized: nor will any give thee true drink, unless thou be
truly baptized. He ate the bread of angels after baptism; and how wilt thou eat
the LIVING BREAD, unless thou receive baptism previously? He entered into the
land of promise, on account of his baptism: how canst thou enter into paradise,
if thou be not sealed by baptism? Dost thou not know, that an angel with a
flaming sword is placed to guard the way to the tree of life—an awful and
burning sword for unbelievers; but easily approached, and shining with mild
radiance to believers? For according to the will of the Lord it turns: and its
glittering side is presented to the faithful: its burning edge to the unsealed.
Elias was not terrified at the sight of the
chariot of fire, and the fiery steeds approaching him: but eager to ascend on
high, he dared to mount the awful seat; and whilst yet in mortal flesh, he joyfully
took the reins, to guide the flaming chariot: whilst thou hesitatest, not to
mount a fiery vehicle, but to ascend into heaven through water and Spirit. Why
not rather run to obey the call? Elias showed the power of baptism on the altar
of holocausts, having consumed the victim, not by fire, but by water: although
the nature of fire is most opposed to water. When the water, with mysterious
significance, was for the third time poured out on the altar, the fire began,
and it blazed up as if fed by oil. “And he said: Fill four buckets with water,
and pour it upon the burnt offering, and upon the wood. And again he said: Do
the same the second time. And when they had done it the second time, he said:
Do the same also the third time: and they did so the third time.” The Scripture
hereby shows, that through baptism, he that approaches to God, is admitted into
his household; and that a pure and heavenly light, through faith in the
Trinity, shines forth in the souls of those who approach Him. If I were distributing
the gold of the Church, thou wouldst not say to me: “I shall come to-morrow,
and to-morrow thou wilt give me some:” but at the present time, thou wouldst
press for thy portion, and unwillingly bear to be put off. Now that the
munificent Lord offers thee, not coloured earth, but purity of soul, thou
framest excuses, thou numberest over many causes of delay, instead of running
to receive the gift. O! strange thing! thou mayest be renovated without being
put in the crucible: thou mayest be formed anew, without being broken in
pieces: thou mayest be healed without suffering pain: and still thou dost not
value the favor. If thou wast the servant of men, and freedom were offered to
slaves, wouldst thou not hasten at the appointed time, and engage advocates, and
implore the judges, that by every possible means thy freedom should be
obtained? Yea, thou wouldst submit willingly to the blow given for the last
time, that thou mightst thenceforward be free from stripes. Now the divine
herald calls thee to freedom, slave as thou art, not of men, but of sin; that
he may free thee from bondage, and make thee a fellow citizen of the Angels,
and even, by grace, an adopted child of God, heir of the blessings of Christ:
yet thou allegest that thou hast not time to receive these gifts. O! wretched
impediments! base and endless occupations! How long, then, must pleasures be
sought after? How long must passion be indulged? We surely have lived long
enough for the world: let us live henceforth for ourselves. What is equal in value
to our soul? What can be compared with the kingdom of heaven? What adviser
should be listened to in preference to God? Who is more prudent than the
All-wise? Who is more useful than He, who alone is good? Who is nearer to us
than our Creator? Eve gained nothing by hearkening to the suggestions of the
serpent, rather than to the command of God. O! senseless words! I have not time
to get cured: let me not yet see the light: do not yet present me to the King.
Dost thou not speak plainly to this effect, nay, still more absurdly? If thou
wert loaded with debts to the treasury, and a reduction of the claim were
offered to the public creditors, and some one should maliciously attempt to
deprive thee of the benefit proffered to all, thou wouldst be angry with him,
and exclaim against him as interfering with thy right to a share of the general
indulgence. And now that not only the pardon of past debts, but gifts for the
time to come are proclaimed, thou dost thyself an injury which no enemy of
thine could inflict, and imaginest that thou hast suitably provided for
thyself, and adopted wise measures, by neglecting to accept forgiveness, and
continuing unto death laden with sins. Yet thou knowest that even he who owed
ten thousand talents, would have been entirely forgiven, had he not provoked
the severity of his creditor by his inhumanity towards his fellow-servant. We
must also take care, that the same happen not to us, if, after obtaining grace,
we pardon not our debtors; which is required of us that the gift bestowed, may
be perpetually preserved.
Enter into the recesses of thy conscience: refresh
thy memory. If thy sins be numerous, do not despair on account of their
multitude: for where sin hath abounded, grace will abound more, if thou wilt
but accept grace: to him who owes much, much also will be forgiven, that he may
love the more. But if thy faults be trivial and venial, and not to the death of
thy soul, why art thou anxious about what may befall thee hereafter, whilst
thou hast hitherto lived without reproach, although thou wert not as yet
instructed in the law of Christ? Consider thy soul as now placed in a scale,
drawn to one side by the angels, to the other by demons. To which of them wilt
thou give the affections of thy heart? What shall prevail with thee? the
pleasures of the flesh, or the sanctification of the Spirit? present enjoyment,
or the desire of future happiness? Shall the angels receive thee; or shall
those who hold thee now, continue to hold thee fast? When preparing for battle
the generals give a watchword to the soldiers, that they may the more easily
call on one another for assistance, and recognize one another, should they be
mixed up with others in the conflict. No one can know whether thou belongest to
us, or to our adversaries, if thou manifest not thy brotherhood by mystic
signs, if the light of the countenance of the Lord be not signed upon thee. How
can the angel claim thee? how can he rescue thee from the enemy, unless he
recognize the seal? how shalt thou say: ‘I am of God:’ if thou bear not the
mark? Dost thou not know that the destroying angel passed by the houses that
were marked with blood, whilst he slew the first born in those that were not
marked? A treasure unsealed is easily laid hold of by robbers; a sheep without
a mark is carried away with impunity.
