vii. 4. We read in the same evangelist of the baptism not only of cups, pots, and brazen vessels, but also of couches. Also, as in the Old Testament we often read of sprinkling with water, as Num. xix. 13. 18. Ezek. xxxvi. 25. and it is referred to in the New, Heb. ix. 19. where we read, And Moses sprinkled both the book of the Law, and all the people; I think it most probable, that when great numbers were baptized at the same time, the water was applied in this manner, the practice being sufficiently familiar to Jews.

In the three first centuries it was not uncommon to baptize persons at the hour of death, and in this case they certainly did not dip the whole body. It is said, indeed, by some, that the Eunomians made this change in the rite of baptism; thinking it indecent to plunge persons over head in water, and especially naked; and that they therefore only uncovered them as far as the breast, and then poured the water upon their heads. But as the Eunomians were a branch of the Arians, it is not probable that the Catholics, as they were called, would adopt the custom from them. Besides, if the practice of immersion had always been thought absolutely necessary to baptism, it is not probable that the Christians of that age would have ever departed from it. As superstition increased, we shall have evidence enough, that they were more ready to add than to diminish, with respect to every thing that was of a ceremonial nature.

It has been much debated whether infants were considered as proper subjects for baptism in the primitive church. Now, besides, that we are not able to trace the origin of infant baptism, and therefore are necessarily carried back into the age of the apostles for it, a controversy arose pret. ty early in the Christian church, which would naturally have led some persons to deny the antiquity of the practice, if they could; and considering the state of opinions and practices with respect to things of a similar nature, it is natural to suppose that the primitive Christians would bap. tize infants as well as adult persons.

With respect to this subject, I cannot think that writers have attended so much as they ought to have done to the power of a master of a family (the patria potestas) in the East, and particularly have not considered how far his own character and profession usually affected his wife, his chil dren, and his servants, and indeed every thing that belong. ed to him. When the Ninevites repented, they made even

their cattle to fast, and wear sackcloth, as well as themselves; not that they could consider their cattle as having any occasion to repent, but they did it in order to express, in a stronger manner, their own humiliation and contrition.

Another illustration of the same principle is found in the case of Abraham, who by his own act circumcised not only his son Ishmael, but all his slaves. It was not done for them, for they had no interest whatever in the promises made to him, but it was a necessary appendage to his own circumcision.

The same example was followed in future ages, when the Jews made converts to their religion. The master of a family not only submitted to the rite himself, but likewise saw that his household, or all that depended on him, did the same.

It was natural, therefore, for the apostles, and other Jews, on the institution of baptism, to apply it to infants, as well as to adults, as a token of the profession of christianity by the master of the family only; and this they would do without considering it as a substitute for circumcision, and succeeding in the place of it, which it is never said to do in the scriptures, though some have been led by some circumstances of resemblance in the two rites to imagine that this was the case.

Accordingly, we find in the scriptures, that the jailor, on professing his faith in Christ, was baptized, he and all his, Acts xvi. 33, and that Lydia was baptized, and all her household, ver. 15. Now it is certain that to a Jew these phrases would convey the idea of the children, at least, if not of the domestic slaves, having been baptized, as well as the head of the family. A Roman also could not have understood them to imply less than all who were subject to what was called the patria potestas.

It also appears to me to be very evident from ecclesiastical history, and the writings of the christian Fathers, that infant baptism was the uniform practice of the primitive christians, and continued to be so till along with other superstitious notions, they got the idea of the efficacy of baptism as such to wash away sins, and consequently of the pe culiar safety of dying presently after they were baptized, before any fresh guilt could be contracted.

Tertullian indeed advises to defer baptism till persons be of age to be christians, on account of the hazard in which

it placed their sponsors, and because of their innocence in youth, but he no where intimates that infant baptism was not universal in his day, or that it was an innovation. He wished merely to prevent that disgrace which some who were admitted to baptism, brought upon their profession, and he recommends therefore that it be deferred in all cases, amongst others in that of infants.

Owing to the liberalizing effect of christianity upon ancient slavery, and also to the less absolute control of fathers over their children in the countries of Europe, compared with the East, it came to pass in time that slaves, and adult children were not baptized without their own consent, but neither Jews nor Romans would have made the same exception in favor of infants.

