their weeping and crying, to have pity and compassion upon them."* This letter was written in the year 254, and contained the signatures of sixty-six bishops. The reason that there are no spiritual proofs advanced to uphold infant baptism, is, that there was not at this time, nor had there been since the days of the Apostles, any dispute on the subject. Fidus only hesitated concerning the time and objects of baptism, and it is to this alone that the council directs its answer. That godfathers and godmothers, as sureties to the church of Christ, answered for, and became bound in the name of the infants, will appear from the testimony of Tertullian, who wrote about the year 180. "Why should godfathers" said he, "expose themselves to danger, when they may die before they fulfil the engagements they make, or when those for whom they promise may be very wicked, in despite of all that may be done to or for them ?”† It is true, he writes against godfathers, and that for two reasons, which appear plainly from his words; yet it is evident that godfathers answered for infants at that time, (within one hundred years after the time of the Apostles,) when every thing was in its proper order. The truth is, this eminent Father, in his last days, deviated slightly from the Apostolic faith, and he therefore exalts his own particular opinion in preference to the discipline of the church. Respecting infant baptism he also says: "Why doth this innocent age hasten to receive the remission of sins? Let them come to be baptized when they come to age."§ This error probably originated in the opinion he held res pecting the consequences of original sin; for he calls INFANTS the innocent age, conveying thereby the idea that they had no need of baptism. This is a satisfactory proof that the duties of godfathers and godmothers were practised in the prim. *Cyprian Epis. 59. p. 164. † Tertull. de Bapt. p. 603. itive church, from the days of the apostles to the time of Tertullian. When the godfathers met, the priest was accustomed to admonish them on the responsibility they were assumingto urge on them the necessity of fully understanding the promise they were about making in the name of the child, to instruct it in all the principles of the Christian religion, and to use their utmost endeavors in order that the child should lead a religious life in the fear of God. Then, after praying for the blessing of the Most High upon the ordinance, the minister took the child in his arms, and, when informed of his name by the godfather, he dipt him three times in the water, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. If the child was weak or sickly, water was sprinkled three times upon its forehead in the name of the Trinity. The priest then acknowledged it as a member of the church, and made the sign of the cross on its forehead, thereby signifying that the child was now a soldier of Jesus Christ, and had received his mark. The ceremony of making the sign of the cross is as old as the commencement of Christianity. Even Turtullian himself commends the ceremony, although his opinions on other points are not very satisfactory.* Hence the proverb, "A forehead having received the sign of the cross"—that is, a Christian having received baptism. It is true that the greatest part of the ancient Christians immersed the whole body in or under the water; yet they did not consider one dipping sufficient to ensure complete baptism, as will appear from the words of SozoMEN, who wrote a history of the church about the year 440. He says, in effect, that he who had been immersed only once, was, in his opinion, in as much danger as he who had never been baptized. But to be sprinkled three times was considered as good as three immersions, for that holy martyr St. CYPRION, says plainly, That he could not understand why the holy gift was withheld any more by sprinkling than by dipping, provided there was faith to receive it; for the washing of sins in baptism (said he) is different from the washing of the pollutions of our bodies in a * Caro signtur ut et anima muniatur. Tertull. de Resurrect. p. 31. Frons cum signo. Cypr. de L»ps. p. 301. Soz. Hist. Eccles. L. 1. C 26. p. 150 Ed. Lov. 1568. 66 river. Let no one wonder that we baptise those who are weakly by sprinkling water upon them, inasmuch as the Holy Ghost saith, Then will I sprinkle clean water and ye shall be clean." Ezek. xxxvi. 25; and in Num. viii. 7, " And thus shalt thou do to them to cleanse them-sprinkle water of purifying."-From this it is evident, said he, that sprinkling is equal to immersing.