Art thou young? secure thy youth against vice, by
the restraint which baptism imposes. Has the vigor of life passed away? Do not
neglect the necessary provision for thy journey: do not lose thy protection: do
not consider the eleventh hour, as if it were the first; since it even behoves
him who is beginning life, to have death before his eyes. If a physician should
promise thee, by certain arts and devices, to change thee from an old to a
young man, wouldst thou not eagerly desire the day to arrive on which thou
wouldst find thy youthful vigor restored? Nevertheless, whilst baptism promises
to restore to her pristine vigor thy soul, which thy iniquities have brought to
decrepitude, and covered with wrinkles and defilements, thou despisest thy
benefactor, instead of hastening to receive the proffered boon. Art thou
without any solicitude to witness the miraculous change which is promised—how
one grown old, and wasted away by corrupting passions, can bud forth anew, and
blossom, and attain to the true bloom of youth? Baptism is the ransom of
captives, the remission of debts, the death of sin, the regeneration of the
soul, the robe of light, the seal which cannot be broken, the chariot to
heaven, the means to attain the kingdom, the gift of adoption. Dost thou think
that pleasure is preferable to these and such like blessings? I know the cause
of thy delay, although thou cloakest it with various pretexts. The things
themselves cry out, although thou art silent. ‘Suffer me to use the flesh for
shameful enjoyments, to wallow in the mire of pleasures, to imbrue my hands in
blood, to plunder the property of others, to act deceitfully, to perjure, to
lie; and then I shall receive baptism, when I shall cease from sin.’ If sin be
good, persevere in it to the end: if it be hurtful to the sinner, why dost thou
continue in pernicious pursuits? No one that wishes to get rid of bile, should
increase it by hurtful and intemperate indulgence: for the body must be cleared
of what injures it, and nothing done to increase the power of disease. A ship
keeps above water as long as it can bear the weight of its cargo: when
overloaded it sinks. Thou shouldst dread lest the like befall thee, and that
thy sins being exceedingly great, thou suffer shipwreck, before thou reach the
hoped for haven. Does not God see all that is done? Does He not perceive thy
secret thoughts? or does He co-operate in thy iniquities? “Thou thoughtest
unjustly,” He says, “that I shall be like to thee.” When thou seekest the
friendship of a mortal man, thou enticest him by kind offices, saying and doing
such things as thou knowest will please him: but wishing to be united with God,
and hoping to be adopted as a son, whilst thou dost things hateful to God, and
dishonorest Him by the transgression of His law, dost thou imagine to obtain
His friendship by the things which are particularly offensive to Him? Take
care, lest multiplying evils in the hope of being ransomed, thou increase sin,
and miss pardon. ‘God is not mocked!’ Do not traffic away grace. Pleasure is
the devil’s hook, dragging us to ruin: pleasure is the mother of sin: and sin
is the centre of death. Pleasure is the food of the everlasting worm; for a
while its enjoyment delights: but its fruits are more bitter than gall. Delay is
equivalent to saying: ‘Let sin first reign in me: afterwards the Lord shall
reign. I will yield my members as instruments of iniquity unto sin: afterwards
I shall present them as instruments of justice unto God.’ Thus also Cain
offered up sacrifices, reserving the best things for his own enjoyment, and
giving those of an inferior kind to God, the Creator and Benefactor. Because
thou art strong, thou wastest away thy youth in sin. When thy limbs shall be
worn out, then thou wilt offer them to God, because thou canst no longer use
them, but must lie by, their vigor being destroyed by inveterate disease.
Continence in old age is not strictly continence, but incapacity of indulgence.
A dead man is not crowned: no man is just merely because unable to commit wrong.
Whilst thou hast strength, subject sin to reason: for virtue consists in this,
to decline from evil and do good. Mere cessation from evil of itself is worthy
neither of praise nor of censure. If, on account of advanced age, thou cease to
do evil, it is the consequence of infirmity. We praise such as are good from
choice, and such as necessity withdraws from sin. Moreover, who has marked out
for thee the limit of life? who has defined for thee the length of old age? who
is the surety on which thou reliest for what is to befall thee? Dost thou not
see infants snatched away, and others in the age of manhood carried off? Life
has no fixed boundary. Why dost thou await that baptism should be for thee as a
gift brought by a fever? Wilt thou wait until thou shalt not be able to utter
the saving words, and scarcely to hear them distinctly, thy malady having its
seat in thy head? Thou wilt not be able to raise thy hands to heaven, or to
stand on thy feet, or to bend thy knee in adoration, or to receive suitable instruction,
or to confess accurately, or to enter into covenant with God, or to renounce
the enemy; probably not even to follow the sacred minister in the mystic rites;
so that the by-standers may doubt whether thou perceivest the grace, or art
unconscious of what is done, and if even thou receivest the grace, with
consciousness, thou hast but the talent, without the increase.
