The Ministration of Publick Baptism of Infants,
To be Used in the Church.

Rubric 1. Baptism formerly administered only at Easter and Whitsuntide. I. It appeareth by ancient writers, (as was expressed in the rubric till the last review) that the Sacrament of Baptism in the old time was not commonly ministered but at two times in the year, at Easter and at Whitsuntide: at Easter, in remembrance of Christ’s resurrection, of which baptism is a figure; and at Whitsuntide, in remembrance of the three thousand souls baptized by the Apostles at that time. For this reason in the Western Church, all that were born after Easter were kept until Whit-Sunday; and all that were born after Whit-Sunday were reserved until next Easter: unless some imminent danger of death hastened the administration of it before. Though in the Eastern Church, the feast of Epiphany was also assigned for the administration of this Sacrament, in memory of our Saviour’s being, as it is supposed, baptized upon that day. And about the eighth or ninth century, the time for solemn baptism was enlarged even in the Latin Church, all Churches being moved by reason of the thing, to administer baptism (as at first) at all times of the year.

To be administered now only upon Sundays or holy-days. But yet though the custom above mentioned be now grown out of use, and (as the old rubric goes on) cannot, for many considerations, be well restored again; it is thought good to follow the same, as near as conveniently may be. And therefore our present rubric still orders, that the people be admonished, that it is most convenient that baptism should not be administered but upon Sundays and other holy-days, when the most number of people come together: as well for that the congregation there present may testify the receiving of them that be newly baptized into the number of Christ’s Church; as also because in the baptism of infants every man present may be put in remembrance of his own profession made to God in his baptism. For this cause also it is further declared expedient, that baptism be administered in the vulgar tongue. Nevertheless (if necessity so require) children may be baptized upon any other day, or (as it was worded in the old Common Prayers) children may at all times be baptized at home; or lastly, as it was expressed in the first book of king Edward, either at Church or else at home.

§.2. The irregularity and scandal of administering Baptism at home. But then it is to be observed, that if the occasion be so urgent as to require baptism at home, the Church has provided a particular office for the administration of it: which directs, that the essential parts of the sacrament be administered immediately in private; but defers the performance of the other solemnities till the child can be brought into the church. As to the office we are now upon, it is by no means to be used in any place but the church. It is ordered to be said at the font, in the middle of the morning or evening prayer, and all along supposes a congregation to be present; and particularly in one of the addresses which the Priest is to use, it is very absurd for him to tell the godfathers and godmothers in a chamber, that they have brought the child thither to be baptized, when he himself is brought thither to baptize it. It is still more absurd for him in such a place to use that expression, Grant that whosoever is here dedicated to thee by our office and ministry, &c. For he knows that the word here cannot be applicable to the place he is in: nor yet has he any authority to omit or alter the form.

If we look back into the practice of the primitive Church, we shall find that the place where this solemn act was per formed was at first indeed unlimited: In any place where there was water, as Justin Martyr tells us; in ponds or lakes, in springs or rivers, as Tertullian speaks; but always as near as might be to the place of their public assemblies. For it was never (except upon extraordinary occasions) done without the presence of the congregation. A rule the primitive Christians so zealously kept to, that the Trullan Council does not allow this holy sacrament to be administered even in chapels that were appropriate or private, but only in the public or parish churches; punishing the persons offending, if clergy, with deposition; if laity, with excommunication.

In our own Church indeed, since our unhappy confusions, this office hath been very frequently made use of in private; and some Ministers have thought themselves, to prevent the greater mischief of separation, necessitated to comply with the obstinacy of the greater and more powerful of their parishioners: who, for their ease or humour, or for the convenience of a more splendid and pompous christening, resolving to have their children baptized at home, if their own Minister refuse it, will get some other to do it.

But such persons ought calmly to consider how contrary to reason and the plain design of the institution of this sacrament, this perverse custom, and their obstinate persisting in it, is. For what is the end of that sacred ordinance, but to initiate the person into the Church of Christ, and to entitle him to the privileges of it? And where can there be a better representation of that society, than in a congregation assembled after the most solemn and conspicuous manner for the worship of God, and for the testifying of their communion in it? Where can the profession be more properly made before such admission; where the stipulation given, where the promise to undertake the duties of a Christian, but in such an assembly of Christians? How then can all this be done in concision and precipitance, without any timely notice or preparation, in private, in the corner of a bed-chamber, parlour, or kitchen, (where I have known it to be administered) and there perhaps out of a basin, or pipkin, a tea-cup, or a punchbowl, (as the excellent Dr. Wall with indignation observes) and in the presence of only two or three, or scarce so many as may be called a congregation? The ordinance is certainly public; public in the nature and end of it, and therefore such ought the celebration of it to be; the neglect whereof is the less excusable, because it is so easily remedied.

II. Rubric 2. The original and antiquity of godfathers and godmothers. The next rubric (which was added at the last review) is concerning the godfathers and godmothers. The use of which in the Christian Church was derived from the Jews, as well as the initiation of infants itself. And it is by some believed that the witnesses mentioned by Isaiah at the naming of his son, were of the same nature with these sureties.

§.2. The use of them. Whence called sureties, witnesses, and godfathers, &c. In the primitive Church they were so early, that it is not easy to fix the time of their beginning. Some of the most ancient Fathers make mention of them, and through all the successive ages afterwards we find the use of them continued, without any scruple or interruption, till the Anabaptists, and other Puritans of late years, raised some idle clamours against them. Some of these I shall have a proper place to speak to hereafter. In the mean while I desire to observe in general, that since the laws of all nations (because infants cannot speak for themselves) have allowed them guardians to contract for them in secular matters; which contracts, if they be fair and beneficial, the infants must make good when they come to age; it cannot, one would think, be unreasonable for the Church to allow them spiritual guardians, to promise those things in their name, without which they cannot obtain salvation. And this too, at the same time, gives security to the Church, that the children shall not apostatize, from whence they are called sureties; provides monitors to every Christian, to remind them of the vow which they made in their presence, from whence they are called witnesses; and better represents the new birth, by giving the infants new and spiritual relations, whence they are termed godfathers and godmothers.

