instructed, should be recited; that the promises which are included in baptism should be declared; that the catechumen should be baptised in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; and lastly, that he should be dismissed with prayers and thanksgivings. Thus nothing material would be omitted; and that one ceremony, which was instituted by God, would shine with the greatest lustre, unencumbered with any extraneous corruptions. But whether the person who is baptised be wholly immersed, and whether thrice or once, or whether water be only poured or sprinkled upon him, is of no importance; Churches ought to be left at liberty in this respect, to act according to the difference of countries. The very word baptise, however, signifies to immerse; and it is certain that immersion was the practice of the ancient Church. XX. It is also necessary to state, that it is not right for private persons to take upon themselves the administration of baptism: for this, as well as the administration of the Lord's Supper, is a part of the public ministry of the Church. Christ never commanded women, or men in general, to baptise; he gave this charge to those whom he had appointed to be apostles. And when he enjoined his disciples, in the celebration of the Supper, to do as they had seen done by him when he executed the office of a legitimate dispenser, he intended without doubt that they should imitate his example. The custom, which has been received and practised for many ages past, and almost from the primitive times of the Church, for baptism to be per formed by laymen, in cases where death was apprehended, and no minister was present in time, it appears to me impossible to defend by any.good reason. Indeed, the ancients themselves, who either observed or tolerated this custom, were not certain whether it was right or not. Augustine betrays this uncertainty, when he says, "And if a layman, compelled by necessity, has given baptism, I know not whether any one may piously affirm that it ought to be repeated. For if it be done without the con straint of necessity, it is a usurpation of an office which belongs to another: but if necessity obliges, it is either no offence, or a venial one." Respecting women, it was decreed without any exception, in the council of Carthage, that they should not presume to baptise at all, on pain of excommunication. But, it is alleged, there is danger, lest a child who is sick and dies without baptism, should be deprived of the grace of regeneration. This I can by no means admit. God pronounces that he adopts our infants as his children, before they are born, when he promises that he will be a God to us, and to our seed after us. This promise includes their salvation. Nor will any dare to offer such an insult to God as to deny the sufficiency of his promise to ensure its own accomplishment. The mischievous consequences of that ill-stated notion, that baptism is necessary to salvation, are overlooked by persons in general, and therefore they are less cautious: for the reception of an opinion, that all who happen to die without baptism are lost, makes our condition worse than that of the ancient people, as though the grace of God were more restricted now than it was under the law: it leads to the conclusion that Christ came not to fulfil the promises, but to abolish them; since the promise, which at that time was of itself sufficiently efficacious to ensure salvation before the eighth day, would have no validity now without the assistance of the sign. XXI. What was the custom of the Church before Augustine was born, may be collected from the ancient Fathers. In the first place, Tertullian says, "That it is not permitted for a woman to speak in the Church, neither to teach, nor to baptise, nor to offer, that she may not claim to herself the functions of any office belonging to men, and especially to priests." The same thing is fully attested by Epiphanius, when he censures Marcion for having given women liberty to baptise. I am aware of the answer made to this by persons of opposite sentiments, that there is a great difference betwen a common usage, and an extraordinary remedy employed in cases of urgent necessity: but when Epiphanius pronounces it to be a mockery, without making any exception, to give women liberty to baptise, it is sufficiently evident that he condemns this corruption, and considers it inexcusable by any pretext whatever: nor does he add any limitation, in his third book, where he observes that this liberty was not granted even to the holy mother of Christ. XXII. The example of Zipporah is alleged, but is not applicable to the case. Because the Lord was appeased after she had taken a stone and circumcised her son, (v) it is unreasonable to infer that her action was approved by God. On the same principle it might be maintained, that God was pleased with the worship established by the nations who were transplanted from Assyria to Samaria. But there are other powerful reasons, to prove the absurdity of setting up the conduct of that foolish woman as a pattern for imitation. If I should allege, that this was a single act, which ought not to be considered as a general example, and especially as we no where find any special command that the rite of circumcision was to be performed by the priests, the case of circumcision