Imitate the eunuch. He found an instructor on the
road, and he did not spurn instruction; but although he was a rich man, he
caused the poor man to mount into his chariot: a grand and splendid courtier
placed at his side a private individual, on whom others would look with
contempt: and when he had learned the gospel of the kingdom, he embraced the
faith with his heart, and did not delay to receive the seal of the Spirit. For
when they drew nigh to a stream, ‘behold,’ he says, ‘here is water:’ thus
showing his great joy: behold what is required: what prevents me from being
baptized? Where the will is ready, there is no obstacle: for He that calls us,
loves mankind, the minister is at hand, and the grace is abundant. Let the
desire be sincere, and every obstacle will vanish. There is only one to hinder
us, he who blocks up the path of salvation, but whom by prudence we can
overcome. He causes us to tarry: let us rise to the work: he deludes us by vain
promises: let us not be ignorant of his devices. For does he not suggest to
commit sin to-day, and persuade us to defer justice till the morrow? Wherefore
the Lord, to defeat his perverse suggestions, says to us: ‘To-day, if you hear
my voice.’ He says: to-day for me: to-morrow for God. The Lord cries out:
‘To-day hear my voice.’ mark the enemy: he does not dare counsel us utterly to
abandon God, (for he knows that this were shocking to Christians,) but by
fraudulent stratagems he attempts to effect his purpose. He is cunning in evil
doing: he perceives that we live for the present time, and all our actions
regard it. Stealing from us, then, artfully to-day, he leaves us to hope for
to-morrow. Then when the morrow comes, the wicked distributer of time appears
again, claiming the day for himself, and leaving the morrow to the Lord: and
thus perpetually, by using the bait of pleasure to secure for himself the
present time, and proposing the future to our hopes, he takes us out of life by
surprise.
I once witnessed a stratagem of a bird. Her young
ones being easy to be taken, she threw herself before them, as a ready prey to
the fowlers, and fluttering in view of them, she neither could be caught, nor yet
did she leave them without hope of catching her: and having in various ways
deluded their expectations, keeping them intent on her, and afforded to her
young ones the chance of flight, at length she herself flew away. Fear lest
thou also be deceived in like manner, since thou preferrest uncertain hope to
the certain opportunity of present good. Come, then, at once, to me: devote
thyself entirely to the Lord: give in thy name: be enrolled in the list of the
church. The soldier’s name is enrolled: the champion enters on the combat,
after his name has been inscribed on the lists: a naturalized citizen is
registered on the city books. By all these titles thou art bound to give in thy
name, as a soldier of Christ, a champion of piety, and one who aspires to citizenship
in heaven. Have it inscribed on this book, that it may be inscribed above.
Learn, be instructed in the evangelical discipline,—restraint of the eyes,
government of the tongue, the subduing of the body, lowliness of mind, purity
of heart, annihilation of pride. When constrained to do any thing, add
cheerfully something to what is exacted: when despoiled of thy property, do not
have recourse to litigation: repay hatred by love: when persecuted, forbear:
when insulted, entreat. Be dead to sin: be crucified together with Christ: fix
thy whole affection on the Lord. But these things are difficult: what good
thing is easy? Who ever raised a trophy whilst asleep: who ever, whilst
indulging in luxury and music, was adorned with the crowns of valor? No one,
without running, can gain the prize: brave struggles merit glory: combats win
crowns. “Through many tribulations we must enter into the kingdom of heaven:”
but the beatitude of the heavenly kingdom succeeds these tribulations: whilst
the pain and sorrow of hell follow the labors of sin. If any one consider it
attentively, he will find that not even the works of the devil are performed by
the workers of iniquity without toil. What exertion does continence require?
The voluptuous man, on the contrary, is exhausted by indulgence. Does
continence diminish our strength in a like degree as detestable and unbridled
passion wastes it away? Sleepless nights are, indeed, passed by those who
devote themselves to vigils and prayers; but how much more wearisome are the
nights of such as are wakeful for iniquity? The fear of detection, and the
anxiety for indulgence, utterly take away all rest. If, fleeing the narrow path
which leads to salvation, thou pursue the broad way of sin, I fear lest
continuing on it to the end, thou come to an inn suitable to the road.
But thou wilt say: the treasure is hard to be
guarded. Be vigilant, then, brother: thou hast aids, if thou wilt—prayer as a
night sentinel—fasting a house guard—psalmody a guide of thy soul. Take these
along with thee: they will keep watch with thee, to guard thy precious
treasures. Tell me, which is it better to be rich, and anxiously to guard our
wealth, or not to have any thing to preserve? No one, through fear of being
despoiled of his property, abandons it altogether. If men in each of their
pursuits considered the misfortunes that may ensue, all human enterprise would
cease. Agriculture is liable to the failure of the crops: shipwreck may defeat
commerce: widowhood may soon follow marriage: orphanage may prevent the
education of children. We, however, embark in each undertaking, cherishing the
fairest hopes, and committing the realizing of them to God, who regulates all
things. But thou professest to venerate holiness, whilst in reality thou
continuest among the reprobate. See, lest thou hereafter repent of evil
counsels, when thy repentance may be of no avail. Let the example of the
virgins serve as an admonition. Not having oil in their lamps, when they had to
enter with the bridegroom into the nuptial chamber, they perceived that they
were without the necessary provision: wherefore the Scripture styled them
foolish, because, in going about to purchase, having spent the time in which
the oil was wanted, they were, contrary to their expectations, shut out from the
wedding. Take care, lest putting off from year to year, from month to month,
from day to day, and not taking with thee oil to nourish thy lamp, the day at
length arrive to which thou dost not look forward, when it will be impossible
to live any longer. There will be distress on all sides, and inconsolable
affliction, the physicians having tried every remedy to no purpose, and thy
friends having lost hope. Thy breathing will be dry and difficult: a violent
fever will burn and inflame thy interior: thou wilt heave deep sighs, and find
no sympathy. Thou wilt utter something in low and feeble accents, and no one
will hear thee: every thing uttered by thee will be considered raving. Who will
give thee baptism then? Who will remind thee of it, when thou wilt be plunged
in deep lethargy? Thy relatives are disheartened: strangers care not; the
friend hesitates to remind thee, fearing to disturb thee: or perhaps even the
physician deceives thee, and thou hast not lost hope, being deceived by the
natural love of life. It is night, and there is no attendant at hand: there is
no one to baptize thee. Death is impending: the demons seek to carry thee off.