§.3. The number of them. How long the Church has fixed the number of these sureties, I cannot tell: but by a constitution of Edmund, archbishop of Canterbury, A.D. 1236, and in a synod held at Worcester, A.D. 1240, I find the same provision made as is now required by our rubric, viz. That there should be for every male child that is to be baptized, two godfathers and one godmother, and for every female one godfather and two godmothers.

§.4. The qualifications of persons to be admitted godfathers and godmothers. By the twenty-ninth canon of our Church, no parent is to he admitted to answer as godfather for his own child. For the parents are already engaged under such strict bonds, both by nature and religion, to take care of their children’s education, that the Church does not think she can lay them under greater: but still makes provision, that if, notwithstanding these obligations, the parents should be negligent, or if it should please God to take them to himself before their children be grown up; there yet may be others, upon whom it shall lie to see that the children do not want due instructions, by means of such carelessness, or death of their parents. And for a further prevention of people’s entering upon this charge, before they are capable of understanding the trust they take upon themselves, it is further provided by the above-mentioned canon, that no person be admitted godfather or godmother, before the said person so undertaking hath received the holy Communion.

III. Rubric 3. Fonts, why so called. Why placed at the lower end of the church. Formerly very large. Why made of stone. When there are children to be baptized, the parents shall give knowledge thereof over night, or in the morning, before the beginning of Morning Prayer, to the Curate. And then the godfathers and godmothers, and the people with the children must be ready at the font,* so called, I suppose, because Baptism, at the beginning of Christianity, was performed in springs or fountains. They were at first built near the church, then in the church-porch, and afterwards (as it is now usual amongst us) placed in the church itself, but still keeping the lower end, to intimate that Baptism is the entrance into the mystical Church. In the primitive times we meet with them very large and capacious, not only that they might comport with the general customs of those times, viz. of persons being immersed or put under water; but also because the stated times of Baptism returning so seldom, great numbers were usually baptized at the same time. In the middle of them was always a partition; the one part for men, the other for women; that so, by being baptized asunder, they might avoid giving offence and scandal. But immersion being now. too generally discontinued, they have shrunk into little small fonts, scarce bigger than mortars, and only employed to hold less basins with water, though this last be expressly contrary to an ancient advertisement of our Church. It is still indeed required that there be a font in every church made of stone; because, saith Durand, the water that typified Baptism in the wilderness flowed from a rock, and because Christ, who gave forth the living water, is in Scripture called the Corner-Stone and the Rock.

§.2. Baptism, why to be performed after the second Lesson. At this font the children, &c., are to be ready, either immediately after the last Lesson at morning prayer, or else immediately after the last Lesson at evening prayer, as the Curate by his discretion shall appoint. The reason of which I take to be, because by that time the whole congregation is supposed to be assembled; which shews the irregularity (which prevails much in some churches) of putting off christenings till the whole service is over, and so reducing them (by the departing of the congregation) to almost private baptism.

I. The first question. THE people with the children, being ready, and the Priest coming to the font, (which is then to be filled with pure water) as our present rubric directs, and standing there, is, in the first place, to ask, Whether the child has been already baptized or no? The reason of which is, because Baptism is never to be repeated: for as there is but one Lord and one Faith, so there is but one Baptism. And in the primitive Church, those that stood up so earnestly for rebaptizing those who had been baptized by heretics, did not look upon that as a second Baptism, but esteemed that which had been conferred by heretics as invalid; seeing heretics, being out of the Church, could not give what they had not. And others, rather than repeat that sacrament, allowed even that Baptism to be valid which was administered by heretics, if it appeared that it had been performed in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

II. The Exhortation If the Minister be answered, that the child hath not been baptized, he then begins the solemnity with an exhortation to prayer; for there being a mutual covenant in this sacrament between God and man, so vast a disproportion between the parties, and so great a condescension on the part of the Almighty, (who designs only our advantage by it, and is moved by nothing but his own free grace to agree to it) it is very reasonable the whole solemnity should be begun with an humble address to God.

III. The two prayers. For which purpose follow two prayers: in the first of which we commemorate how God did typify this salvation, which he now gives by Baptism, in saving Noah and his family by water, and by carrying the Israelites safe through the Red Sea, as also how Christ himself, by being baptized, sanctified water to the mystical washing away of sin; and upon these grounds, we pray that God by his Spirit will wash and sanctify this child that he may be delivered from his wrath, received into the ark of his Church, and so filled with grace as to live holily here, and happily hereafter.

In the second prayer, to express our earnestness and importunity, we again renew our address, requesting, first. That this child may be pardoned and regenerated; and, secondly. That it may be adopted and accepted by Almighty God.

§.2. Double crossing of the persons baptized in the primitive Church. Between these two prayers in king Edward’s first Liturgy, the Priest was to ask the name of the child of its godfathers and godmothers, and then to make a cross upon its forehead and breast, saying, N. Receive the sign of the holy cross both in thy forehead and in thy breast, in token that thou shall not be ashamed to confess thy faith in Christ crucified; and so on, as in our own form, only speaking all along to the child. This is now done only upon the forehead, and reserved till after the child is baptized: though it is manifest there were anciently in the primitive Church two several signings with the cross: viz. one before Baptism, as was ordered by our first Liturgy; and the other after it, which was used with Unction at the time of Confirmation, of which I shall have occasion to speak hereafter. Why the crossing which we now retain is ordered after Baptism, will be shewn when I come to that part of the service.

