of such unscriptural and foolish sentiments and practices is their confutation to every unbiased and intelligent mind.

III. THE FORM OF BAPTISM.

Roman Catholics and Protestants are agreed on this point. Both allow that no other form can be used than that prescribed by our Saviour Christ, to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. That it is not lawful to change this form in sense, as many heretics have done, nor yet in words, so as to leave out any of the three persons in the trinity, and inclusively to understand them by naming one.

The Greeks use the following form: "Let this thy servant be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." The reason for this form was to shun and refute the error of certain persons among them who ascribed the virtue of baptism to the baptizers as to a principal cause. The Latin Church acknowledges the validity of baptism among the Greeks, as she does the baptism of Protestants and every kind of heretics.

IV. The minister or administrator of baptism.

Bishops and priests, by right of office, baptize in the Church of Rome. But deacons, by permission of the bishop or priest, may baptize.*

"Those who may administer baptism in case of necessity, but without its solemn ceremonies, hold the third and last place; and in this class are included all, even the laity, men and women, to whatever sect they may belong. This power extends, in case of necessity, even to Jews, infidels, and heretics; provided, however, they intend to do what the Catholic Church does in that act of her ministry."+

"Let not the faithful, however, imagine that this office is given promiscuously to all, so as to supersede the propriety of observing a certain order among those who administer baptism; when a man is present, a woman, when a clerk, a layman, when a priest, a simple clerk, should not administer this sacrament. Midwives, however, when accustomed to its administration, are not to be found fault with if sometimes, when a man is present who is unacquainted with the manner of its administration, they perform what may otherwise appear to belong more properly to men."‡

The Council of Trent has the following canon on this point: "Whoever shall affirm that baptism, when administered by heretics, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, with the intention of doing what the church does, is not true baptism; let him be accursed."-Can. 4th.

The reader will perceive that laymen or women, whether Christians or Jews, infidels or heretics, of every sect, whether wicked or righteous persons, may baptize. The absurdity of this must be so apparent to every person that it is needless to make it the subject of sober comment. The reason given for this unscriptural latitude is, to prevent the damnation of children; as they believe that every child dying without baptism must be shut out of heaven.

Besides, however wicked the administrator be, his wickedness does not, as they teach, disqualify him from administering baptism. But

* Cat., p. 159. + Idem. + Idem.

this subject was sufficiently treated of when we gave a general survey of their sacraments.

V. THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM.

The points on which Romanists and Protestants differ in regard to the subjects of baptism may be ranged under the following heads: 1. The baptism of adults. 2. Of insane, mad, dumb, &c., persons. 3. Of infants. 4. Of abortives. 5. Compulsory baptism. 6. The baptism of monsters. A brief notice of each of these will help to develop the peculiar doctrines and usages of Roman Catholics respecting baptism.

1. The baptism of adults.

By an adult, says Dens, is here understood one who at some time had the use of reason; because persons perpetually and fully insane are to be ranked with infants, in whom no disposition is required. In adults, one disposition is sufficient to receive baptism validly, another is necessary to receive it validly and fruitfully. The proper dispositions necessary for baptism are free-will, faith, and penitence.†

(1.) Romanists maintain that adults must receive baptism voluntarily; and yet they so explain this that compulsory baptism may also be practised.

The Catechism of the Council of Trent says: "The faithful are also to be instructed in the necessary dispositions for baptism, that in the first place they must desire and propose to receive it; for as in baptism we die to sin and engage to live a new life, it is fit that it be administered to those only who receive it of their own free-will and accord, and is to be forced upon none. Hence we learn from holy tradition that it has been the invariable practice of the church to administer baptism to no individual without previously asking him if he be willing to receive it."‡

Ferraris says: "The first condition is voluntary consent, because God is unwilling that any one should be introduced into his family against his will."

The same author, after asserting that, for the validly receiving of baptism, a voluntary assent, whether actual, virtual, or habitual, is sufficient, adds: "Nay, for validly receiving baptism, any voluntary consent is sufficient, although it is mixed with an involuntary one, extorted by force or fear in any manner, or designed for a perverse end, as, for instance, to accomplish a flagitious deed, to obtain the favour of a prince, or some temporal gain. So Innocent III. hath precisely defined, 'He who is violently attracted by terrors and punishment, and, lest he should receive detriment, receives the sacrament of baptism, such a one (as he who feignedly accedes to baptism) receives the character, the impress of Christianity; and such also is he who, as it were, conditionally willing, although not absolutely, is FORCED to the observance of the Christian faith.' In which sense, says the pontiff, ought to be understood the decree of the fourth Toletan council, in the canon concerning the Jews, where it is said, ' But those who are forced to come over to Christianity, it is necessary that they should be forced, by compulsion * Dens, No. 27, de Baptis.