Who will rescue thee? God, whom thou hast spurned? But He will hear thee:
forsooth thou now dost hearken to Him! Will He give thee a respite? thou hast
made so good use of the time already given thee!
Let no one deceive himself by vain words: for
sudden destruction will rush upon thee, and a storm of vengeance will overwhelm
thee. The angel sorrowful will come, and will force and drag away precipitately
thy soul, bound fast in sin, attached strongly to the things of life, and
mourning without power of utterance, the organ of lamentation being closed. O!
how thou wilt be ready to tear thyself in pieces! how thou wilt sigh! In vain
thou wilt repent for thy omissions, in compliance with evil suggestions, when
thou shalt see the joy of the just, at the splendid distribution of divine
gifts, and the sorrow of sinners in profound darkness. What wilt thou say,
then, in the anguish of thy heart? Alas! that I have neglected to cast away
this heavy load of sin, when it was so easy to rid myself of it, and that I
have drawn down on me this weight of woes! Alas! that I washed not away my
stains, but remained defiled by sin! I should have been now with the angels of
God! I should have been enjoying the delights of heaven. O! perverse counsels.
For the temporary joy of sin, I am tormented for eternity! for the pleasure of
the flesh, I am delivered over to fire! The judgment of God is just. I was
called; and did not obey: I was instructed; and I did not pay attention: they
besought me; and I scoffed at them. Such are the reflections thou wilt make,
bewailing thy lot, if thou be snatched away without baptism. O! man, either
fear hell, or aim at the kingdom: do not disregard the call. Do not say: Hold
me excused, for this or that reason. There can be no semblance of excuse. I am
moved to tears, when I reflect that thou preferrest shameful actions to the
great glory of God: and clinging to sin, thou deprivest thyself of the promised
blessings, so that thou mayst not see the good things of the heavenly
Jerusalem. There are myriads of angels, the church of the first born, the
thrones of Apostles, the chairs of prophets, the sceptres of patriarchs, the
crowns of martyrs, the choirs of just. Conceive the desire to be enrolled with
them, being washed, and sanctified by the gift of Christ: to whom be glory and
power for endless ages. Amen.”
THE Catholic Church holds that confirmation is a
real and proper sacrament, of which the Bishop is the ordinary minister; and
she anathematizes whosoever says, that to ascribe any virtue to the sacred
chrism of Confirmation, is to offer an insult to the Holy Ghost. Most modern
sects entirely reject this sacrament. The Mormons pretend that by the
imposition of hands miraculous powers are given among them. Calvin endeavored
to account for the solemn rite of the ancient Church, which he could not deny,
by saying that it was no more than a catechetical exercise, it having been
thought expedient to require youth to make a profession of the faith to which
they were bound by baptism, and to dismiss them with the episcopal blessing, by
the laying on of hands. Anglicans have a rite which they call confirmation, and
which is suited to this theory of Calvin; although some of the prayers, with
some additions and subtractions, are taken from the Roman Pontifical. Several
of their divines speak of confirmation after the manner of Catholics.
“Confirmation,” says Bishop Wilson, “is the perfection of baptism. The Holy
Ghost descends invisibly upon such as are rightly prepared to receive such a
blessing, as at the first He came visibly upon those that had been baptized.”
The Oxford divines maintain that spiritual benefits are conveyed by
confirmation, and consider that the ancient tradition of the Church is not
discarded, although not explicitly declared by their communion. In the
dictionary of the Church, published by Rev. William Staunton, confirmation,
although not styled a Sacrament, is declared to be a divine appointment, and to
have been practised by the Apostles, and to be binding on Christians; and its
effects are said to have been described by the Apostle, when he speaks to the
faithful of “being established in Christ,” being anointed and sealed with the
Holy Spirit of promise, and having “an earnest of the Spirit in their hearts.”
“And that all these expressions refer to confirmation is evident, as well from
comparing them together, as from the concurrent testimonies of several ancient
Fathers.” Such is the strong language of this American divine, but which can by
no means be considered as expressing the general sentiments of Episcopalians,
among whom the Calvinistic view widely prevails.