§.3. Exorcising, an ancient practice in Baptism. After the second of these prayers, in the first Liturgy of king Edward, follows a form of exorcism, which I have printed in the margin,* which was founded upon a custom that obtained in the ancient ages of the Church, to exorcise the person baptized, or to cast the Devil out of him, who was supposed to have taken possession of the catechumen in his unregenerate state. And it cannot be denied but that possessions by evil spirits were very frequent before the spreading of the Gospel, when we read that many of them were ejected through the name of Christ. But the use of exorcism, as an ordinary rite in the administration of Baptism, cannot well be proved from any earlier authors than the fourth century, when it was taken in to denote that persons, before they were regenerate by Baptism, were under the kingdom of darkness, and held by the power of sin and the Devil. But it being urged by Bucer, in his censure of the Liturgy, that this exorcism was originally used to none but demoniacs, and that it was uncharitable to imagine that all were demoniacs who came to Baptism; it was thought prudent by our reformers to leave it out of the Liturgy, when they took a review of it in the fifth and sixth of king Edward. But to proceed in our own office.

IV. The Gospel, how properly chose. The people standing up, (which shews that they were to kneel at the two foregoing prayers,) the Minister, in the next place, is to read to them a portion out of the Gospel of St. Mark.* Which, though anciently applied to the sacrament of Baptism, has been censured by some as improper for this place; because the children there mentioned were not brought to be baptized. But if people would but consider upon what account the Gospel is placed here, I cannot think hut they would retract so impertinent a charge. In the making of a covenant, the express consent of both parties is required: and therefore the covenant of Baptism being now to be made, between Almighty God and the child to be baptized; it is reasonable, that, before the sureties engage in behalf of the infant, they should have some comfortable assurances that God on his part will be pleased to consent to and make good the agreement. For their satisfaction, therefore, the Priest, who is God’s ambassador, produces a warrant from Scripture, (the declaration of his will,) whereby it appears that God is willing to receive infants into his favour, and hath by Jesus Christ declared them capable of that grace and glory, which on God’s part are promised in this baptismal covenant: wherefore the sureties need not fear to make the stipulation on their part, since they have God’s own word that there is no impediment in children to make them incapable of receiving that which he hath promised, and will surely perform.

An Exhortation. From all which premises, the Church, in a brief exhortation that follows, concludes, that the sureties may cheerfully promise that which belongs to their part, since God by his Son hath given sufficient security that his part shall be accomplished. But this being the overflowings of God’s pure mercy and goodness, and not owing to any merits or deserts in us, it is fit it should be acknowledged in an humble manner.

VI. The preface to the covenant. And now no doubt remaining but that God is ready and willing to perform his part of the covenant, so soon as the child shall promise on his; the Priest addresses himself to the godfathers and godmothers to promise for him, and from them takes security that the infant shall observe the conditions that are required of him. And in this there is nothing strange or new; nothing which is not used almost in every contract. By an old law of the Romans, all magistrates were obliged, within five days after admission to their office, to take an oath to observe the laws. Now it happened that C. Valerius Flaccus was chosen edile, or overseer of the public buildings. But he being before Flamen Dialis, or Jupiter’s high priest, could not be admitted by the Romans to swear; their laws supposing that so sacred a person would voluntarily do what an oath would oblige him to. C. Valerius however desired that his brother, as his proxy, might be sworn in his stead: to this the commons agreed, and passed an act that it should be all the same as if the edile had sworn himself. Much after the same manner, whenever kings are crowned in their infancy, some of the nobility, deputed to represent them, take the usual oaths. The same do ambassadors for their principals at the ratifying of leagues or articles; and guardians for their minors, who are bound by the law to stand to what is contracted for them. Since then all nations and orders of men act by this method, why should it be charged as a fault upon the Church, that she admits infants to baptism, by sponsors undertaking for them?

VII. The stipulation to be made by question and answer. Having thus justified the reasonableness of a vicarious stipulation, let us now proceed to consider the form that is here used. It is drawn up all along by way of question and answer, which seems to have been the method even in the days of the Apostles: for St. Peter calls baptism the answer of a good conscience: and in the primitive Church, queries were always put to the persons baptized, which persons at age answered themselves, and children by their representatives, who are therefore to answer in the first person, (as the advocate speaks in the person of the client,) I renounce, &c., because the contract is properly made with the child.

§.2. In the name of the child. For which reason, in the first book of king Edward, the priest is ordered to demand of the child these several questions proposed; and in our present Liturgy, though the Minister directs himself to the godfathers and godmothers, yet he speaks by them to the child, as is manifestly apparent from the third question: and consequently the child is supposed to return the several answers which are made by the godfathers, &c., and to promise by those that are his sureties (as the above preface expresses it) that he will renounce the Devil and all his works, and constantly believe God’s holy word, and obediently keep his Commandments.

§.3. An account of the queries. The queries proposed are four, of which the last was added at the Restoration; there being but three of them in any of the former books, though in the first of king Edward they are broken into eight. They being all of them exceedingly suitable and proper, I think it not amiss to take notice of them severally.

§.8. This baptismal vow very primitive. I cannot conclude this section till I have observed, that this whole stipulation is so exactly conformable to that which was used in the primitive Church, that it cannot be unpleasant to compare them together. All that were to be baptized were brought to the entrance of the baptistery or font, and standing with their faces towards the west, (which being directly opposite to the east, the place of light, did symbolically represent the prince of darkness, whom they were to renounce) were commanded to stretch out their hands as it were in defiance of him; and then the bishop asked them every one, “Dost thou renounce the Devil and all his works, powers, and service?” To which each party answered, “I do renounce them.”—”Dost thou renounce the world, and all its pomps and vanities?” Answer, “I do renounce them.” In the next place they made an open confession of their faith, the bishop asking, “Dost thou believe in God the Father Almighty, &c., in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord, who, &c. Dost thou believe in the Holy Ghost, the holy Catholic Church, and in one baptism of repentance for remission of sins, and the life everlasting?” To all which each party answered, “I do believe;” as our Church still requires in this office.