+ Catechism, p. 165. Ferraris in Baptis., art. 5, n. 24-35. + Cat p. 165. ◊ Prima (conditio) est consensus voluntarius quia Deus neminem invitum vult suæ familiæ adscribi.-Ferraris in verb. Baptismus, art. v, n. 25.

or necessity, to retain the faith which they have received, lest the name of God be blasphemed, and the faith which they have received be esteemed vile and contemptible.' Hence St. Thomas saith,' But if this coaction by threats or stripes is such as that the baptized would rather choose baptism than to suffer such things; then he receives the sacrament, but not the advantage of the sacrament.' Baptism is to be conferred on a dying person destitute of the use of his senses, when there is one witness, though an infidel, who affirms that the dying man asked for baptism; and this is for a reason similar to that in the case where there is an obligation of absolving a person who lived in sin to the last, but who gave no signs of repentance, except that one witness testified that some were manifested. The reason is the same in both cases; nay, it is greater in the baptized person; for in baptism, the acts of receiving it are not the matter of the sacrament, as in confession. Wherefore, since all the doctors affirm that a penitent can be absolved, when one witness affirms that he gave signs of grief; they are bound to hold that an adult can be baptized, when one witness affirms that he desired baptism."*

From the foregoing quotations we learn, the Roman Catechism teaches that those who receive baptism must do it of their own free will and accord; that baptism is not to be forced upon them; and that this is the practice of the Latin church. Ferraris, too, teaches that baptism must be received voluntarily; but then he recalls this, and produces authorities to show that any kind of voluntary assent is sufficient, though mixed with involuntary consent, extorted by force or fear, or for any purpose, however vile; and hence this doctrine runs entirely into compulsory baptism. This furnishes another specimen of the accommodating character of Roman Catholic divinity, which can suit itself, to a great extent, to all consciences, and to every class of persons, whether righteous, wicked, or hypocritical. We shall have occasion, at a future time, to present the authoritative decision of the Church

"Immo sufficit ad valide recipiendum baptismum quilibet consensus voluntarius, licet cum involuntario mixtus sit, videlicet vi aut metu quocunque extortus, seu præstitus ob perversum finem, v. g., propter flagitium patrandum, propter principis favorem, vel lucrum temporale consequendum, cit. cap. Majores, ubi Innoc. III. sic præcise definit: Is, qui terroribus atque suppliciis violenter attrahitur, et ne detrimentum incurrat baptismi suscipit sacramentum, talis (sicut et is qui ficte ad baptismum accedit) characterem suscipit Christianitatis impressum; et ipse tamquam conditionaliter volens, licet absolute non velit, cogendus est ad observantiam fidei Christiana; in quo casu dicit pontifex, debet intelligi decretum Concil. Toletani IV, c. 56, in Canone de Judæis 5, dist. 45, ubi sic dicitur: Qui autem ad Christianitatem coacti sunt venire oportet, ut fidem, quam etiam vi, vel necessitate susceperunt, tenere cogantur, ne nomen Domini blasphemetur; et fides quam susceperunt, vilis et contemptibilis habeatur. Unde S. Thom., in 4, dist. 6, q. 1, art. 2, quæst. 3, in corpore, sic concludit: Si autem sit coactio inducens sicut minis, vel flagellis, ita quod baptizatus potius eligat baptismum suscipere, quam talia pati; tunc suscipit sacramentum, sed non rem sacramenti. Dandus est baptismus moribundo sensibus destituto, quando unicus testis, etiam infidelis, affirmat, eum petiisse baptismum, eodem modo quo adest obligatio absolvendi publicum peccatorem in extremis degentem, qui signa doloris ostendere non potest, unico tantum teste testimonium ferente ea manifestasse; est enim par ratio in utroque casu, immo major in baptizando, nam in baptismo actus suscipientis illum, non sunt materia sacramenti, sicut in confessione. Quapropter omnes doctores affirmantes posse pœnitentem absolvi, testificante alio, signa doloris manifestasse, tenentur fateri posse adultum baptizari, teste affirmante, baptismum ab illo postulatum fuisse."-Ferraris on Baptismus, art. v, n. 30.

VOL. I.-14

of Rome in favour of compulsory baptism. The reader, however, can now judge how far this nominal condition of voluntary consent, in order to receive baptism, is counteracted by force or compulsion, when this is necessary to promote the extension of mother church. He will also see how this double doctrine is calculated to promote the interests of pure religion.

(2.) The second condition, in order to receive baptism, is faith. "Besides a wish to be baptized, in order to obtain the grace of the sacrament, faith, for the same reason, is also necessary.'

(3.) The third disposition necessary in adults, who, with original sin, are also guilty of some personal mortal sin, is penitence, or grief for sins committed. This is an article of faith. "Another necessary condition is compunction for past sins, and a fixed determination to refrain from their future commission: should any one dare to approach the baptismal font a slave to vicious habits, he should be instantly repelled; for what so obtrusive to the grace and virtue of baptism as the obdurate impenitence of those who are resolved to persevere in the indulgence of their unhallowed passions?" If this salutary doctrine were observed in the Latin church, it would be well for Christianity; but, alas! it is entirely untaught to those who love sin, so that they may continue therein without any serious apprehensions of losing their souls. Let the following testimony be considered in proof of this :

