So the common feeling of men has decided about most of the external matters pertaining to religion, the world over. They have always been modified by time and place, by manners and customs, and they always will be. The zealot may declaim against this, and cry out that the church is in danger, and that she has departed from the commands of the gospel; but considerate and really spiritual men will reply, that God is a Spirit, and that he seeks spiritual worshippers."

Accordingly, long before the light of the Reformation began to dawn upon the churches, the Roman Catholics themselves were gradually adopting the method of baptism by sprinkling or affusion, notwithstanding their superstitious and excessive devotedness to the usages of the ancient churches. So testifies one of the most intelligent and useful ecclesiastical writers of the earlier part of the dark ages; I mean Walafried Strabo (ob. 849), abbot of the convent of St. Gall. His words run thus: "It should be noted, that many have been baptized, not only by immersion, but by affusion, (non solum mergendo, verum etiam de super fundendo,) and they may yet be baptized in this manner, if there be any necessity for it; as in the passion of St. Laurence, we read of a certain person baptized by water brought in a pitcher (urceo allato);" De Rebus Eccles. c. 26. So Thomas Aquinas (fl. 1250) in Summa Theol. III. Quest. 66. Art. 7, says: "It is safer to baptize by the mode of immersion, because this has common usage in its favour." But these very words shew that a different usage was coming in, and that Aquinas did not look upon it with any strong disapprobation. In the Statut. Synod. Leodiens. anno 1287. c. 2, the mode of baptism is prescribed, and it is there said: "That danger in baptizing may be avoided, let not the head of the child be immersed in water, but let the priest pour water three times upon the head of the child, with a bason or some other clean and decent vessel, still holding the child carefully with his hand." The Synod at Cambray (Stat. Synod. Eccl. Camerac. an. 1300, de Bapt.) say: "That danger in baptizing may be avoided, let not [the priest] immerse the head of the child in the water, but, when he baptizes, let him pour water thrice upon the top of his head, with a basin or other clean and decent vessel." And in the same way run other decrees of councils about this time; while some are even still more liberal, permitting baptism to be performed either by immersion, affusion, or sprinkling.

All this serves to illustrate how there sprung up, in the boVOL. III. No. 10.

48

som of a church superstitiously devoted to ancient rites and forms, a conviction that the mode of baptism was one of the adagoga of religion, i. e. something unessential to the rite itself, and which might be modified by time and place, without any encroachment upon the command itself to baptize. Gradually did this conviction increase, until the whole Roman Catholic church, that of Milan only excepted, admitted it. By far the greater part of the Protestant world have also acceded to the same views. Even the English episcopal church, and the Lutheran churches, both zealous in times past for what they supposed to be apostolic and really ancient usage, have had no serious difficulty in adopting modes of baptism quite different from that of immersion.

To these evidences that departure from the method of baptism by immersion is not a novel thing, I may add some accidental testimony of a very interesting nature, taken from a late work of F. Münter, bishop of Zealand, and Professor of Theology in the University of Copenhagen, entitled, Sinnbilder and Kunstvorstellungen der alten Christen. Dr. Münter, who has recently deceased, is regarded in Europe as having been one of its ablest and most judicious antiquarians. Certain it is, that the churches are greatly indebted to him for many illustrations of ancient facts and customs. In the second part of the work whose title is quoted above, under the head of Baptism, he has exhibited several pictures or representations taken mostly from cemeteries and catacombs, some of which deserve particular notice.

The first which I shall mention, is exhibited in Plate X. fig. 59. It represents Jesus as standing in the Jordan, immersed as high as the waist, and John the Baptist as standing on the shore, holding a reed-staff in his left hand, while his right is laid upon the head of the Saviour, and he is making invocation for a blessing. On the opposite shore of the river stands an angel, with a basin in his hand, and a towel for the purpose (as it would seem) of wiping off the water. For what purpose this basin can be represented in the picture, unless it be for that of pouring water on the head of Jesus when he was baptized, I am unable to divine. The picture Münter assigns to the early part of the middle ages. In confirmation of the above explanation, I may refer to a picture presented by Bosio, in his Roma Sotteranea, 1632, p. 589. The Baptist stands, as in the representation above, with his clothes on, upon the brink of Jordan; and Jesus stands in the river, immersed to the waist. In the hand of John is a basin,

on which fire is represented as flowing down from heaven, while Jesus is affused with the water which descends from the basin.

In Plate XII. fig. 85 and 86, are two more representations of the rite of baptism. In fig. 85 are two children, who apparently have attained less than half their growth, standing in a vase of water which falls a little below the waist, and in which it would be impossible to immerse them, on account of the small size of the vase. The bishop who baptizes, is represented as having completed the act, and is presented in the attitude of invoking the divine blessing, while he lays his right hand upon the head of one of the children. This picture Münter supposes to be of earlier date than the 10th century. Fig. 86 is taken from Schöne's Geschichtforschungen über die kirchl. Gebräuche und Einrichtungen der Christen, and was copied by him from a roughly hewn stone at Aquileia. The person baptized stands, as above, in a vase which falls below the knee, while the water is represented as streaming from a cloud above, and the Holy Spirit as descending in the shape of a dove. The bishop stands by, and, with his right hand stretched out, is invoking a blessing.

