church would admit none of this calling to baptism, without obliging them first to bid adieu to so ignominious a profession. To have done otherwise, would have been to expose herself to reproach, and to have given occasion to the adversary to blaspheme; if men of such lewd and profligate practices had been admitted to the privileges of the church, who were excluded from the liberties of the city and the honors of the commonwealth. The learned Hieronymus Mercurialis, in his discourse De Arte Gymnastica, (lib. i. cap. 3. p. 12,) observes, that the several sorts of heathen games and plays were instituted upon a religious account, in honor of the gods; and men thought they were doing a grateful thing to them, whilst they were engaged in such exercises." "

With good reason, therefore, the church refused to admit any of this calling to baptism, unless they first bade adieu to their ignominious pursuits. To have done otherwise would have exposed her to reproach, and given occasion to the adversary to blaspheme. The ancient fathers were particularly severe in their invectives against theatrical exhibitions. They declared it incompatible with the piety and the purity of christian life, either to engage in them as an actor, or to attend them as a spectator. Tertullian in speaking of a christian woman who returned from the theatre possessed with a devil, makes the unclean spirit, on being asked how he dared presume to make such an attempt upon a believer, reply-" that he had a good right to her, because he found her upon his own ground."23

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

4. MINISTERS of Baptism.

Great importance has ever been attached to this ordinance as the initiatory rite of admission to the church. But the duty of administering the ordinance does not appear to have been restricted to any officer of the church. John the Baptist himself baptized them that came to him. But our Lord baptized none but his disciples. John 4: 2. There is indeed a tradition that our Saviour baptized St. Peter, that Peter baptized Andrew, James and John; and that these disciples administered the rite to others. To this tradition Roman

Catholic writers attach much importance, but it rests on no good foundation.

In some instances recorded in the New Testament, baptism was administered under the sanction, and by the immediate order of the apostles. But it is remarkable that the apostles themselves are in no instance related to have administered baptism. No intimation is given that Peter assisted in baptizing the three thousand, nor is it probable that the ordinance could have been administered to them by himself alone. Acts 2: 41. He only commanded Cornelius and his family to be baptized. Acts 10: 48. Paul in 1 Cor. 1: 12-17, and Peter in Acts 10: 36-48, evidently describes the administration of baptism as a subordinate office, compared with that of preaching peace by Jesus Christ.

On the whole, we learn from the New Testament the following particulars:-1. Our Lord himself did not baptize, but he intrusted his apostles and disciples with the administration of this rite. 2. The apostles, though they sometimes administered baptism themselves, usually committed this office to others. 3. It cannot be determined whether other persons, either ministers or laymen, were allowed to baptize without a special commission. 4. Phillip, the deacon, baptized in Samaria men and women, Simon Magus, and the Ethiopian eunuch, although no mention is made of any peculiar commission for this purpose. This he appears to have received at his consecration to his office as related Acts 6: 3-7.

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

We have, however, good evidence that after the second century the bishop was regarded as the regular minister of baptism. Even Ignatius declares that it is not lawful either to baptize or to administer the Lord's supper without the bishop, zwoię tov inɩzónov, an expression which implies the necessity of the bishop's authority. Tertullian says expressly that "the bishop has the power of administering baptism; and next in order the presbyters and deacons, though not without the sanction of the bishop, that thus the order and peace

of the church may be preserved."*

He adds, that under other cir

cumstances the laity may exercise this right; but advises that it should be done with reverence and modesty, and only in cases of necessity. Women are utterly forbidden by him to exercise this right. The Apostolical Constitutions accords this right to bishops and presbyters, the deacons assisting them; but denies the right to readers and singers, and other inferior officers of the church.4 It is worthy of remark that here bishops and presbyters are placed on an equality, whilst deacons are made subordinate.

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

The officiating minister, as well as the candidate, was expected to prepare himself for performing this service by fasting, prayer, and, sometimes, washing of the hands; 5 and to be clothed in white.6

Lay-baptism was undoubtedly treated as valid, by the laws and usages of the ancient church. It is equally certain, however, that it was never authorized as a general rule, but only admitted as an exception, in cases of emergency.

5. TIMES OF BAPTISM.

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

1. In the apostolic age the administration of this ordinance was subject to no limitations either of time or place. Acts 2: 4. 8: 38. 9: 18. 10: 47. 16: 33.