I. The prayer for the sanctification of the child. THE contract being now made, it is fit the Minister should more peculiarly intercede with God for grace to perform it; and therefore, in the next place, he offers up four short petitions for the child’s sanctification. Most of our commentators upon the Common Prayer think, that they were added to supply the place of the old Exorcisms. But it is certain they were placed in the first book of king Edward with no such intent. For by that (as I have observed) a form of Exorcism was to be used over every child that was brought to be baptized: whereas these petitions were only to be used at such times as the water in the font was to be changed and consecrated, which was not then ordered to be done above once a month. For which reason the form for consecrating it did not, as now, make a part of the public office for baptism, but was placed by itself, at the end of the office for the administration of it in private, (i.e. at the end of the whole; for there was no office then for the baptism of such as are of riper years.)

And for the consecration of the water. The form that was used then was something different from what we use now. It was introduced with a prayer, that was afterwards left out at the second review.* And these petitions that are still retained, ran then in the plural number, and the future tense, in the behalf of all that should be baptized till the water should be changed again. And this is the reason that the last of these petitions still runs in general terms, it being continued word for word from the old form. Between the two last also were four other petitions inserted, which are now omitted.† And after all (the usual salutation intervening, viz. The Lord be with you. And with thy spirit) followed the prayer, which we still retain for the consecration of the water. There is some little difference in it towards the conclusion, because the water being sanctified by the first prayer above mentioned, there was no occasion to repeat the consecration in this; for which reason the words then, and in all the books to the last review, ran in this form: Regard, we beseech thee, the supplications of thy congregation, and grant that all thy servants, which shall be baptized in this water, prepared for the ministration of thy holy Sacrament, [which we here bless and dedicate in thy name to this spiritual washing,]‡ may receive the fulness of thy grace; and so on.

Of this form Bucer, in his Censure, could by no means approve. Such blessings and consecrations of things inanimate tends strangely (he tells us) to create in people’s minds terrible notions of magic or conjuration. He allows such consecrations indeed to be very ancient, but however they are not to be found in the word of God. At the second reformation therefore, the Common Prayer Book comes out with all that relates directly to the consecration of the water omitted. The first prayer above mentioned was left out entirely, and the last purged from those words, prepared for the ministration of the holy Sacrament. And thus the form continued till the last review, when a clause was again added to invocate the Spirit, to sanctify the water to the mystical washing away of sin. Now by this is meant, not that the water contracts any new quality in its nature or essence, by such consecration; but only that it is sanctified or made holy in its use, and separated from common to sacred purposes. In order to which, though the primitive Christians believed, as well as we do, that water in general was sufficiently sanctified by the baptism of our Saviour in the river Jordan; yet when any particular water was at any time used in the administration of baptism, they were always careful to consecrate it first by a solemn invocation of the Holy Spirit.

II. Name, why given at Baptism. All things being thus prepared for the baptism of the child, the Minister is now to take it into his hands, and to ask the godfathers and godmothers to name it. For the Christian name being given as a badge that we belong to Christ, we cannot more properly take it upon us, than when we are enlisted under his banner. We bring one name into the world with us, which we derive from our parents, and which serves to remind us of our original guilt, and that we are born in sin: but this new name is given us at our baptism, to remind us of our new birth, when, being washed in the laver of regeneration, we are thereby cleansed from our natural impurities, and become in a manner new creatures, and solemnly dedicate ourselves to God, So that the naming of children at this time hath been thought by many to import something more than ordinary, and to carry with it a mysterious signification. We find something like it even among the heathens: for the Romans had a custom of naming their children on the day of their lustration, (i.e. when they were cleansed and washed from their natural pollution,) which was therefore called Dies nommalis. And the Greeks also, when they carried their infants, a little after their birth, about the fire, (which was their ceremony of dedicating or consecrating them to their gods,) were used at the same time to give them their names.

Heathen or wanton names prohibited. And that the Jews named their children at the time of circumcision, the holy Scriptures, as well as their own writers, expressly tell us. And though the rite itself of circumcision was changed into that of baptism by our Saviour, yet he made no alteration as to the time and custom of giving the name, hut left that to continue under the new, as he had found it under the old dispensation. Accordingly we find this time assigned and used to this purpose ever since: the Christians continuing from the earliest ages to name their children at the time of baptism. And even people of riper years commonly changed their name, (as Saul, saith St. Ambrose, at that time changed his name to Paul,) especially if the name they had before was taken from any idol or false god. For the Nicene Council forbids the giving of heathen names to Christians, and recommends the giving the name of some apostle or saint: not that there is any fortune or merit in the name itself, but that, by such means, the party might be stirred up to imitate the example of that holy person whose name he bears. And by a provincial constitution of our own Church, made by archbishop Peccham, A.D. 1281, it is provided, that no wanton names be given to children; or if they be, that they be changed at Confirmation.

§.2. To be given by the godfathers, and why. As to the appointment of the name, it may be pitched upon by the relations, (as we the godfathers, may see has been the custom of old:) but the rubric directs that it be dictated by the godfathers and godmothers. For this being the token of our new birth, it is fit it should be given by those who undertake for our Christianity, and engage that we shall be bred up and live like Christians; which being confirmed by the custom and authority of the Church in all ages, is abundantly enough to justify the practice, and satisfy us of the reasonableness of it.