Dr Münter mentions also two other pictures, which are presented in J. Ciampini's Explicatio duorum Sarcophagorum sacrum baptismatis ritum indicantium, Rom. 1697. In one of these, a man and woman are represented as kneeling in a large baptismal basin, while the priest pours water on the head of the man from an urn or pitcher. Ciampini thinks that this is a representation of the baptism of Agilulf and his wife Theodolinde, king and queen of the Lombards, in A. D. 591. The second picture represents a man kneeling with folded hands, half divested of his clothing, on whose head the priest pours water from a pitcher. Both of these pictures are taken from sarcophagi, dug up in the vicinity of Naples. Ciampini attributes them to the sixth century; but Münter judges them to be of

a later age.

It may naturally be asked, Why pictures of an earlier date than any of these, have not been found in cemeteries and catacombs, and in the ruins of ancient cities? The answer is, that the earlier churches never painted or otherwise represented by images, the sacred mysteries of baptism and the Lord's supper; for such they deemed them to be. Such in fact they continued to be, in their estimation, until the German nations that came in upon Rome began to be baptized by thousands; and then of course,

the rite of baptism could no longer be regarded as secret. From this time, such representations of this rite began to be made in various ways, as have been described above.

It will be seen from all this, that Christians began somewhat early to deflect from the ancient practice of immersing. It is remarkable, moreover, that so far as I have yet been able to discover, there is not one of the ancient pictures which represents baptism as performed by immersion. How could this happen, if immersion was so general, or rather so universal, in the middle ages, as it has often been affirmed to be? But I must return from these historical notices, to the argument which I am endeavouring to urge.

From all that has been said above it is manifest, that the great body of Christians have long come to the full conviction, that no one particular mode of baptism can be justly considered as essential to the rite itself. And is there not sufficient ground for this, in the considerations that have already been urged? The question, whether a religion preeminently spiritual, simple, and designed to be universal, would probably attach importance to the mere mode of an external rite, is one which every enlightened mind may answer, I had almost said, a priori. The probability is at once felt to be strongly against it, so soon as any one has thrown off all attachment to opus operatum, i. e. to the mystical power and merit of external ceremonies. Under the gospel, sanctification and purity are not so cheap, nor to be had on such easy terms, as the performance of outward rites. Every thing which teaches what is opposed to this sentiment, directly or indirectly, contradicts the spirit of the gospel; for this demands of us as a thing fundamental and essential, that we should be "poor in spirit," and "take up the cross" by real and internal self-denial, not with mere outward shew and ceremony.

The whole may be summed up in one single point. Either the rite of baptism has a mystical power of itself to sanctify, which depends on the mode of its administration, and its merit as an opus operatum; or it is a symbolical rite, significant of truth, i. e. of doctrine, or fact. A mystical power one cannot believe in, because millions of baptized persons have already gone to perdition; over these, therefore, baptism never did exercise any mystical and saving influence. But even if we should admit the existence of such a power, can it be shewn that it is exclusively connected with immersion only? Have the sanctifying influences of the Spirit of God been limited to that part

of the Christian church exclusively, who practise immersion? So far from this, that the most vicious and ignorant of all who bear the name of Christians, are the most numerous and zealous of all the advocates of immersion. I refer, in this declaration, to the Oriental church, which has a name to live while it is twice dead, and ought to be plucked up by the roots. If there are exceptions to my general remark, (as there certainly are, and most eminent ones too, among the Baptists of England and America,) it remains to be shewn that immersion has any thing of consequence to do with their evangelical character. Baptists of the English and American world, evangelical and devoted to religion as many of them truly are, do not surpass in piety, as I must believe, many of their brethren in Christ, who differ from them in respect to the mode of baptism.

The

We come, then, of necessity to the conclusion, that the moral good to be expected from baptism, is to be derived from the moral or spiritual instruction which it conveys, and from the lively manner in which it impresses this, and the obligation under which it lays those who are concerned with the rite. All the rest appears to be mere dreaming Pharisaism; here is substantial reality. But may not this instruction be conveyed as well by affusion or sprinkling, as by immersion? If we look to the ancient dispensation, we must say, Yes. If we look at the nature of the thing itself, we must answer in the affirmative. If we appeal to the general conviction of the Christian world, which has decided against patristic and ancient usage, we must give the same answer. Water applied in this way or in that, is water still, i. e. a cleansing and purifying element. Its significance is not at all lost or even obscured. In the East, where bathing is so common, and where religious rites especially have required ablution, it may be more significant, in some cases to immerse; but in the west and north, where such rites have long ceased, (if indeed they were ever practised,) immersion can have no more significancy than affusion or sprinkling. Why then insist on it? Or if you are conscience-bound by your own views of the rite, why judge your brother who is not, and thinks that Christianity was never designed to become a religion of rituals?

In fine, aspersion or affusion of water exhibits, and fully exhibits, the essence of the thing, i. e. the instruction and symbol, aimed at by the rite of baptism. Why then should we be zealous about any thing more than this? Such strenuousness I