The Baptists, in their confession of faith, say:
“We believe that laying on of hands, with prayer, upon baptized believers, as
such, is an ordinance of Christ, and ought to be submitted unto by all such
persons that are admitted to partake of the Lord’s Supper, and that the end of
this ordinance is not for the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, but for a
farther reception of the Holy Spirit of promise, or for the addition of the
graces of the Spirit, and the influences thereof; to confirm, strengthen, and
comfort them in Christ Jesus; it being ratified and established by the
extraordinary gifts of the Spirit in the primitive times.” Their predecessors
were greatly divided on this point: “They differ among themselves,” says Wall,
“about the practice of confirmation, or laying on of hands after baptism. Some
of ‘em do wholly omit and reject the use of that ordinance, as being popish, or
having no foundation in Scripture, or at least not now to be continued. And
this it seems was the way of those churches or societies of ‘em that did first
openly set up at London. Others of ‘em account it a necessary thing. And some
of these latter, making it an order among themselves, as the Church of England
does, that none shall be admitted to the Holy Communion, until such time as he
be confirmed (the Church of England adds, ‘or be ready and desirous to be
confirmed’) there necessarily follows a breach of communion between the two
parties.”
The conversion of the inhabitants of Samaria by
the preaching and miracles of Philip, gave joy to the Apostles then at
Jerusalem, and gave occasion to the visit of Peter and John, to confirm them in
the faith. They went to Samaria, and “prayed for them that they might receive
the Holy Ghost: for He was not as yet come upon any of them; but they were only
baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” This prayer, accompanied by the
imposition of hands, obtained for the new Christians the Holy Ghost: of whose
presence such evidence was afforded, that Simon the Magician, who had been brought
to the faith by Philip, offered money to the Apostles, that he might be
endowed, like them, with power to communicate the Holy Spirit. It is believed
by the Catholic Church that the rite performed by the Apostles is a sacrament
instituted by Christ, and always to continue in the Church, so that the Holy
Ghost is still imparted by means of the imposition of hands and prayer. This
sacrament is called confirmation, because the Holy Spirit confirms and
strengthens us in faith, that we may firmly believe, and profess our belief
intrepidly.
Of the institution of this sacrament by our divine
Redeemer, direct proof cannot be given, but the indirect evidence is perfectly
satisfactory. From the narrative of St. Luke it is manifest, that Peter and
John expressly undertook the journey to Samaria, with a view to impart the Holy
Ghost to the new converts; and that, to this end, they imposed hands on them,
and offered up prayer; and that the actual communication of the Holy Ghost
ensued. The inference is irresistible, that they were empowered to communicate
the Holy Ghost by this rite; and that those admitted into the Church by baptism
needed this additional grace. As it is the privilege of the Divine Founder of
our religion to attach grace to external rites, we must suppose that the
Apostles acted by His express authority; and the want of direct proof of the
commission to perform this special act, is abundantly supplied by the record of
the act done by those who would usurp no undue power, and by the miraculous
sanction that accompanied it. That it was an ordinary act of the Apostolic
ministry, is evident from the solicitude which St. Paul manifested, that all
the faithful should be strengthened by this divine succour. When he came to
Ephesus, and found there certain disciples, he made special inquiry whether
they had received the Holy Ghost: “Have you received the Holy Ghost since you
believed?” After their instruction and baptism, for he discovered that they had
previously received only the baptism of John, he performed on them the same
sacred rite which Peter and John had performed on the Samaritans: “And when
Paul had imposed his hands on them, the Holy Ghost came upon them, and they
spoke with tongues, and prophesied.” This imposition of hands was, then, a rite
performed by the Apostles indiscriminately, and to which the communication of
the Holy Ghost was attached. The speaking of tongues and prophesying were not
the effects of the rite, but the evidences of its efficacy, and were so many
seals which God gave to this institution. The Holy Ghost is given when grace is
imparted by which the soul is sanctified, for then it is that the Spirit of God
dwells in us. “The charity of God is poured forth in our hearts by the Holy
Ghost who is given to us.”
An attempt is made to show that the gifts
communicated by the Apostles, were of an extraordinary character, and confined
to the commencement of the church. Prophecy, the knowledge of tongues, and
other miraculous gifts, are said to have been granted by the imposition of the hands
of the Apostles. It will, however, be easily shown that these gifts were not
the object to which the imposition of hands was directed; but the proof that
the action was not performed in vain. Philip had already performed great
miracles in Samaria, so that it was not necessary to communicate miraculous
powers to prove the Divinity of Christ, and the truth of His religion. Besides,
among the promises of Christ, which foretell the many prodigies which His
disciples would perform in His name, and among the powers communicated to the
Apostles, no mention whatever is made of the power of communicating the gift of
miracles. A journey made by the Apostles Peter and John must certainly have
been made with a view to the sanctification and spiritual strength of the new
converts, rather than to the endowing of them with miraculous powers. The
inquiry of St. Paul cannot be supposed to be: Have you received the gift of
miracles? He doubtless was concerned for their personal sanctification. The
gifts of tongues and prophecy which they received on that occasion, were
superadded to the sacramental grace, that this might be the more firmly
believed. As such miraculous evidences often followed the preaching of the
Gospel, and attested its truth; so they occasionally accompanied the
administration of the sacraments, to show forth their efficacy. The
communication of them was the immediate act of God, totally independent of any
ministerial agency. By the ministry of men God imparts the gifts of grace in
the sacraments; but He has reserved to Himself to bestow these extraordinary
powers, which are occasionally exercised, in proof of his supreme control over
the laws of nature, and as the divine seals of his revelation and institutions.