III. The outward sign in Baptism. Immersion or dipping most primitive and significant. But the ends of baptism answered by affusion. After the name is thus given, the Priest (if the godfathers, &c. certify him that the child may well endure it) is to dip it in the water discreetly and warily; which was in all probability the way by which our Saviour, and for certain was the usual and ordinary way by which the primitive Christians did receive their baptism. And it must be allowed that by dipping, the ends and effects of baptism are more significantly expressed; for as in immersion there are three several acts, viz. the putting the person under water, his abiding there for some time, and his rising up again; so by these were represented Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection; and in conformity thereunto (as the Apostle plainly shews) our dying unto sin, the destruction of its power, and our resurrection to newness of life. Though indeed affusion is not wholly without its signification, or entirely inexpressive of the end of baptism. For as the immersing or dipping the body of the baptized represents the burial of a dead person under ground; so also the affusion or pouring water upon the party answers to the covering or throwing earth upon the deceased. So that both ceremonies agree in this, that they figure a death and burial unto sin: and therefore though immersion be the most significant ceremony of the two, yet it is not so necessary but that affusion in some cases may supply the room of it. For since baptism is only an external rite, representing an internal and spiritual action, such an act is sufficient, as fully represents to us the institution of baptism; the divine grace which is thereby conferred, being not measured by the quantity of water used in the administration of it. It is true, dipping and affusion are two different acts; but yet the word baptize implies them both: it being used frequently in Scripture to denote not only such washing as is performed by dipping, but also such as is performed by pouring or rubbing water upon the thing or person washed.

Which was therefore used upon some occasions by the primitive Christians. And therefore when the Jews baptized their children, in order to circumcision, it seems to have been indifferent with them, whether it was done by immersion or affusion. And that the primitive Christians understood it in this latitude, is plain, from their administering this holy sacrament in the case of sickness, haste, want of water, or the like, by affusion, or pouring water upon the face. Thus the jailor and his family, who were baptized by St. Paul in haste, the same hour of the night that they were converted and believed, are reasonably supposed to have been baptized by affusion: since it can hardly be thought that at such an exigency they had water sufficient at hand to be immersed in. The same may be said concerning Basilides, who, Eusebius tells us, was baptized by some brethren in prison. For the strict custody under which Christian prisoners were kept, (their tyrannical jailors hardly allowing them necessaries for life, much less such conveniences as they desired for their religion,) makes it more than probable that this must have been done by affusion only of some small quantity of water. And that baptism in this way was no unheard-of practice before this, may be gathered from Tertullian, who, speaking of a person of uncertain repentance offering himself to be baptized, asks, Who mould help him to one single sprinkling of water? The Acts also of St. Laurence, who suffered martyrdom about the same time as St. Cyprian, tell us how one of the soldiers that were to be his executioners, being converted, brought a pitcher of water for St. Laurence to baptize him with. And lastly, St. Cyprian, being consulted by one Magnus, in reference to the validity of clinick baptism, (i.e. such as was administered to sick persons on their beds by aspersion or sprinkling,) not only allows, but pleads for it at large, both from the nature of the sacrament, and design of the institution. It is true, such persons as were so baptized, were not ordinarily capable of being admitted to any office in the Church; but then the reason of this, as is intimated by the Council of Neocæsarea, was not that they thought this manner of baptism was less effectual than the other, but because such a person’s coming to the faith was not voluntary, but of necessity. And therefore it was provided by the same Council, that if the diligence and faith of a person so baptized did afterwards prove commendable, or if the scarcity of others, fit for the holy offices, did by any means require it, a clinick Christian might be admitted into holy orders. However, except upon extraordinary occasions, baptism was seldom, or perhaps never, administered for the four first centuries, but by immersion or dipping. Nor is aspersion or sprinkling ordinarily used, to this day, in any country that was never subject to the pope. And among those that submitted to his authority, England was the last place where it was received. Though it has never obtained so far as to be enjoined, dipping having been always prescribed by the rubric. The Salisbury Missal, printed in 1530, (the last that was in force before the Reformation,) expressly requires and orders dipping. And in the first Common Prayer Book of king Edward VI, the Priest’s general order is to dip it in the water, so it be discreetly and warily done; the rubric only allowing, if the child be weak, that then it shall suffice to pour water upon it. Nor was there any alteration made in the following books, except the leaving out the order to dip it thrice, which was prescribed by the first book.

How affusion or sprinkling first came in practice. However, it being allowed to weak children (though strong enough to be brought to church) to be baptized by affusion; many fond ladies at first, and then by degrees the common people, would persuade the Minister that their children were too tender for dipping. But what principally tended to confirm this practice was, that several of our English divines flying into Germany and Switzerland, &c. during the bloody reign of queen Mary, and returning home when queen Elizabeth came to the crown, brought back with them a great love and zeal to the customs of those Protestant Churches beyond sea, where they had been sheltered and received. And consequently having observed that in Geneva, and some other places, baptism was ordered to be performed by affusion, they thought they could not do the Church of England a greater piece of service, than to introduce a practice dictated by so great an oracle as Calvin. So that in the latter times of queen Elizabeth, and during the reigns of king James and king Charles I, there were but very few children dipped in the font. And therefore when the questions and answers in relation to the sacraments were first inserted at the end of the Catechism, upon the accession of king James I to the throne, the answer to the question, What is the outward visible sign or form in baptism? was this that follows: Water, wherein the person baptized is dipped, or sprinkled with it in the name of the Father, &c. And afterwards, when the Directory was put out by the Parliament, affusion (to those who could submit to their ordinance) began to have a shew of establishment; it being declared not only lawful, hut sufficient and most expedient mat children should be baptized, by pouring or sprinkling of water on the face. And as it were for the further prevention of immersion or dipping, it was particularly provided that baptism should not be administered in the places where fonts, in the time of popery, were unfitly and superstitiously placed. And accordingly (which was equal to the rest of their reformation) they changed the font into a basin: which being brought to the Minister in his reading desk, and the child being held below him, he dipped in his fingers, and so took up water enough just to let a drop or two fall on the child’s face. These reformers, it seems, could not recollect that fonts to baptize in had been long used before the times of popery, and that they had no where been discontinued from the beginning of Christianity, but in such places where the pope had gained authority. But our divines at the Restoration, understanding a little better the sense of Scripture and antiquity, again restored the order for immersion; however, for prevention of any danger to the child, the Priest is advised to be first certified that it will well endure it. So that the difference between the old rubric, and what it is now, is only this: As it stood before, the Priest was to dip, unless there was an averment or allegation of weakness; as it stands now, he is not to dip, unless there be an averment or certifying of strength, sufficient to endure it.