Considering how very different are the ideas and customs of these times, and these parts of the world, from those which prevailed among the Jews, when baptism was instituted, the peculiar reasons for applying it to infants have, in a great measure, ceased. But still, as the practice is of apostolical authority, it appears to me, that no innovation ought to be made in it by any power whatever; but that we ought rather to preserve those ideas which originally gave a propriety to it, especially when there is nothing unnatural in them. For my own part, I endeavor to adhere to the primitive ideas above mentioned, and therefore I consider the baptizing of my children, not as directly implying that they have any interest in it, or in the things signified by it, but as a part of my own profession of christianity, and conse quently as an obligation, which, as such, I am under, to educate my children and also to instruct my servants, in the principles of the christian religion. In this view of the ordinance of baptism, infants are indirectly interested in it, whether they adhere to the profession of christianity, and thereby secure the blessings of it when they become adults, so as to think and act for themselves, or not.

Maimonides, and the earliest Jewish writers, speak of solemn baptism as a necessary attendant on circumcision, whenever any new converts were made to their religion, and also as a practice that was immemorial among them. But whether it was tacitly implied in the original institution of circumcision, or whether it had been adopted afterwards, as naturally expressive of the new converts cleansing themselves from the impurities of their former state of

heathenism, it was probably the custom of the Jews in the time of our Savior.

If this was the case, if the Jews did both circumcise and baptize all of their households, who were capable of it, there was less reason for specifying the proper subjects for baptism, and we may fairly suppose that our Lord would have expressly restricted the application of it to adult persons, if he had intended that the prevailing custom should be altered. Consequently, when a master of a family was converted to Christianity, he would, of course, be required to baptize all his household, and consider himself as bound to instruct them in the principles of the religion, which he professed himself.

The controversy between Augustine and Pelagius about original sin, was well calculated to shed light on this subject; the former holding that baptism was necessary to wash the sin away, the latter that it was not necessary for that end, or conducive to it. Both, however, agreed that infants ought to be baptized; they differed only about the reason why they should be baptized. Neither intimates but what the custom was universal, and always had been.

Lastly, I am not able to interpret i Cor. vii. 14, The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, or else were the children unclean, but now they are holy, more naturally than by supposing, that as by holy, the Jews meant devoted to God, so by a child being holy, they meant that it had a right to the ceremonies of their holy religion. As therefore a child born of one Jewish parent had a right to circumcision, so a child born of one Christian parent had a right to baptism. Indeed, I do not see what other rational meaning can be assigned to the holiness of a child.

It is remarkable that the Christians in Abyssinia repeat their baptism annually, on the festival of Epiphany.

SECTION I.

OF THE OPINIONS AND PRACTICES OF THE CHRISTIANS RELATING TO BAPTISM, TILL THE REFORMATION.

THE rite of Baptism was, like that of the Lord's supper, early corrupted. But after the first centuries, there were no material alterations made, though the business of ccnfirmation grew out of it. Its chief abuses, unlike those of the Supper, were early acquired.

Baptism and regeneration were used in the second century as synonymous terms; and a sanctifying virtue was ascribed to the water.

Tertullian says, that the Holy Spirit was always given in baptism, and that the spirit of God descends upon the water, like a dove. Cyprian adds, that the adorable Trinity is ineffably in baptism. Paulinus declares, that the wa ter conceives and contains God. Chrysostom says, that the water ceases to be what it was before, and is not fit for drinking, but is proper for sanctifying; and that christian baptism is superior to that of John, inasmuch as his was the baptism of repentance, and had no power to forgive sins. Augustine asserts, that the water touches the body and pu rifies the heart.

Superstitious practices, similar to those which followed the corruption of the eucharist, did not fail to accompany this undue reverence for the water of baptism. In the third century, the noviciates returned from baptism, adorned with crowns and clothed with white garments, in token of their victory over sin and the world. After baptism, they would not wash till the end of the week, The bodies of the baptized were wiped, lest a drop of the precious water should fall to the ground. It was believed, that a miracle was wrought on the water that was drawn on the day of Epiphany, because it was the anniversary of Christ's baptism. As it was supposed that a person newly baptized was cleansed from all sin, many deferred baptism till near the close of life. Constantine, the Great, was not baptized till he was at the last gasp, and in this he was followed by his son, Constantius. In such cases, of course immersion was out of the question. In some places, rather than to omit baptism entirely, it was usual to baptize those who were actually dead.

After the age of Justin Martyr, many additions were made to the rite. The baptized person received milk and honey, and abstained from washing the remainder of the day, Unction, imposition of hands, and signing with the sign of the cross, were devised and great efficacy attributed to them. The ceremonies of exorcism and adjuration, were practised, to drive evil spirits from the persons to be bap tized. Salt, as a symbol of purity and wisdom, was given them, and candles were lighted. By a decree of the coun cil of Laodicea in 364, two anointings were prescribed; ane