“There are diversities of operations, but the same God who worketh all in all.…
All these things the same Spirit worketh, dividing to every one according as He
will.” This is strongly stated by the writers of the Oxford Tracts: “When the
doctrine of the Holy Ghost, and of His inward influence, was new to the world,
it pleased God to confirm it, and to show that the influence was real, by
permitting, in some cases, those on whom it descended, to perform works which
they could not have done, had not God been with them. Thus, the real
importance, even then, of these miraculous gifts, consisted in their bearing
witness to the inward and unseen ones which God still showers upon His Church”
… “And which we dare not suppose to have ceased, merely because the outward
signs of them did, when God Himself had promised that they should last for
ever.… The promise of support to the Apostles, in the performance of their
ministerial duties, was equally perpetual: CHRIST was to be with them, as the
teachers and baptizers of all nations, ‘alway, even unto the end of the world.’
The reality of their powers, and among others, their power of conferring the
HOLY GHOST on others, was attested at first by miracles.”
The imposition of hands with prayer, therefore,
was not directed to communicate the power of miracles, or any extraordinary
gift, but the grace of the Holy Ghost, whereby the soul is sanctified and
strengthened. By that grace we become in baptism the children of God: and by a
further communication of it in this sacrament, we are confirmed, that “neither
death nor life, nor Angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present,
nor things to come, nor might, nor height, nor death, nor any other creature
shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our
Lord.” To the faithful who had received this strengthening grace, the Apostle
said: “you were signed with the holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of
our inheritance.” Elsewhere he says: “God … hath given us the pledge of the
Spirit.” ST. AMBROSE distinctly refers to this text in speaking of the seal of
confirmation given to the Neophytes: “Remember that you have received the
spiritual seal, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel
and strength, the spirit of knowledge and piety, the spirit of holy fear: and preserve
what you have received. God the Father hath sealed you: Christ the Lord hath
confirmed you: and hath given the pledge of the Spirit in your hearts, as you
have learned from the lesson read from the Apostle.”
The early Christian writers understood Peter and
John to have performed a rite directed to communicate the Holy Spirit, and
intended to be perpetual in the Church, so that the bishops at all times felt
authorized to perform it in like manner; as is acknowledged by several Anglican
writers. “The Fathers every where impute unto it that gift or grace of the Holy
Ghost, not which maketh us first Christian men, but when we are made such,
assisteth us in all virtue, armeth us against temptation and sin.” ST. CYPRIAN
observes that the Apostles did not baptize the Samaritans anew, because it was
not fit that they should be baptized again, since they had already received a
lawful baptism in the Church; but what was left imperfect was supplied, as was
done by Peter and John, so that having prayed for them, and imposed hands on
them, the Holy Ghost was invoked and poured forth on them: which is done at
present with us also, since those who are baptized in the church are presented
to the prelates of the church, and obtain the Holy Ghost by our prayer and imposition
of hands, and are perfected by the seal of the Lord.” This practice of the
whole Christian world is also solemnly attested by ST. JEROM in his dialogue
against the Luciferians. He introduces an adversary speaking in this way: “Do
you know that it is the practice of the churches, that the imposition of hands
should be performed over baptized persons, and the Holy Ghost thus invoked: do
you ask where it is written? In the Acts of the Apostles: but were there no
Scriptural authority at hand, the consent of the whole world in this regard
would have the force of law.” The orthodox replies: “I do not deny that it is
the custom of the churches, that the bishop should go to those who have been
baptized by priests and deacons in the smaller cities, distant from his
residence, and should impose hands on them to invoke the Holy Ghost.” This,
then, was a custom which Catholics and schismatics admitted to be universal,
and to have a Scriptural warrant in what was practised by the Apostles.
Of the unction with chrism, that is, with blessed
oil mixed with balsam, no mention is made by the sacred historian, who merely
relates the fact, that by the imposition of hands and prayer, the Holy Ghost
was communicated, and does not enter into the details of the ceremony. “Of these
two things,” says Wall, “the chrism of anointing is not commanded in Scripture:
yet it is still practised by all the Christians of the East and West, except
the Protestants. But the laying on of hands is plainly mentioned in the
Scripture, Acts 8:17. Heb. 6:2, and is yet continued by all Christians, except
some very absurd people.” St. Paul speaks of the unction which he and the
faithful generally had received from God, and which there is no reason to limit
to the interior influence of the Divine Spirit, of which the external unction
is emblematic; “Now He that confirmeth us with you in Christ, and that hath
anointed us, is God: who also hath sealed us, and given the pledge of the
Spirit in our hearts.”
The antiquity and universality of the practice of
anointing with chrism, in the administration of this sacrament, and the
importance attached to this rite by the ancient writers, warrant the belief
that it was practised by the Apostles. Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch, in the
second century, writes: “We are called Christians, because we are anointed with
the oil of God.” Tertullian says: “The flesh is anointed, that the soul may be
consecrated: the flesh is marked, that the soul may be fortified: the flesh is
overshadowed by the imposition of hands, that the soul may be enlightened with
the Spirit.” St. Cyprian affirms: “it is necessary that he who has been
baptized, be anointed likewise, that having received the chrism, that is, the
unction, he may be the anointed of God, and may have in himself the grace of Christ.”
