in which it is forbidden.' It appears also to have been the practice of some of the Cataphrygians or Montanists.2

2. The vicarious baptism of the living for the dead may also be mentioned in this place. Several religious sects, particularly the Marcionites, practised this rite, alleging for their authority a misconstruction of the apostle's language in 1 Cor. xv. 29. But the custom is severely censured by Tertullian, and by Chrysostom,* who describes the ceremony as a ridiculous theatrical farce. Epiphanius, Theodoret, and others understand the passage in question from 1 Cor. xv. 29, to relate to the practice of baptizing catechumens who might be near to death before the completion of their term of probation and preparation.

3. The offspring of untimely and monstrous births appear not to have been the subjects of baptism in the ancient church. Such baptisms began in the thirteenth century to be the subject of discussion in ecclesiastical councils.6

4. It was a disputed point in the ancient church, whether or not demoniacs and maniacs were proper subjects of baptism. The rule in these cases seems to have been that such persons should not receive baptism until they were healed of their malady, although they were permitted, in the mean time, to attend at the preaching of the word, and at public prayers, under the superintendence of the exorcists; and were ranked in the first class of catechumens. Cyprian supposed that evil spirits were expelled by baptism; but he appears not to have authorized the administration of the ordinance to such, except in case of sickness, or of great bodily weakness. These energumens were, however, in some instances permitted to partake of the Lord's supper. And this circumstance affords the strongest proof that they were sometimes baptized.8 Persons in the near approach of death were, in almost all cases, permitted to receive this ordinance.9

5. Baptism administered in cases of extreme sickness, without the consent or consciousness of the patient, was considered valid; and yet such persons, as a rebuke to them for delaying their duty in this respect, if they recovered, were not usually eligible to the highest offices of the church.10

6. The deaf and dumb were received to this ordinance, provided they gave credible evidence of their faith."

7. In the sixth and seventh centuries it became customary to compel many Jews and pagans to receive baptism; and some instances occur of compulsory baptism of a date still earlier; but

such instances of violence were not authorized by the church.12 In general, the free will and consent of the individual was required as a condition of his baptism. In the case of infants, the request of their parents was regarded as their own until they arrived at years of discretion, when they were expected to acknowledge their own baptism by confirmation.

8. Baptism was administered whenever a reasonable doubt existed as to its having been administered.13

9. Children of unbelieving parents, when by any means submitted to the supervision or guardianship of professed Christians, were baptized. This was esteemed a great favour to such children, and was especially bestowed upon the offspring of the Jews.

10. Not only were the openly immoral excluded from baptism, but generally all who were engaged in any immoral and unlawful pursuits, such as those who ministered to idolatry by manufacturing images or other articles for purposes of superstition," stage-players, 15 gladiators, wrestlers, and all who were addicted to theatrical exhibitions; 16 astrologers, diviners, conjurers, fortune-tellers, dancingmasters, strolling minstrels, etc.17

says

The reason for all these prohibitions lay in the immoral and idolatrous tendency of the practices to which these persons were addicted. Many of these practices were immoral and scandalous even among the heathen. Tertullian observes "that they who professed these arts were noted with infamy, degraded, and denied many privileges, driven from court, from pleading, from the senate, from the order of knighthood, and all other honours in the Roman city and commonwealth.18 Which is also confirmed by St. Austin, who that no actor was ever allowed to enjoy the freedom or any other honourable privilege of a citizen of Rome.19 Therefore, since this was so infamous and scandalous a trade even among the heathen, it is no wonder that the church would admit none of this calling to baptism, without obliging them first to bid adieu to so ignominious a profession. To have done otherwise, would have been to expose herself to reproach. It would have given occasion to the adversary to blaspheme, if men of such lewd and profligate practices had been admitted to the privileges of the church, who were excluded from the liberties of the city and the honors of the commonwealth. The learned Hieronymus Mercurialis observes that 'the several sorts of heathen games and plays were instituted upon a religious account, in honour of the gods; and men thought they

were doing a grateful thing to them while they were engaged in such exercises.'

With good reason, therefore, the church refused to admit any of this calling to baptism, unless they first abandoned their ignominious pursuits. The ancient fathers were particularly severe in their invectives against theatrical exhibitions. They declared it incompatible with the piety and the purity of Christian life, either to engage in them as an actor or to attend them as a spectator. Tertullian, in speaking of a Christian woman who returned from the theatre possessed with a devil, makes the unclean spirit, on being asked how he dared presume to make such an attempt upon a believer, reply "that he had a good right to her, because he found her upon his own ground." "1

21

The profane custom of baptizing bells, etc., is a superstition that was unknown to the primitive church. It is first mentioned with censure in the Capitulars of Charlemagne in the eighth century, and became prevalent in the later centuries.

§ 8. OF MINISTERS OF BAPTISM.