2. The account of Justin Martyr gives no definite information on this point; but it would seem from this author that baptism was regarded as a public and solemn act, suitable to be performed in any assembly convened for religious worship. Tertullian, however, speaks of Easter and Whitsuntide as the most appropriate seasons for administering this rite, and appeals, not to tradition, but to arguments of his own, in confirmation of his opinion. Other writers refer to apostolical tradition, and an ancient rule of the church.3

*

3. In the sixth century, the whole period between the Passover

Baptismum dandi habet jus summus sacerdos, qui est episcopus; dehinc presbyteri et deaconi; non tamen sine episcopi auctoritate propter ecclesiae honorum; quo salvo, salva pax est.3

and Pentecost, and Easter and Whitsuntide above mentioned, were established by several councils as the regular times for baptism, cases of necessity only being excepted.4 The ordinance, however, was usually administered, by common consent, not by any authority of the church, during the night preceding these great festivals. Easter-eve, or the night preceding the great sabbath, was considered the most sacred of all seasons. And this period, while our Lord lay entombed in his grave, and just before his resurrection, was regarded as most appropriate for this solemn ordinance, which was supposed to be deliverance from the power of sin and consecration to newness of life.5 Comp. Rom. 6: 3.

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

4. To the festivals above mentioned, that of Epiphany was early added as a third baptismal season; the day on which our Lord received baptism being regarded as peculiarly suited to the celebration of this ordinance. It appears probable, however, from a sermon of Chrysostom on this festival, that this was not observed as a baptismal season by the churches of Antioch and Constantinople. Gregory Nazianzen, on the other hand, appears to have been acquainted with the custom of baptizing on this day. It was also observed in the churches of Jerusalem and of Africa. In Italy and France it was discountenanced. The churches of France and Spain were accustomed to baptize at Christmas, and on the festivals of the apostles and martyrs.

The observance of these days was not considered by the churches as essential to the validity of baptism, or as an institution of Christ or his apostles, but as a becoming and useful regulation. "Every day is the Lord's," says Tertullian, "every hour, every season, is proper for baptism."7

From the tenth century the observance of stated seasons for baptism fell into disuse, though a preference still remained for the ancient seasons. Children were required to be baptized within a month from their birth, at eight days of age, or as soon as possible.

The church at different times manifested a superstitious regard for different hours of the day, choosing sometimes the hours of our Saviour's agony on the cross; at another, the hours from six to twelve ; and at another, from three until six in the afternoon. These in times fell into disuse. In protestant churches, no particular hour or day is observed for the celebration of baptism. It is, for the most part, administered on the sabbath, during divine worship, and in the presence of the congregation. If upon another day of the week, it is to be attended with appropriate religious solemnities.

6. PLACE OF BAPTISM.

All the requisite information in regard to the appropriate place for administering this ordinance, may be arranged under three distinct periods of history. 1. The first ages of Christianity. 2. The space of time during which baptisteries detached from the churches were provided for this purpose. 3. The period after the disuse of baptisteries, and of stated seasons for baptism.

First period. No intimation is given in the New Testament that any place was set apart for the administration of baptism. John and the disciples of Jesus baptized in Jordan, John 3: 22. Baptism was also administered in other streams of water, Acts 7: 36, 37. 16: 1— 16, and in private houses, Acts 9: 18. 10: 47, 48. 16: 30-34. Where the three thousand on the day of Pentecost were baptized is

uncertain.

allowed in the age immediJustin Martyr says that the

The same freedom of choice was also ately succeeding that of the apostles, candidates were led out to some place where there was water,2 and Clement of Rome speaks of a river, a fountain, or the sea, as a suitable place, according to circumstances, for the performance of this rite.3 Tertullian says that " it was immaterial where a person was baptized, whether in the sea, or in standing or running water, in fountain, lake, or river." 4

Second period. The first baptistery, or place appropriated for baptism, of which any mention is made, occurs in the history of the fourth century, and this was prepared in a private house. 5 Eusebius probably speaks of similar baptisteries, though under another name.6 Cyril of Jerusalem speaks of the baptisteries in his day as divided into two parts, outer and inner. In the former part, prepa