St. Cyril, of Jerusalem, compares the sacred
chrism to the divine Eucharist: “You were anointed with oil, being made sharers
and partners of Christ. And see well that you regard it not as mere ointment:
for as the bread of the Eucharist, after the invocation of the Holy Ghost, is
no longer mere bread, but the BODY OF CHRIST, so likewise this holy ointment is
no longer mere, or as one might say, common ointment, after the invocation, but
the GIFT OF CHRIST, AND OF THE HOLY GHOST, being rendered efficient by His
divinity. Thy forehead, and other senses, are anointed symbolically; and whilst
the body is anointed with visible ointment, the soul is sanctified by the holy
and life-giving Spirit. You were anointed first on the forehead, that you might
be delivered from the shame which the first transgressor always experienced,
and that you might contemplate the glory of God with an unveiled countenance.”
He proceeds to specify the unction of the ears, nostrils, and breast, which was
then practised in the Eastern portion of the church, to express more fully the
effects of the sacrament; and he adds: “As Christ, after His baptism, and the
descent of the Holy Ghost upon Him, going forth overcame the adversary, so you,
likewise, after holy baptism and the mysterious unction, clothed with the
panoply of the Holy Ghost, stand against the adverse power, and subdue it,
saying: ‘I can do all things in Christ, who strengtheneth me.’ “
St. Pacian, of Barcellona, argues that the power
of forgiveness has descended to the bishops of the church, from the admitted
fact, that they have the power to impart the Holy Ghost, which he calls THE
POWER OF CHRISM: “is the power of binding and loosing confined to the Apostles?
For the same reason they alone could baptize, they alone could give the Holy
Ghost, they alone could cleanse away the sins of nations, because all this was
ordained to no others than the Apostles: if then the POWER OF THE LAVER AND OF
CHRISM, gifts far more sublime, has come down to the bishops, they also have the
right to bind and loose.” St. Augustin says: “You wish to understand by this
ointment the sacrament of chrism, which, indeed, in the class of visible seals
is as sacred as baptism itself.”
The bishop is the ordinary minister of this
sacrament. It is manifest that Philip, who baptized the Samaritans, had not the
power of communicating the Holy Ghost by the imposition of hands. This was
reserved for the Apostles. The narrative concerning Paul at Ephesus shows that
it was not always conferred by the person who baptized. St. Chrysostom remarks
on the former fact: “this was the prerogative of the Apostles; therefore we see
that the leaders, and none others did it.” St. Cyprian and St. Jerom, already
quoted, testify that the bishops, who are the successors of the Apostles,
performed the same rite; and Pope Innocent I. maintains it to be the privilege
of their office. “With regard to the confirmation of infants,” he says, “it is
manifest that it should not be done by any one but by the bishop. For
presbyters, though they be priests, have not, nevertheless, the dignity of the
pontifical office: and that it is the prerogative of pontiffs alone to mark
(with chrism) or give the Holy Ghost, is evident, not only from the custom of
the churches, but likewise from the reading of the very Acts of the Apostles,
which relate that Peter and John were sent to communicate the Holy Ghost to
those who had been already baptized. For priests baptize either in the absence
or in the presence of the bishop, and are allowed to anoint with chrism those
whom they baptize, provided it be consecrated by the bishop: but not to mark
the forehead with the same oil, which is the privilege of the bishops alone,
when they communicate the Holy Ghost.”
It is not necessary that we should stop to examine
the principles or practice of the Greeks on this point. It is certain that they
admit this sacrament, which they designate “the chrism of holy ointment,” “the
seal of the Holy Ghost.” The custom of administering it after baptism, by the
priest, is different from our discipline; but even amongst the Latins a priest
sometimes confirms by the delegation of the sovereign pontiff. Although he is
not the ordinary minister of this sacrament, he may be delegated to confer it,
as we learn from the practice of the church.
The end for which confirmation is administered, is
to strengthen us in the belief of the Christian mysteries, and in the
profession of our faith. We cannot apprehend with certainty supernatural truth,
unless we are enlightened from above. We cannot acknowledge with divine faith
our Lord Jesus Christ, unless the Holy Ghost exert his influence on our mind,
to dissipate its darkness, and stay its vacillation: “No man can say, the Lord
Jesus, but by the Holy Ghost.” To profess our faith is a strict duty, for “with
the heart,” says the Apostle, “we believe unto justice; but with the mouth
confession is made unto salvation.” The temptations to deny it are numerous and
powerful. It is scoffed at by the wise and prudent of this world, from whom, by
a just judgment of God, it is hidden: and few have fortitude to endure the
imputation of credulity, simplicity, and superstition. It is unfashionable, and
despised by those who possess or claim influence in society, and is regarded as
the religion of the low, vicious, and degraded—the offscourings of all—and few
love the glory of God, rather than that of men. Our interest is often to be
sacrificed to preserve our conscience without stain. How strong is the
temptation in such cases to abandon a religion which thwarts our schemes of
ambition, and all our worldly designs! Yet the penalty of apostasy from Christ,
of the denial of His truth, is eternal separation from Him: “if we deny him, He
also will deny us: if we believe not, He continueth faithful, He cannot deny Himself.”
It is only the Holy Spirit, who can give us intrepidity in circumstances
calculated to inspire fear, and heroic resolution, when faith and conscience
require great sacrifices. “The “Spirit of our Father” spoke in the martyrs, and
gave them wisdom which their adversaries could not resist. He still
communicates his grace, and gives us strength, that we may not shrink from our
good and glorious confession. “Since (says an ancient father) we are to pass
our whole life in the midst of invisible enemies, and we must advance through
dangers, we are regenerated unto life in baptism; after baptism, we are
confirmed for the combat.”