GREAT importance has ever been attached to this ordinance as the initiatory rite of admission to the church. But the duty of administering the ordinance does not appear to have been restricted to any officer of the church. John the Baptist himself baptized them that came to him. But our Lord baptized not, but his disciples. John iv. 2. There is, indeed, a tradition that our Saviour baptized St. Peter; that Peter baptized Andrew, James, and John; and that these disciples administered the rite to others. To this tradition Roman Catholic writers attach much importance; but it rests on no good foundation.

In some instances recorded in the New Testament, baptism was administered under the sanction and by the immediate order of the apostles. But it is remarkable that the apostles themselves are seldom related to have administered baptism. No intimation is given that Peter assisted in baptizing the three thousand, nor is it probable that the ordinance could have been administered to them by himself alone. Acts ii. 41. He only commanded Cornelius and his family to be baptized. Acts x. 48. Paul, in 1 Cor. i. 12-17, and Peter, in Acts x. 36–48, evidently describes the administration of baptism as a subordinate office, compared with that of preaching peace by Jesus Christ.

On the whole, we learn from the New Testament the following particulars:-1. Our Lord himself did not baptize, but he intrusted his apostles and disciples with the administration of this rite. 2. The apostles, though they sometimes administered baptism themselves, usually committed this office to others. 3. It cannot be determined whether other persons, either ministers or laymen, were allowed to baptize without a special commission. 4. Philip, the deacon, baptized in Samaria men and women, Simon Magus, and the Ethiopian eunuch, although no mention is made of any peculiar commission for this purpose. This he appears to have received at his consecration to his office, as related Acts vi. 3-7.

Justin Martyr, in his description of this ordinance, says nothing of the person by whom it was administered. But in speaking of the Lord's supper in the same connection, he ascribes both the administration of that ordinance and the exposition of the Scriptures to the president of the brethren; from which the supposition would seem not altogether improbable that baptism was not administered by the presiding officer of the church.

We have, however, good evidence that after the second century the bishop was regarded as the regular minister of baptism. Tertullian says expressly that "the bishop has the power of administering baptism; and next in order the presbyters and deacons, though not without the sanction of the bishop, that thus the order and peace of the church may be preserved."* He adds, that under other circumstances the laity may exercise this right; but advises that it should be done with reverence and modesty, and only in cases of necessity. Women are utterly forbidden by him to exercise this right: The Apostolical Constitutions accord this right to bishops and presbyters, the deacons assisting them; but denies the right to readers and singers, and other inferior officers of the church. It is worthy of remark that here bishops and presbyters are placed on an equality, while deacons are made subordinate.

2

The sentiments of the Eastern church were coincident with those of the Western in relation to the ministers of baptism.

The officiating minister, as well as the candidate, was expected to prepare himself for performing this service by fasting, prayer, and, sometimes, washing of the hands; and to be clothed in white."

Baptismum dandi habet jus summus sacerdos, qui est episcopus; dehinc presbyteri et diaconi; non tamen sine episcopi auctoritate propter ecclesiæ honorem; quo salvo, salva pax est.-De Bap. c. xvii.

Lay baptism, of which frequent mention is made in the early history of the church, was undoubtedly treated as valid by the laws and usages of the ancient church. It is equally certain, however, that it was not authorized as a general rule, but only admitted as an exception in cases of emergency.

§ 9. OF THE TIMES OF BAPTISM.

THE time of administering the rite was subject to various changes from age to age, of which the most important are given below in their chronological order:

1. In the apostolic age the administration of this ordinance was subject to no limitations either of time or place. Acts ii. 4; viii. 38; ix. 18; x. 47; xvi. 33.

2. The account of Justin Martyr gives no definite information on this point; but it would seem from this author that baptism was regarded as a public and solemn act, suitable to be performed in any assembly convened for religious worship. Tertullian, however, speaks of Easter and Whitsuntide, corresponding to the Passover and Pentecost of the Jews, as the most appropriate seasons for administering this rite, and appeals, not to tradition, but to arguments of his own, in confirmation of his opinion.1 Other writers. refer to apostolical tradition and an ancient rule of the church.2

3. In the sixth century, the whole period between the Passover and Pentecost, and Easter and Whitsuntide above mentioned, were established by several councils as the regular times for baptism, cases of necessity only being excepted.3 The ordinance, however, was usually administered by common consent, not by any authority of the church, during the night preceding these great festivals. Easter-eve, or the night preceding the great Sabbath, was considered the most sacred of all seasons. And this period, while our Lord lay entombed in his grave, and just before his resurrection, was regarded as most appropriate for this solemn ordinance, which was supposed to be deliverance from the power of sin and consecration to newness of life. Comp. Rom. vi. 3.

The illuminations on this night, which are mentioned by several writers, had special reference to the spiritual illumination supposed to be imparted by this ordinance, which was denominated patioua, φωτισμός, φωτιστήριον, illumination, as has been already mentioned in § 1. For similar reasons, baptism, which was considered peculiarly the sacrament of the Holy Ghost, was regarded as ap