This order, one would think, should be the most unexceptionable of any that could be given; it keeping as close to the primitive rule for baptism, as the coldness of our region and the tenderness wherewith infants are now used, will sometimes admit. Though Sir John Floyer, in a discourse on cold baths, hath shewn, from the nature of our bodies, from the rules of medicine, from modern experience, and from ancient history, that nothing would tend more to the preservation of a child’s health, than dipping it in Baptism. However, the parents not caring to make the experiment, take so much the advantage of the reference that is made to their judgments concerning the strength of their children, as never to certify they may well endure dipping. It is true, indeed, the question is now seldom asked; because the child is always brought in such a dress, as shews that there is no intention that it should be dipped. For whilst dipping in the font continued in fashion, they brought the child in such sort of clothing, as might be taken off and put on again without any hinderance or trouble. But since the Church not only permits, but requires dipping, where it is certified the child may well endure it; and consequently since the Minister is always ready to dip, whensoever it is duly required of him; it is very hard that any should urge the not dipping or immersing, as a plea for separation.

§.2. Trine immersion an ancient practice. But to proceed: by king Edward’s first book, the Minister is to dip the child in the water thrice; first dipping the right side: secondly, the left side; the third time, dipping the face toward the font. This was the general practice of the primitive Church, viz. to dip the person thrice, i.e. once at the name of each Person in the Trinity, the more fully to express that sacred mystery. Though some later writers say this was done to represent the death, burial, and resurrection of our Saviour, together with his three days’ continuance in the grave. St. Austin joins both these reasons together, as a double mystery of this ancient rite, as he is cited by Gratian to this purpose. Several of the Fathers, that make mention of this custom, own, that there is no command for it in Scripture: but then they speak of it as brought into use by the Apostles; and therefore the fiftieth of the Canons that are called Apostolical, deposes any Bishop or Presbyter that administers Baptism without it.

Why discontinued. But afterwards, when the Arians made a wicked advantage of this custom, by persuading the people that it was used to denote that the Persons in the Trinity were three distinct substances; it first became a custom, and then a law, in the Spanish Church, only to use one single immersion; because that would express the Unity of the Godhead, while the Trinity of Persons would be sufficiently denoted by the person’s being baptized in the name of the Father, Son, ana Holy Ghost. However, in other parts of the Church, trine immersion most commonly prevailed, as it does in the Greek Church to this very day. Upon what account it was omitted in the second book of king Edward, I do not find: but there being no order in the room of it to confine the Minister to a single immersion, I presume it is left to his judgment and discretion to use which he pleases.

V. Of the white vesture, or chrisom. By the first Common Prayer of king Edward, after the child was thus baptized, the godfathers and godmothers were to lay their hands upon it, and the Minister was to put upon him his white vesture, commonly called the chrisom, and to say,

Take this white vesture as a token of the innocency, which, by God’s grace, in this holy Sacrament of Baptism, is given unto thee, and for a sign whereby thou art admonished so long as thou livest, to give thyself to innocence of living, that after this transitory life thou mayest be partaker of the life everlasting. Amen.

Why so called. This was a relic of an ancient custom I have formerly had occasion to mention: the intention and design of it is sufficiently expressed in the form above cited: I therefore need only observe further, that it receives its name from the chrism or ointment with which the child was anointed when the chrisom was put on.

VI. Unction prescribed by the first book of king Edward VI. For by the same book of king Edward, as soon as the Priest had pronounced the foregoing form, he was to anoint the infant upon the head, saying,

Almighty God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath regenerated thee by water and the Holy Ghost, and hath given unto thee remission of all thy sins; he vouchsafe to anoint thee with the unction of his Holy Spirit, and bring thee to the inheritance of everlasting life. Amen.

Whether this unction belonged to Baptism of Confirmation. Whether the compilers of king Edward’s Liturgy designed this as a continuance of the unction that anciently made a part of the office of Baptism; or of the unction which, though frequently used at the same time with Baptism, was yet rather a ceremony belonging to Confirmation, is not clearly to be discovered. According to the best of my judgment, I take it rather to be the latter; for the unction that was an immediate ceremony of Baptism, was always applied as soon as the party to be baptized was unclothed, and before his entrance into the water: whereas the unction enjoined by king Edward’s Liturgy is ordered to be applied after the child is thoroughly baptized. For this reason, I suppose, it was continued as a relic of the unction which the Priest used to perform preparatory to Confirmation. And what makes my opinion the more probable is, that in the old office for Confirmation, in that book, there is no order for the Bishop to anoint those whom he confirms; which yet it is not to be imagined our reformers (who shewed such regard to all primitive customs) would by any means have omitted, if they had not known that the ceremony of unction had been performed before. But to help the reader to a clear notion in this matter, it will be necessary to give him some little light into the ancient practice in relation to both these unctions.

