On this subject, the truth seems to be that our Lord, on entering upon his ministry, permitted the continuance of John's baptism as harmonizing well with his own designs. The import of the rite was the same, whether administered by John himself, or by the disciples of Jesus. In either case it implied the profession of repentance and a consecration to the kingdom of heaven. To this baptism none but Jews were admitted; to whom the ministry of John was wholly restricted. Our Lord did, indeed, at a later period, declare that he had other sheep, not of that fold, which must also be gathered; but his disciples understood not the import of that declaration until after his ascension; and, even then, were slow to yield their national prejudices so far as to receive the Gentiles to participate, in common with the Jews, in the privileges of the gospel.

The introduction of Christian baptism, strictly so called, was immediately consequent upon our Lord's ascension; and the most important commission for receiving it, as an universal ordinance of the church, is given by its Divine author in Matt. xxviii. 19: "Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Those who had been baptized by John, now received Christian baptism; which was regarded by the fathers rather as a renewal of the ordinance than as a distinct rite. It differed from the former, in that it was administered in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. This was the sacramentum plenum, the plenary baptism of Ambrose and Cyprian."

Baptism was uniformly administered as a public ordinance, even to the end of the second century. In no instance, on record in the New Testament, was it administered privately as a secret rite. Nor is there any intimation to this effect given by the earliest authorities. The apostolic fathers, indeed, give no instruction respecting the mode of administering this rite. Justin Martyr, who is the first to describe this ordinance, distinctly intimates that it was administered in the presence of the assembly. From the third century it became one of the secret mysteries of the church. Such it continued to be until the middle of the fifth century, when Christianity became so prevalent, and the practice of infant baptism so general, that the instances of adult baptism were comparatively rare. But during that period of time it was administered privately, in the presence of believers only; and the candidates, without re

spect to age, or sex, were divested of all covering in order to be baptized, and in this state received the ordinance.3

It was customary for adults immediately after baptism to receive the sacrament. This usage gave rise to the custom of administering the sacrament also to children at their baptism—a superstition which continued in the Western churches until the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, and in the Eastern remains unto this day.

Certain religious sects, contrary to the established usage of the church, were accustomed to rebaptize; others again contended that it must be thrice administered, to be valid. Such was the custom of the Marcionites and Valentinians.

The Novatians maintained that those who had apostatized from the faith, on being restored to the church ought to be baptized anew; having lost, by their apostasy, the benefit of their former baptism. Against this Tertullian and Cyprian earnestly contended, alleging that the validity of the ordinance, once rightly administered, could never be annulled; subsequent writers also concur with them in this opinion.

6

Baptism by heretics was early regarded as null and void. Clemens of Alexandria declared it strange and uncongenial, Ydwp å226Tρov. Tertullian classed heretics with idolaters, and declared their baptism of no effect; unless rightly administered, it was no baptism. Cum baptisma rite non habeant, omnino non habent. Cyprian also agreed with him, and generally the churches of Africa, together with that of Cæsarea and Alexandria. These required that their converts from heretical sects should be rebaptized, limiting themselves, however, to those sects who differed most widely from the true church. The churches of Rome, and France, and of some parts of Asia, on the other hand, received such to their communion by prayer and the imposition of hands, with the exception of such as disowned the Catholic church, and of those who were not baptized in the names of the Trinity. Baptism in the name of the Trinity, even by heretics, with certain exceptions,' was considered valid. The Council of Nice proceeded on the same principle. The efficacy of the rite depended upon the Divine power accompanying it, not upon the character of him who administered it. For a further discussion of this point, see references.8

§ 2. PROSELYTE BAPTISM BY THE JEWS.

AFTER all the discussions that have been had on the subject, it is still an open question, What relations Christian baptism sustains both to the baptism of John and the proselyte baptism of the Jews? The earliest evidence for the proselyte baptism of the Jews is from their Mishna and Gemmara, both subsequent to the Christian era, but claiming for the rite a higher antiquity than the Christian chronology. Philo and Josephus make no mention of it, which by one party is urged as an argument for the prevalence of proselyte baptism, on the supposition that it was so common as to occasion. no remark from them. It is also remarkable that the baptism of John excited no notice as a new institution. By another, this silence is urged as an evidence that the rite was unknown by these Jewish writers. Winer, in his Realwörterbuch, has given the authorities that bear on this subject. However curious the inquiry it seems not to possess any historical importance in relation to Christian baptism. It may not have been introduced until after the institution of this ordinance of the Christian church; but however that may be, it had but remote relations to Christian baptism.

§ 3. JOHN'S BAPTISM NOT CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.