* If an infant or an adult had been once baptized either by sprinkling or dipping, the same was not re-baptized; for all the ancient Christians adhered steadfastly to the Apostolic rule: "One Lord, one faith, one baptizm," Eph. iv. 5. There is a remarkable account respecting St. Athanasius, whilst a boy. It is as follows: "ALEXANDER, the bishop of Alexandria, in Egypt, was accustomed to keep the holiday of St. Peter, according to the practice of the Church. In the afternoon of ore of these anniversaries, he walked into the fields, where he saw a number of young lads amusing themselves, and, amongst the rest was a sprightly young man leading the others to a river, and baptizing them. Alexander, upon his return, related the circumstance to the clergy of the city, who were naturally much surprised at the novelty of the proceeding. When they had reflected or the matter, they sent for the boys that they might have a confirmation of the whole story from themselves. In answer to there inquiries, they learned that Athanasius had undertaken to imitate the office of a priest, and had baptized his companions; and it was the opinion of the bishop and his elders that the baptism was valid, and a repetition of the baptizmal rites was not necessary, inasmuch as they had been performed in due order in the name of the Trinity. That there were instances of persons who re-baptized in ancient times, cannot be denied; but these were so many heretics, who had left the way of life and the correct discipline of the Catholic Church. The leader of this sect was called EUNOMIUS, who invented a form of baptism different from that laid down by Christ; for he contended that none ought to be baptized in the name of the Trinity, and that the form should *Cypr. Ep. 76. p. 249. Sozom. Hist. Ecles. Lib. 2. Cap. 17. be, "I baptize thee into the death of Christ"* As many disciples as this heretic could entice by his vain reasoning (for he was very eloquent,) underwent a second baptism, notwithstanding they had been previously baptized in the name of the Trinity. It was he who changed the ancient practice of dipping thrice, affirming that once was sufficient. In the first ages, when a person believed in Christ and embraced His religion, he was baptized forthwith, as in the case of the eunuch whom Philip baptized, related in Acts viii., or the jailor and his family who were baptized by Paul and Silas, as mentioned in Acts xvi. JUSTIN the Martyr, a writer of the second century, says: "Whosoever has been instructed in the principles of the Christian faith, and is willing to live and act in conformity with the injunctions of the Gospel, is exhorted to fast and pray, that he may obtain forgiveness for his former unbelief: we will fast and pray with him, lead him to a place where there is water, and, as we are regenerated, so also shall he be." About the third age, or probably a little earlier, it was appointed that baptism should be administered semi-annually at Easter and Whitsuntide; but, in cases where death was expected, the person was baptized immediately, and in his bed, if necessary. On Whitsunday, those who had been newly baptized arrayed themselves in white apparel. This was the origin of the term WHITESUNDAY, and is alluded to by the poet in the following lines: O LORD of heaven and earth, whose eye can scan Who in thy presence now devoutly stand. Joined to the Church by Baptism's holy rite, And seeing safety only in Thy light, From worse than Egypt's bondage forth they come, And travel to the Holy Land, their home. * Non in Trinitatem, sed in Christi mortem baptizandos esse asserens. Sozom. ibid. Lib. 7. Cap. 26. † Just. Mart. Apol. 2. p. 97. Luctant. Poem. de Resurrect. p. 765. In robes of white without a blemish, drest, Their garments, whiter than the Alpine snows, It might reasonably be supposed by the above, from a superficial view, thad Justin Martyr wished to convey the idea, that infants were not baptized in his time; but such was not the case 1st. He alludes to pagans who embraced Christianity: 2d. In another part of his writings, he speaks of infant baptism as a practice that was customary in all countries. See Apol. 2, p. 27. We ought, therefore, not to pervert such expressions as these so as to make them a vindication of obstinacy and error. But the unlearned and unstable wrest the scriptures to their own destruction. 2 Pet. iii. 16. It is no wonder, then, that they do the same with the writings of men. We will now advert briefly to the other sacrament-the Lord's Supper, and adopt the following plan: We will speak of, 1st. The time it was received: 2dly. Who were considered proper subjects to receive it: 3dly. The manner in which it was received. I. The usual time was immediately after the service in the church on the Lord's day; for Justin the Martyr says that *The Pastor of the church. 0* |