As from the perpetual practice of the church, it
is manifest that this sacrament, as well as baptism, can be received but once,
a spiritual character being impressed by it on the soul, it is necessary that
much diligence be used in preparing for its reception. The discipline of the
church has varied as to the age at which it may be received, it having been
often conferred immediately after baptism, even to infants, whilst now it is
more generally delayed until the child can be instructed in the leading
mysteries of faith, and in the sanctity of the sacrament. The most ample
instruction is desirable; but a knowledge of the great mysteries of the
adorable Trinity, and of our redemption through the incarnation and death of
Jesus Christ, is particularly requisite. It is above all necessary that the
heart should be pure, into which the Holy Ghost is invited. If stained by sin,
the tears of repentance should wash away the stain. The humiliation of
confession will dispose the soul for reconciliation and grace; but wo! to the
soul who, in this very act, lies to the Holy Ghost. He lies not to man, but to
God!
THE rites used by the Apostles in the
administration of the sacraments have not been recorded in the Sacred
Scripture. The leading rite has, indeed, been mentioned, but the details of the
ritual were left to be learned from other sources. Had the Apostles used no
ceremony but the simple imposition of hands with prayer, in administering
confirmation, the Church would still be at liberty to add such rites as might
seem calculated to awaken in the faithful, sentiments of piety, and impress
them with the nature and effects of the sacrament. The simplicity of the
original institution might suit the circumstances in which it was first
administered, and could not form an objection to such additional rites as might
develop its import, and the obligations attached to its reception. But we have
reason to believe, that the Apostles themselves used several ceremonies with a
view to instruct the applicant, and to show the meaning and end of the
sacrament.
The ceremonies of confirmation, as it is now
administered, are very simple. As the sacrament is directed to communicate the
Holy Ghost, the bishop begins by this prayer:
“May the Holy Ghost come upon you, and the power
of THE MOST HIGH guard you from sin. Amen.”
This prayer, with the whole rite of confirmation
as now practised, though with some slight variety, and some difference of
arrangement, is found in an ancient Ritual of the church of Bolsena, a
manuscript whereof, written in the eleventh or twelfth century, is still
preserved. Almost the whole rite is likewise found in a liturgical book
referred to the times of Pope Gelasius. The prayer is in manifest harmony with
the end had in view in the administration of the sacrament.
The extension of the hands, with the accompanying
prayer, is more immediately directed to obtain the grace of the Holy Ghost,
with his sevenfold gifts for those, who, being already baptized, seek to be
strengthened with this new succour. Of our Divine Redeemer the prophet Isaiah
said: “The spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him: the spirit of wisdom and of
understanding, the spirit of counsel and of fortitude, the spirit of knowledge
and of godliness, and he shall be filled with the spirit of the fear of the
Lord.” The bishop prays that the same spirit may rest on those over whom his
hands are extended, that they may receive that wisdom which is from above, and
may understand the things of God, which the sensual man perceiveth not; that
they may be guided with divine light in all the difficulties of life, and
choose the better part: that they may be strengthened with power from on high,
against all the enemies of salvation—the rulers of this world of darkness, the
spirits of wickedness in high places: that they may have true knowledge, that
of Jesus Christ crucified, the science of the saints: that they may cherish
piety, devotion, tender attachment to all that regards the divine glory: and
may be replenished with filial fear of offending their heavenly Father. ST.
AMBROSE makes a distinct reference to this portion of the prayer. The bishop
then prays God to mark them with the sign of the cross unto eternal life, and
to be propitious to them, through Jesus Christ our Lord. In uttering these
words he makes the sign of the cross over them, which he afterwards makes on
the forehead of each one, with holy chrism, saying: “I mark thee with the sign
of the cross, and I confirm thee with the chrism of salvation, in the name of
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.”
The making of the sign of the cross in the
administration of the sacraments, is a practice attested by the most ancient
writers, and by all liturgical books. It is a profession of our belief in a
crucified Redeemer, from whom all grace is derived. The words formerly used on
this occasion were: “The sign of Christ unto everlasting life.” The Christian
thus marked can say with ST. AUGUSTIN: “So little am I ashamed of the cross,
that I do not bear it in secret, but on my forehead.” The antiquity of the
practice of forming it with chrism is manifest from several testimonies of the
Fathers.
The use of chrism has already been shown to be
derived from the early ages. In the Latin church it is made of oil of olives,
and of balsam; this latter ingredient being intended to signify the sweet odour
of virtue, which the perfect Christian spreads around him. The Greeks, with the
same view, unite the juice of many odoriferous plants in the composition. The
chrism is called “the chrism of salvation,” because it is directed to signify
the saving influence of the Holy Ghost, by which we are strengthened unto
everlasting life.
The gentle blow on the cheek, given by the bishop,
to the person confirmed, is intended to remind him that he should be ready to
suffer for the faith of Christ. The lesson of our Saviour, that we should be
ready to present the left cheek to him who strikes us on the right, is
admirably insinuated by this rite. “Peace be to thee” is said, because in
patience we are to possess our souls.
After some prayers the solemn benediction is given
by the Pontiff, that God may bless them from Sion, and that they may see the
good things of Jerusalem all the days of their lives. This manner of
terminating the rite is both ancient and appropriate. A similar blessing is
found in a manuscript of the eighth century. Those who receive the grace of
confirmation need the continuation of divine aid to persevere to the end, and
obtain an eternal benediction.
THE END.