How they were distinguished in the primitive Church. He must know then, that the unction that was used before baptism, was only with pure oil, with which the party was anointed just before he entered the water, to signify that he was now becoming a champion for Christ, and was entering upon a state of conflict and contention against the allurements of the world: in allusion to the custom of the old wrestlers or athletæ, who were always anointed against their solemn games, in order to render them more supple and active, and that their antagonists might take the less advantage and hold of them. This was commonly called the unction of the mystical oil: whereas the unction wherewith the party was anointed after baptism, was called the unction or chrism, being performed with a mixed or compound unguent, and applied by the Bishop at the time of the imposition of his hands, partly to express the baptism with fire, of which oil, we know, is a proper material, partly to signify the invisible unction of the Holy Spirit, and partly to denote that the person so anointed is admitted to the privileges of Christianity, which are described by the Apostle to be a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, &c., in the designation to which office anointing was generally used as a symbol. And this account Tertullian favours, where, speaking of the unction that followed baptism, he tells us it was derived from the ancient, i.e. the Jewish discipline, where the Priests were wont to be anointed to their office.

But further, the anointing in Baptism might be performed by either a deacon or deaconess; whereas the chrism that belonged to confirmation could not at first be ordinarily applied by any under the order of a Bishop. Afterwards indeed, when Christianity began to spread far and wide, so that Bishops could not be procured upon every extraordinary emergency, the Bishops found it necessary to give liberty to the Presbyters to anoint those whom they baptized, in cases of extremity: that so, if a Bishop could not be sent for in convenient time, a sick member of the Church might not depart wholly deprived of all those spiritual assistances which Confirmation was to supply. However, the privilege of making and consecrating the holy unguent, and the rite of laying on of hands, they still reserved to themselves; and only took care to supply their Presbyters with a due quantity of chrism, that they might not be without it upon any necessity. And this, though at first indulged only upon occasion, came in a little time afterwards to be the general practice: insomuch that for the Presbyter to anoint in baptism became the ordinary method; and the Bishop, when he confirmed, had nothing to do but to impose his hands, except by chance now and then to apply the chrism to a person that by accident had missed of it in his baptism.

VII. The reception of the child into the Church. But to return to our own office: the child, being now baptized, is become a member of the Christian Church, into which the Minister (as a steward of God’s family) doth solemnly receive it; and, for the clearer manifestation that it now belongs to Christ, solemnly signs it in the forehead with the sign of the cross.

The antiquity and meaning of the sign of the Cross. For the better understanding of which primitive ceremony, we may observe, that it was an ancient rite for masters and generals, to mark the foreheads or hands of their servants and soldiers with their names or marks, that it might be known to whom they did belong; and to this custom the angel in the Revelation is thought to allude; Hurt not the earth, &c., till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads: thus again, the retinue of the Lamb are said to have his Father’s name written in their foreheads. And thus, lastly, in the same chapter, as Christ’s flock carried his mark on their foreheads, so did his great adversary the beast sign his servants there also: If any man shall receive the mark of the beast in his forehead, or in his hand, &c. Now that the Christian Church might hold some analogy with those sacred applications, she conceived it a most significant ceremony in Baptism, (which is our first admission into the Christian profession,) that all her children should he signed with the cross on their foreheads, signifying thereby their consignment np to Christ; whence it is often called by the ancient Fathers, the Lord’s signet, and Christ’s seal.

And it is worth observing, that this mark or sign seems to have been appropriated from the very beginning to some great mystery: the Israelites could overcome the Amalekites no longer than Moses by stretching out his arms continued in the form of a cross; which undoubtedly prefigured that our salvation was to be obtained through the means of the cross: as was also further signified by God’s commanding a cross (for that Grotius supposes to be the mark understood) to be set upon those who should be saved from a common destruction.

But to come nearer; when our blessed Redeemer had expiated the sins of the world upon the cross, the primitive disciples of his religion (who, as Minucius Felix affirms, did not worship the cross) did yet assume that figure as the badge of Christianity: and long before material crosses were in use, Tertullian tells us, that “upon every motion, at their going out or coming in, at dressing, at their going to bath, or to meals, or to bed, or whatever their employment or occasions called them to, they were wont [frontem crucis signaculo terere] to mark, or (as the word signifies) to wear out their foreheads with the sign of the cross; adding, that this was a practice which tradition had introduced, custom had confirmed, and which the present generation received upon the credit of that which went before them.” It is pretended indeed by our adversaries, that this is only an authority for the use of this sign upon ordinary occasions, and gives no countenance for using it in Baptism. Suppose we should grant this; it would yet help to shew from some other passages in the same author, that the same sign was also used upon religious accounts. Thus, in his book concerning the resurrection of the flesh, shewing how instrumental the body is to the salvation of the soul, he has this expression: “The flesh is washed that the soul may be cleansed; the flesh is anointed that the soul may be consecrated; the flesh is signed that the soul may be fortified; the flesh is overshadowed by the imposition of hands, that die soul may be enlightened by the Spirit of God; the flesh is fed on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul may receive nourishment or fatness from God.” Thus again, in another place, shewing how the Devil mimicked the holy sacraments in the heathen mysteries; “He baptizeth some,” saith he, “as his faithful believers; he promises them forgiveness of their sins after baptism, and so initiates them to Mithra, and there he signs his soldiers in their foreheads,” &c. Now here is plainly mention made of signing or marking the flesh, and signing too in the forehead, even in the celebration of religious mysteries; and we know no sign they so religiously esteemed, but what Tertullian had in the other place mentioned, viz. the sign of the cross. I will not indeed be certain, but that the signing in both these places may refer to the cross which was made upon the forehead, when they were anointed in confirmation: but still this proves that crossing on the forehead was used upon religious as well as ordinary occasions; that it was used particularly at Confirmation, and therefore it is highly probable it was used also in Baptism: since they who used it upon every slight occasion, and made it a constant part of the solemnity in one office, would not omit or leave it out in another, where the use of it was full as proper and significant. We have gained so much therefore from Tertullian’s authority, that the use of the cross, even in religious offices, was, in his time, a known rite of Christianity. This will gain an easier belief to a passage among the works of Origen, where there is express mention of some, who were signed with the cross at their baptism, and better explain what is meant by St. Cyprian, when he tells us, that “those who obtain mercy of the Lord are signed on their foreheads,” and that “the forehead of a Christian is sanctified with the sign of God,” But further, in Lactantius, we find that Christians are described by those that have been marked upon the forehead with a cross. Again, St. Basil tells us, that “an ecclesiastical constitution had prevailed from the Apostles’ days, that those who believed in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ should be signed with the sign of the cross.” St. Chrysostom again makes it the glory of Christians, that “they carry in their foreheads the sign of the cross.” And lastly St. Austin, speaking to one who was going to be baptized, tells him, that he was “that day to be signed with the sign of the cross, with which all Christians were signed,” (i.e. at their baptism.)