is different from that of baptism; and this would be sufficient to refute the advocates of its administration by women. For the words of Christ are plain; "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptising them." (w) Since he constitutes the same persons preachers of the gospel and administrators of baptism, "and no man," according to the testimony of the apostle, "taketh this honour upon himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron;" (x) whoever baptises without a legitimate call, intrudes into another person's office. Even in the minutest things, as in meat and drink, whatever we do with a doubtful conscience, Paul expressly declares to be sin. (y) Female baptism, therefore, being an open violation of the rule delivered by Christ, is a still greater sin; for we know that it is impious to dissever things which God hath united. But all this I pass over; and would only request my readers to consider, that nothing was further from the design of Zipporah, than to perform a service to God. For seeing her son to be in danger, she fretted and murmured, and indignantly cast the foreskin on the ground, reproaching her husband in such a manner as to betray anger against God. In short, it is plain that all this proceeded from violence of temper, because she was displeased with God and her husband that she was constrained to shed the blood of her son. Besides, if she had conducted herself with propriety in all other respects, yet it was an act of inexcusable presumption for her to circumcise her son in the pre (v) Exod. iv. 25. VOL. III. 2 X (z) Matt. xxviii. 19. sence of her husband, and that husband not a private man, but Moses, the principle prophet of God, who was never succeeded by a greater in Israel; which was no more lawful for her to do, than it is for women now to baptise in the presence of a bishop. But this controversy will easily be decided by the establishment of this principle; that infants are not excluded from the kingdom of heaven, who happen to die before they have had the privilege of baptism. But we have seen that it is no small injustice to the covenant of God, if we do not rely upon it as sufficient of itself, since its fulfilment depends not on baptism, or on any thing adventitious. The sacrament is afterwards added as a seal, not to give efficacy to the promise of God, as if it wanted validity in itself, but only to confirm it to us. Whence it follows, that the children of the faithful are not baptised, that they may thereby be made the children of God, as if they had before been strangers to the Church; but, on the contrary, they are received into the Church by a solemn sign, because they already belonged to the body of Christ by virtue of the promise. If the omission of the sign, therefore, be not occasioned by indolence, or contempt, or negligence, we are safe from all danger. It is far more consistent with piety to shew this reverence to the institution of God, not to receive the sacraments from any other hands than those to which the Lord hath committed them. When it is impossible to receive them from the Church, the grace of God is not so attached to them, but that we may obtain it by faith from the word of the Lord. CHAPTER XVI. Padobaptism perfectly consistent with the Institution of Christ and the Nature of the Sign. As some turbulent spirits in the present age have raised fierce disputes, which still continue to agitate the Church, on the subject of infant baptism, I cannot refrain from adding some observations with a view to repress their violence. If any one should think this Chapter extended to an immoderate length, I would request him to consider, that purity of doctrine in a capital point, and the peace of the Church, ought to be of too much importance in our estimation for us to feel any thing tedious which may conduce to the restoration of both. I shall also study to make this discussion of as much use as possible to a further elucidation of the mystery of baptism. They attack infant baptism with an argument which carries with it an appearance of great plausibility, asserting that it is not founded on any institution of Christ, but was first introduced by the presumption and corrupt curiosity of man, and afterwards received with foolish and inconsiderate facility. For a sacrament rests on no authority, unless it stands on the certain foundation of the word of God. But what if, on a full examination of the subject, it shall appear that this is a false and groundless calumny on the holy ordinance of the Lord? Let us, therefore, inquire into its first origin. And if it shall be found to have been a mere invention of human presumption, we ought to renounce it, and regulate the true observance of baptism solely by the will of God. But if it shall be proved to be sanctioned by his undoubted authority, it behoves us to beware lest, by opposing the holy institutions of God, we offer an insult to their Author himself. II. In the first place, it is a principle sufficiently known, and acknowledged by all the faithful, that the right consideration of sacramental signs consists not merely in the external ceremonies, but that it chiefly depends on the promise and the spiritual mysteries which the Lord has appointed those ceremonies to represent. Whoever, therefore, wishes to be fully informed of |