66

The Council of Trent, as explained by the Latin doctors, teaches that attrition, or imperfect contrition, is sufficient in order to receive baptism. Now, in order to obtain grace and righteousness, penance was always necessary for all men who had defiled themselves with mortal sin, even for those who sought to be washed in the sacrament of baptism." Again; the council says, "When they, perceiving that they are sinners, and moved by that fear of divine justice with which they are salutarily smitten, they are by the consideration of God's mercy encouraged to hope, trust that he will be propitious to them for Christ's sake, begin to love him as the fountain of all righteousness, and consequently regard sin with a certain hatred and abhorrence, that is, with that penitence which must necessarily exist before baptism."||

Divines maintain that the council teaches that barely to begin to love God, or to have attrition or imperfect contrition, is sufficient, and that charity or the love of God is unnecessary; nay, that it ought not or cannot exist, non debet esse charitas. Here there is a distinction made between repentance that precedes baptism, and that which follows it; whereas the Scripture requires all sin, without exception, to be repented of.

*

Catechism, p. 166.

+ Idem.

See Ferraris on the word Baptismus, art. v, n. 27.

"Fuit quidem pœnitentia universis hominibus, qui se mortali aliquo peccato inquinassent, quovis tempore ad gratiam et justitiam assequandam necessaria, illis etiam, qui baptismi sacramento ablui petivissent."--Concil. Trid., sess. xiv, c. 1.

"Et dum peccatores se esse intelligentes, à divinæ justitiæ timore, quo utiliter concutiuntur, ad considerandam Dei misericordiam se convertendo, in spem eriguntur, fidentes Deum sibi propter Christum propitium fore; illumque tamquàm omnis justitiæ fontem, diligere incipiunt; ac proptereà moventur adversùs peccata per odium aliquod, et detestationem, hoc est, per eam pœnitentiam, quam ante baptismum agi oportet."Idem, sess. vi, c. 6.

¶ Dens, Tract. de Baptis., No 27, p. 200.

They furthermore teach that no external confession of sin is required from those who are to be baptized; or, in other words, that sacramental confession, as in the sacrament of penance, is not necessary or proper.*

They teach "that faith, and grief for sins, are not necessary to receive baptism validly, but only to receive it fruitfully, to wit, with the effect of grace. Whence if any adult, without an act of faith and grief for sins committed, should receive baptism, he receives it validly, because he receives the character; not, however, fruitfully, because he does not receive the grace and the other effects flowing from it. But when the disqualification (fictio) ceases, that is, when the act of faith and grief takes place, then he receives the grace and other effects, without the reiteration of baptism, by the power of the past baptism received without faith and grief for sin; because an irreiterable sacrament cannot be destitute of its fruit when the disqualification of the receiver ceases, that is, when faith and grief for sin come into existence. In like manner heretics (Protestants) who are baptized in their heresy receive valid baptism, and on the receding of their disqualification, that is, on the abjuration of their heresy by their conversion to the true faith, receive immediately grace and the influence of the Holy Spirit."+

According to this doctrine of the Roman Church, the Scriptural qualification for baptism may be dispensed with for the present, or postponed to a more convenient time; and yet the sinner may be acting in conformity to what he supposes to be the right way of salvation. It is true he may be told that he ought truly to repent now. But this will have little force with those who are as ignorant as the majority of Roman Catholics are; because, when convenience suits, they may make up what is wanting. The effects of this on the morality of the multitude are far from being salutary.

2. The baptism of insane, mad, or dumb persons.

Dens says, that this question can scarcely occur when all are baptized in infancy.‡

The Roman Catechism (p. 166) gives the following directions on this subject:" Insane persons who are favoured with lucid intervals, and during these lucid intervals express no wish to be baptized, are not to be admitted to baptism, unless in extreme cases when death is apprehended. In such cases, if, previously to their insanity, they gave intimation of a wish to be baptized, the sacrament is to be administered; without such indication previously given, they are not to be admitted to baptism; and the same rule is to be followed with regard to persons in * Dens, Tract. de Baptis, No. 27, p. 200; also Ferraris in Baptis., art. v, n. 28. "Fides et dolor de peccatis, non requiruntur ad recipiendum baptismum valide, sed solùm ad recipiendum fructuose, nempe cum effectu gratiæ; unde si quis adultus sine actu fidei et doloris de peccatis commissis baptismum susciperet, valide eum susciperet, quia characterem reciperet, non tamen fructuose, quia non reciperet gratiam et cæteros effectus ex illa pendentes... Recedente vero fictione, id est, posito actu fidei et doloris, tum gratiam, et cæteros effectus reciperet absque reiteratione baptismi ex vi præterriti baptismi recepti sine fide et dolore de peccatis, quia sacramentum irreiterabile non debet carere suo fructu, recedente fictione recipientis, id est, adveniente vera fide, et vero dolore de peccatis commissis. . . . Et idem de hæreticis, qui baptizati in hæresi recipiunt valide baptismum, et recedente fictione, id est, abjurata hæresi, per conversionem ad veram fidem recipiunt statim gratiam et virtutem Spiritûs Sancti.". Ferraris on Baptismus, art. v, No. 32-34.

De Bapt., No. 26.