Page images
PDF
EPUB

On the present subject, much weight is to be allowed to the practice of the primitive Church; so far as it is to be gathered from the early fathers. The view shall be limited to those of the first three centuries.

Towards the middle of the second century, Justin Martyr, in his larger Apology,* speaks of many persons who had continued uncorrupted through life, after having been in their infancy dedicated to Christ: the very Greek word being used, which is found in the commission to make disciples. In the dialogue of the same authort, he considers all mankind as made liable to death, by the sin of Adam. It would seem congenial with this scriptural truth-which is also found in Clement of Rome,‡ and in Hermas, both of whom wrote before Justin -that the Christian covenant and the seal of it would be construed to extend to all, in whose favour life and immortality through the gospel was expected. From this, there took place an easy and natural alliance between pelagianism, and hostility to infant baptism. It is not here unknown, that there are religious communions which reject the latter, while they cling closely to the scriptural doctrine of original sin: but whether consistently, may be made a question.

Irenæus, who wrote about fifty years after Justin, enumerating different grades of age of persons regenerated to God, mentions-" Infants, little ones, children, youth, elder persons." In the preceding book, he had stated baptism to be the mean of regeneration. And he drops an expression, which bars all cavil as to the precise sense of the terms "Infants, little ones, and children;" when he speaks of Christ, as being "made an infant, that he might sanctify infants."

Soon after Irenæus, Origen wrote. He testifies,**

*Thirlby, p. 22. Lib. ii. cap. 39,

P. 331.
¶ Cap. 18.

Chap. 17. § Lib. i. Vis. 3. **Hom. xiv. in Luc.

that baptism was administered to infants. And* he says, that the Church received this practice from the apostles. Perhaps his testimony may be weakened by the circumstance, that except his work against Celsus, and fragments of some other works handed down in Greek, the rest of them come to us in the Latin translation of Ruffinus, who lived later by about two centuries. It is probable, that Ruffi nus took great liberties with his author: but he could hardly have vitiated him in so material a point, at a time when his original work must have been in the hands of many.

Cyprian wrote in the middle of the third century. There happened an incident about that time, which renders his testimony more pointed, than could otherwise have been expected. Another African bishop had conceived the notion, that baptism, like circumcision, should be delayed to the eighth day. Such an opinion could never have obtruded itself, except under the familiar and long practice of infant baptism. Cyprian brought the subject before a synod of sixty-six bishops; who, by the weight of their authority, bore down the idle scruple; determining that before the eighth day, infants might be subjects of the ordinance. The same Cypriant speaks of little infants, who, in the time of the persecution, were carried in the arms of their parents, or led by them, to lose that which they had acquired at their nativity-evidently meaning in baptism.

During the tract of time here taken into the account, there does not appear to have been any writer, who has left what favours the contrary opinion, except Tertullian. This author, is more to be esteemed for the truth of his testimony, than for the soundness of his opinions. It is certain, that he recommended the delaying of the baptism of young

*In Rom. lib. v. cap. 6. † Ep. ad Fidum. De Lapsis. § De Baptismo, cap. 18.

[ocr errors]

persons, until they could be instructed. But he did this in such a manner as shows, that the practice of the Church was in contrariety to what he thus delivered. Not only so, he rested it on the ground of the fitness of being past the season of temptation; extending the advice to the cases of young women and of widows: who, according to him, ought to delay the receiving of baptism, until they should either marry, or be otherwise guarded against the danger of seduction.

On the question between immersion and affusion, it is not designed to add much to what was delivered in the lecture. John's baptizing in a place where water abounded, the description of our Lord as coming up out of the water, and many other circumstances, in addition to the general sense of the Greek words expressive of baptism and the act of administering it, strongly mark the original practice to have been generally by immersion. That it continued to be so during the best ages of the Church is evident, among other monuments, from their baptisteries.

On the other hand, the Greek word* does not so constantly signify to immerse, as is by some alleged. We read of the Pharisee, who invited our Lord to dine with him-" He marvelled that he had not first washed"-strictly baptized-" before dinner:"+ where is evidently meant the washing or baptizing, not of the whole person, but of the hands. And some heathen authors have used the words with the like latitude. In the primitive Church, the baptizing by affusiont in cases of sickness, there being no opposition to this practice, but on the contrary, its being unanimously held unlaw. ful to repeat the transaction in case of recovery, is

[blocks in formation]

It is here wished to call the attention to the distinction between affusion or the pouring of water-the expression used in the Rubricks, and-sprinkling: as the usual mode is often called in contempt, but without authority.

much in favour of the opinion of the conceded nonnecessity from the beginning. The result, in the estimation of him who now writes, is that the present general practice is a deviation from what it was originally: which it is desirable to restore to the standard of the Rubricks, as they were framed in the Church of England; and as they continue to this day, in the liturgy of that and of the American Church; although fallen by universal custom into neglect.

DISSERTATION VIII.

OF THE EUCHARIST.*

Section I. Authority of the Institution.-Evidence.-Perpetuity. Sixth Chapter of St. John, and Plea of Perfection. --Section II. Of Transubstantiation.-Fathers.-Varied Phraseology-Evidence of the Spiritual Sense.- Objection of the Neuter Gender.-Illustration from the Talmuds. Objection to Figurative Interpretation.-Some Passages objected.-Testimonies from the Fathers.-The late Origin.-Section III. Errour of some Protestants.Sacrifice, Altar, and Priest.--Scripture.--The Fathers.This Church.-Reasons of the Discussion.

IT being thought requisite to say something on this subject, beyond what could be brought within one of the subdivisions of a lecture; the remarks to be made shall be distributed under these three heads-First, The Authority of the Institution; Secondly, The Errour of Transubstantiation; and Thirdly, Another Errour, held by some Protes

tants.

* See Lecture V.

SECTION I.

OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE INSTITUTION.

This subject resolves itself into two questions; that of the command, and that of the perpetuity of the obligation of it.

In order to invalidate the allegation of the command, it has been remarked, that of the four evangelists, three only recite the transaction, which is supposed to be the foundation of the ordinance; and that of those three, one only-St. Luke-has words expressive of command.

St. John's not reciting of the transaction, may be fairly accounted for, from the probability of what early history has handed down; that he wrote his gospel, in order to record some facts which the other evangelists had omitted. That two of the other evangelists should omit the imperative words, would be unaccountable; had they recorded the transaction, with the view of laying a foundation for the commemorative ordinance. But this having been in use among Christians for many years, and the same appearing from clear testimonies of scripture; the narratives of those evangelists, describing the origin of present practice, held to be obligatory on all; must be seen, in connexion with it, to amount to a command. That there are imperative words used by St. Luke, is conceded. But it is not correct to say, that there is no other record to the same effect. For St. Paul says "I have received of the Lord, that which I also delivered unto you;"* going on to recite the original institution of the Eucharist; and adding, after the delivery of the bread-"This do, in remembrance of me;" and after the delivery of the cup-" This do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me." There is no paring down of the sense of the two last recited

* 1 Cor. xi. 23.

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »