16. To this was added, in many churches, the washing of their feet by the bishop, in imitation of Christ in washing his disciples' feet, which is retained as a ceremony of the Greek church.

17. Once more, in token of the purity of life to which they were regenerated in baptism, they were arrayed in white robes, an emblem of innocence, which they continued to wear for eight days. For similar emblematic purposes, they laid their garments by, and were baptized in a state of entire nudity.

18. Having laid aside thus their garments spotted with the flesh, and arrayed themselves in white robes, they were provided with lighted torches, as a figure of those lamps of faith wherewith bright and virgin souls shall go forth to meet the Bridegroom.

We have now concluded the wearisome detail of the ceremonials with which the simple and significant ordinance of baptism, when the church began to lose sight of that which is signified in this ordinance, was soon encumbered in a vain effort to obtain that inward grace by a punctilious and superstitious observance of outward ceremonies. Such to the church has been the disastrous consequence, as all its history shows, of substituting the forms of religion for its spirit! "If ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances after the commandments of men ?" "Are ye so foolish; having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh ?"

In view of all these vain superstitions, we may fitly contrast the spirituality of the primitive church with its formality in a subsequent age, in Chrysostom's beautiful comparison: "In those days the church was heaven itself; for the Holy Spirit ruled every council, quickened and hallowed every member of the church. We only now retain the traces of these gifts of grace. The church is like a woman fallen from her ancient prosperity, who possesses various signs of her former wealth, and who displayeth the little chests and caskets in which her treasure was preserved, but hath lost the treasure itself. To such a woman may the church now be likened."

§ 5. OF THE NAMES BY WHICH THE ORDINANCE IS DESIGNated.

THE term Baptism is derived from the Greek ẞáno, from which is formed βαπτίζω, with its derivations βαπτισμός and βάπτισμα, baptism. The primary signification of the original is to dip, plunge, immerse; the obvious import of the noun is immersion, but, in a restricted sense, it often denotes a partial application of water.

Much learned labour has been expended on its meaning, and both parties in the controversy have claimed for themselves the argument based on the signification of the words baptism and baptize.*

The term 2ovτρóv, washing, is used figuratively, to denote that purification or sanctification which is implied in the profession of those who are received by baptism into the church of Christ. It is equivalent to the washing of regeneration, and the receiving of the Holy Ghost. Tit. iii. 5. This phraseology was familiar to the ancient fathers.1

Baptism is also denominated by them the water,—and a fountain, from whence, according to Bingham, is derived the English, font,an anointing, a seal, or sign, etc. It is also styled an illuminating or enlightening ordinance, the light of the mind, of the eye, etc., sometimes with reference to that inward illumination and sanctification which was supposed to attend that ordinance, and sometimes with reference to the instructions by which the candidates for this ordinance were enlightened in a knowledge of the Christian religion.

With reference to the secrecy in which, in the early ages of the church, it was administered as a sacred mystery, it was styled uvoτrpiov, a mystery. A multitude of other names occur in the writings of the fathers, such as grace, pardon, death of sin, philactery, regeneration, adoption, access to God, way of life, eternal life, etc. These terms are more or less defined and explained in the authorities to whom reference is had in the index.2 Let it be observed, that these appellations were unknown to the apostolical churches. They were the invention of writers and ritualists of a subsequent age.

§ 6. OF INFANT BAPTISM.

THE first baptisms, on the organization of the churches, were of necessity those of adults converted to Christianity, and for several centuries until the prevalence of the Christian religion over paganism. The baptism of such must have been chiefly the subject of historical record. The silence of the early historical records respecting infant baptism is no valid argument against it. But the general introduction of the rite of infant baptism, by reason of the prevalence of Christianity, so far changed the regulations of the

* For a discussion of this point, full and satisfactory, the reader is referred to an article by Prof. Stuart, in Bib. Repos. April, 1833, and to a work on Baptism, by Edward Beecher, D. D.

church concerning the qualifications of candidates, and their admission, that what was formerly the rule in this respect, has become the exception. The institutions of the church during the first five centuries, concerning the requisite preparations for baptism, and all the laws and rules that existed during that period, relating to the acceptance or rejection of candidates, necessarily fell into disuse when the baptism of infants began not only to be permitted, but enjoined as a duty, and almost universally observed. The old rule, which prescribed caution in the admission of candidates, and a careful preparation for the rite, was, after the sixth century, applicable, for the most part, only to Jewish, heathen, and other proselytes. The discipline which was formerly requisite, preparatory to baptism, now followed this rite, as a needful qualification for communion.

Christian baptism has from the beginning been characterized for the universality of its application. Proselyte baptism was administered only to pagan nations. John's baptism was restricted solely to the Jews; but Christian baptism is open alike to all. Proselyte baptism included the children with the parents; John's baptism exIcluded both children and the female sex. Christian baptism excludes no nation, or sex, or age. Comp. Matt. xxviii. 19, 20; Gal. iii. 28; 1 Cor. xii. 13; together with the authorities of Irenæus, Cyprian, and Tertullian, quoted below. From all which, it appears evident beyond a doubt, that the ancient church understood that Christian baptism was designed for all, πάντες, πάντα τα Sv, in the fullest sense of the term-that no nation, or class, or sex, or age was excluded. Of course it was understood to be universal in the highest degree.

In common with all who maintain the doctrine of infant baptism, the learned in Germany generally admit the authenticity of the historical testimony in favour of it. They admit that infant baptism was an usage of the primitive church as early as the time of Cyprian, Tertullian, or even of Irenæus; but many of them refuse to follow us in the conclusion that this ordinance must have been instituted by the authority, and supported by the example of the apostles. They either deny that the baptism of infant children was authorized by Christ and his apostles, or they content themselves with stating the historical facts in relation to the subjectgiving the earliest evidence of the rite in question, without advancing any theory whatever respecting the origin of this ordinance.

According to Rheinwald, "traces of infant baptism appear in

the Western church after the middle of the second century, i. e. within about fifty years of the apostolic age; and, toward the end of this century, it becomes the subject of controversy in Proconsular Africa. Though its necessity was asserted in Africa and Egypt, in the beginning of the third, it was, even to the end of the fourth. century, by no means universally observed-least of all in the Eastern church; and finally became a general ecclesiastical institution in the age of Augustin."

Such are the views of some of the most distinguished German scholars of the present day, while others affirm that infant baptism was from the beginning an ordinance of the Christian church. But enough. Authority is not argument, nor is an ostentatious parade of names of any avail either to establish truth or refute error. These authors themselves generally admit the validity of the testimony of the early fathers; nor does it appear that, with all their research, directed even by German diligence and scholarship, they have essentially varied the historical argument drawn from original sources in favour of infant baptism. Those authorities have long been familiar to the public, and they are very briefly brought together in this place as a concise exhibition of the historical evidence in favour of the theory that this ordinance was instituted by Divine authority, and as such was observed by the learned in Germany on this subject.

The historical argument for infant baptism will be best presented by beginning with the age of Chrysostom, Gregory Nazianzen, and Augustin, in the last half of the fourth century, when infant baptism had confessedly become a common ordinance both of the Western and of the Eastern church, and advance from this point as far as our historical data will carry us toward the age of the apostles.

To begin with Chrysostom: "Some think that the heavenly grace (of baptism) consists only in forgiveness of sins; but I have reckoned ten advantages of it. For this cause we baptize infants, though they are not defiled with sin," or, as Augustin has quoted it, "though they have not any transgressions or actual sins." "There was pain and trouble in the practice of that Jewish circumcision; but our circumcision, I mean the grace of baptism, gives cure without pain, and this for infants as well as men."

Gregory Nazianzen: "Baptism is suited to every age. Hast thou a child? wait not until he becomes a sinner, but in his tenderest age sanctify him by the Spirit. But you hesitate because of

his tender age. How cold-hearted, how weak in faith, O mother! Hannah, before the birth of Samuel, consecrated him to God, and, when born, devoted him to the priesthood-so should children also in their tenderest age be baptized, though having yet no idea of perdition or of grace."

Augustin, remarking on the passage 1 Cor. vii. 14: “There were then Christian infants, parvuli Christiani, who were sanctified," that is, baptized, "by the authority of one or both of their parents." He treats baptism as a saving ordinance, which doctrine "the whole body of the church holds, as delivered to them in the case of little infants who are baptized, who certainly cannot believe with the heart unto righteousness, and yet no Christian will say that they are baptized in vain." Indeed, the writings of Augustin show, beyond the possibility of a doubt, that infant baptism was an established usage of the church in his age, that it was "an apostolical tradition," apostolica traditio—that it came not by a general council, or by any authority later or less than that of the apostles. The original authorities have been collected by Wall, but are too numerous and extensive to be transferred to these pages.

The authority of these eminent fathers of the fourth century, representing the two great divisions of the church, is sufficient to indicate the prevailing sentiments of the church in this age respecting the baptism of infants. They sufficiently indicate that the validity and propriety of infant baptism was at this time universally acknowledged and generally practised, especially in the Western church. A fuller induction of authorities may be found in Wall's History, from which the above have been chiefly collected. We may, therefore, safely assume the general custom of baptizing the infant offspring of believers as an established fact in this age of the church, and begin from this period to traverse backward toward the age of the apostles, and collect the authorities as they arise, in the order of their succession, respecting the usage of the church and her authority for this ordinance.

From these fathers we advance, omitting intermediate authorities of less importance, to Cyprian, in the middle of the third century. In the age of Cyprian there arose in Africa a question whether a child might be baptized before the eighth day or not. Fidus, a country bishop, referred the inquiry to a council of sixtysix bishops, convened under Cyprian, A. D. 253, for their opinion. To this inquiry they reply at length, delivering it as their unanimous opinion that baptism may, with propriety, be administered at