I need not surely (after this long detail) instance in the writings of any other of the Fathers, who frequently used being signed in the forehead for being baptized. I shall only add this remark; that the first Christian emperor, Constantine the Great, had his directions from heaven to make the cross the great banner in his wars with this motto on it, Ἐν τούτῳ νίκα, By this sign thou shalt overcome. And sure we cannot suppose that our blessed Lord would, by so immediate a revelation, countenance such a rite as this already used in the Church, if he had resented it before as superstitious and unwarrantable. And we may add, that we ought not to be too petulant against that which the Holy Spirit has sometimes signalized by very renowned miracles; as those who consult the ecclesiastical histories of the best authority cannot but be convinced. In a word, when any are received into the society of our religion, it is as lawful to declare it by a sign as by words. And surely there is no signature so universally known to be the mark of a Christian as that of the cross, which makes St. Paul put the cross for Christianity itself; the belief of a crucified Saviour being the proper article of the Christian faith, distinguishing the professors of it from all other kinds of religion in the world.

§.2. The Cross, why made after Baptism. There were anciently indeed, in the primitive Church, two several signings or markings with the cross, viz. one before Baptism, as was ordered by the first Liturgy of king Edward, as I have already observed in page 375; the other afterwards, which was used at Confirmation, and which (as I shall shew hereafter) was also prescribed by the same book of king Edward.

In a word, the Cross in Baptism, till of late years, has been so inoffensive to the most scrupulous minds, that even Bucer could find nothing indecent in it, if it was used and applied with a pure mind. He only disapproved of directing the form that was used at the imposing of it, to the child itself, who could not understand it. For which reason he wished it might be turned into a Prayer. The reviewers of our Liturgy did not indeed exactly comply with him; but however they have ordered the form to be spoken to the congregation, and further, to remove all manner of scruple, have deferred the signing with it till after the child is baptized, that so none may charge us with making the ceremony essential to Baptism, which is now finished before the Cross is made, and which is esteemed, in case of extremity, not at all deficient, where it is celebrated without it.

§.3. Why made upon the forehead. The forehead is the seat of blushing and shame; for which reason the child is to be signed with the Cross on that part of him, in token that hereafter he shall not be ashamed to confess the faith of Christ crucified, &c.

I. The Exhortation. THE holy rite being thus finished, it is not decent to turn our backs upon God immediately, but that we should complete the solemnity by thanksgiving and prayer: and therefore, that we may do both these with due understanding, the Minister teaches us, in a serious exhortation, what must be the subjects of our praises and petitions.

II. The Lord's Prayer. And since (as we have already hinted) the Lord’s Prayer was prescribed by our Saviour to his disciples as a badge of their belonging to him; it can never be more reasonable or proper to use it than now, when a new member and disciple is admitted into his Church. And therefore, whereas, in other offices, this prayer is generally placed in the beginning, it is here reserved till after the child is baptized, and received solemnly into the Church; when we can more properly call God Our Father, with respect to the Infant, who is now by Baptism made a member of Christ, and more peculiarly adopted a child of God. And this is exactly conformable to the primitive Church: for the Catechumens were never allowed to use this prayer, till they had first made themselves sons by Regeneration in the waters of Baptism. For which reason, this prayer is frequently, by the ancient writers, called The Prayer of the Regenerate, or Believers, as being, properly speaking, their privilege and birthright.

III. The Collect. After this follows a Prayer wherein we first give God thanks for affording this child the benefits of Baptism; and then pray for his grace to assist it in the whole course of its life.

IV. The application to the godfathers. And lastly, because nothing tends more directly to the securing of holiness and religion than a conscientious performance of this vow of Baptism, here are added endeavours to our prayers for the fulfilling thereof. In the first ages, when those of discretion were baptized, the Applications were directed to the persons themselves, (as they now are in our office of Baptism for those of riper years:) but since children are now most commonly the subjects of Baptism, who are not capable of admonition, here is a serious and earnest exhortation made to the sureties.

§.2. The ill practice of choosing unfit persons for sureties. Which, if it be well considered, will shew how base it is for any to undertake this trust merely in compliment; how absurd to put little children (whose bond is not good in human courts) upon this weighty office; and also how ridiculous for those who have taken this duty upon them, to think they can shake off this charge again, and assign it over to the parents. But yet this is frequently the custom of this licentious age, and the chief occasion of many people’s falling into evil principles and wicked practices, which might easily be prevented, if the sureties would do their duty, and labour to fit their god-children for Confirmation, and bring them to it; which therefore the Minister is in the last place to advertise the sureties of:* for till the child by this means enters the bond in his own name, the sureties must answer for all miscarriages through their neglect; whereas as soon as the child is confirmed, the sureties are freed from that danger, and discharged from all but the duty of charity.

The office being thus ended, the first Common Prayer piously adds, And so let the congregation depart in the name of the Lord.