THE baptism of John was a peculiar ordinance, essentially distinct from Christian baptism. It is thus distinguished in the instance of converts at Ephesus. Acts xix. 3. Both had certain points of resemblance, in that each implied a profession of repentance and reformation and corresponding obligations to live a new life; but they were essentially different. The baptism of John was restricted to the Jews only. The soldiers who inquired of him respecting their duty, were apparently Jews in the service of the army. The baptism of Jesus was applicable alike to Jews and Gentiles. The baptism of John was temporary, Matt. iii. 11, 12; John i. 15–27; iii. 27; Acts xix. 2-7; that of Jesus was a perpetual ordinance. The baptism of John was a profession of repentance and faith in a Saviour that should come; that of Jesus, of repentance and faith in a Saviour that has come. The baptism of John was not in the name of Christ; that of Jesus was in his name, together with that of the Father and of the Holy Ghost. The baptism of John was by immersion. Is it credible either that that of Jesus was invaria

bly by immersion, or that this is essential to the validity of the ordinance? Were the three thousand on the day of Pentecost so baptized, or the thousands that were shortly afterward added to the church? Were the jailer and all his, baptized by immersion on the spot and in the dead of night? Believe it who can. The eunuch, and Lydia, and the company of Cornelius, are baptized where there is water for the purpose. "Can any forbid water, that these should not be baptized?" But in no instance of Christian baptism on record in the Scriptures is the mode of administering, the quantity of water applied or to be applied, or any conveniences for immersion, indicated as requisites for the right administration of this ordinance.

It is particularly worthy of notice that no preliminary preparations are requisite for baptism in any instance recorded in the Scriptures. It is administered to a vast assembly of several thousands, to a family, or to a single individual. It is administered wherever and whenever one or more candidates present themselves, in public or in private assemblies, by night or by day, in the house or by the river, at all times and in every place. Are such facilities consistent with the formalities of baptism by immersion, or is the mode of administering the ordinance of no account in the estimation of the apostles, and varied according to circumstances?

Dr. Robinson, in his Lexicon of the New Testament, has stated that the earliest Latin translations approved by Augustin, and going back apparently to the second century and to usage connected with the apostolic age, uniformly adopt the Greek word baptizo, and never the Latin immergo, to denote Christian baptism; "showing that there was something in the rite of baptism to which the latter did not correspond.' He urges in the same connection the scarcity of water, and the absence of baths, public or private, as strong objections to the theory of the immersion of the three thousand on the day of Pentecost, and of the five thousand on a subsequent day. He adds, that the most ancient baptismal fonts found among ruins in Palestine, as at Tekoa and Gophna, and dating back apparently to the earliest times, are not large enough to admit of the baptism of adults by immersion.

Are any other ceremonials of religion insisted on by Christ or his apostles? Who does not know that they in all else insist upon the thing signified, with singular indifference to the ceremonials of a religious rite. Why then this punctilious observance of a rite for which no precept is given. If the mode of baptism is of such

indispensable importance, how extraordinary the omission of the precept! Rather, is there not here a "providential omission," as, according to Archbishop Whately, there is in respect to creeds, and confessions, and forms of prayer, that the church might not pervert them by superstitious observances. We cannot resist the conviction that this rite of immersion leads to superstition, as seen in history; and is an unauthorized assumption, in direct conflict with the teachings, the spirit, and the example of Christ and his apostles.

A sublime simplicity, that overlooks and utterly disregards all outward ceremonials, characterizes their teachings and all their ordinances in the first planting of the Christian church. Careless of all forms, the apostles receive their converts into the church by the simple rite of baptism in the name of Christ; omitting, as it would seem, even the formula which Christ himself had given them. "Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head," said Peter, while yet an unenlightened formalist; but Jesus mildly taught him that the significance and importance of the act depended not upon the extent of the application of the water. The church, indeed, soon lost the spirituality of her religion and the simplicity of her ordinances, in endless strife about forms and ceremonies. Perhaps the first of all her departures from the institutions of Christ and his apostles was to insist upon immersion, as emblematic of the suffusion of the Holy Spirit, and the only valid mode of administering the ordinance. Certain it is that this soon Other changes soon

became the prevailing mode of baptizing. followed, as will appear in the sequel.

§ 4. OF UNSCRIPTURAL FORMALITIES AND DOCTRINES RELATING

TO BAPTISM.

1. Exclusive immersion.-We cannot resist the conviction that this mode of baptism was the first departure from the teaching and example of the apostles on this subject. Certainly it is not in harmony with the Christian dispensation to give such importance to merely an outward rite. It is altogether a Jewish rather than a Christian idea, and indicates an origin and a spirit foreign to that of the ordinances of Christ and the apostles. If it was a departure from their teachings, it was the earliest; for baptism by immersion unquestionably was very early the common mode of baptism.

2. Trine immersion.-In the second century it had become customary to immerse three times at the mention of the several per