BAPTISM.
Consider, What it is;
What it does;
How it does it.
(I) WHAT IT IS.
The Sacrament of Baptism is the supernatural conjunction of matter and
spirit--of water and the Holy Ghost. Water must be there, and spirit
must be there. It is by the conjunction of the two that the Baptized
is "born anew of water and of the Holy Ghost".
So the Prayer Book teaches. At the reception of a privately baptized
child into the Church, it is laid down that "matter" and "words" are
the two essentials for a valid Baptism.[1] "Because some things
essential to this Sacrament may happen to be omitted (and thus
invalidate the Sacrament), ... I demand," says the priest, {64} "with
what matter was this child baptized?" and "with what words was this
child baptized?" And because the omission of right matter or right
words would invalidate the Sacrament, further inquiry is made, and the
god-parents are asked: "by whom was this child baptized?": "who was
present when this child was baptized?" Additional security is taken,
if there is the slightest reason to question the evidence given. The
child is then given "Conditional Baptism," and Baptism is administered
with the conditional words: "If thou art not already baptized,"--for
Baptism cannot be repeated--"I baptize thee in the name of the Father,
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen." So careful is the
Church both in administering and guarding the essentials of the
Sacrament.
And notice: nothing but the water and the words are _essential_. Other
things may, or may not, be edifying; they are not essential; they are
matters of ecclesiastical regulation, not of Divine appointment. Thus,
a _Priest_ is not essential to a valid Baptism, as he is for a valid
Eucharist. A Priest is the normal, but not the necessary, instrument
of Baptism. "In the absence of a {65} Priest"[2] a Deacon may baptize,
and if the child is _in extremis_, any one, of either sex, may baptize.
Again, _Sponsors_ are not essential to the validity of the Sacrament.
Sponsors are safeguards, not essentials. They are only a part--an
invaluable part--of ecclesiastical regulation. When, in times of
persecution, parents might be put to death, other parents were chosen
as parents-in-God (God-parents)[3] to safeguard the child's Christian
career. Sponsors are "sureties" of the Church, not parts of the
Sacraments. They stand at the font, as fully admitted Church members,
to welcome a new member into the Brotherhood. But a private Baptism
without Sponsors would be a valid Baptism.
So, too, in regard to _Ceremonial_. The mode of administering the
Sacrament may vary: it is not (apart from the matter and words) of the
essence of the Sacrament. There are, in fact, three ways in which
Baptism may be validly administered. It may be administered by
_Immersion_, _Aspersion_, or _Affusion_.
Immersion (_in-mergere_, to dip into) is the original and primitive
form of administration. {66} As the word suggests, it consists of
dipping the candidate into the water--river, bath, or font.
Aspersion (_ad spargere_, to sprinkle upon) is not a primitive form of
administration. It consists in sprinkling water upon the candidate's
forehead.
Affusion (_ad fundere_, to pour upon) is the allowed alternative to
Immersion. It consists in pouring water upon the candidate.
All these methods are valid. Immersion was the Apostolic method, and
explains most vividly the Apostolic teaching (in which the Candidate is
"buried with Christ" by immersion, and rises again by emersion)[4] no
less than the meaning of the word--from the Greek _baptizo_, to dip.
Provision for Immersion has been made by a Fontgrave, in Lambeth Parish
Church, erected in memory of Archbishop Benson, and constantly made use
of. But, even in Apostolic times, Baptism by "Affusion" was allowed to
the sick and was equally valid. In the Prayer Book, affusion is either
permitted (as in the Public Baptism of infants), or ordered (as in the
Private Baptism of infants), or, again, allowed (as in the Baptism of
those of riper years). It will be {67} noted that the Church of
England makes no allusion to "Aspersion," or the "sprinkling" form of
administration. The child or adult is always either to be dipped into
the water, or to have water poured upon it.[5] Other ceremonies there
are--ancient and mediaeval. Some are full of beauty, but none are
essential. Thus, in the first Prayer Book of 1549, a white vesture,
called the _Chrisome_[6] or _Chrism_, was put upon the candidate, the
Priest saying: "Take this white vesture for a token of innocency which,
by God's grace, in the Holy Sacrament of Baptism, is given unto thee".
It typified the white life to which the one anointed with the Chrisma,
or symbolical oil, was dedicated.[7]
{68}
Another ancient custom was to give the newly baptized _milk and honey_.
So, St. Clement of Alexandria writes: "As soon as we are born again, we
become entitled to the hope of rest, the promise of Jerusalem which is
above, where it is said to rain milk and honey".
_Consignation_, again, or the "signing with the sign of the cross,"
dates from a very early period.[8] It marks the child as belonging to
the Good Shepherd, even as a lamb is marked with the owner's mark or
sign.
Giving salt as a symbol of wisdom (_sal sapientiae_); placing a lighted
taper in the child's hand, typifying the illuminating Spirit; turning
to the west to renounce the enemy of the Faith, and then to the east to
recite our belief in that Faith; striking three blows with the hand,
symbolical of fighting against the world, the flesh, and the devil: all
such ceremonies, and many more, have their due place, and mystic
meaning: but they are not part of the Sacrament. They are, {69} as it
were, scenery, beautiful scenery, round the Sacrament; frescoes on the
walls; the "beauty of holiness"; "lily-work upon the top of the
pillars";[9] the handmaids of the Sacrament, but not essential to the
Sacrament. To deny that the Church of England rightly and duly
administers the Sacrament because she omits any one of these
ceremonies, is to confuse the picture with the frame, the jewel with
its setting, the beautiful with the essential.[10]
We may deplore the loss of this or that Ceremony, but a National Church
exercises her undoubted right in saying at any particular period of her
history how the Sacrament is to be administered, provided the
essentials of the Sacrament are left untouched. The Church Universal
decides, once for all, what is essential: {70} the National Church
decides how best to secure and safeguard these essentials for her own
_Use_.
(II) WHAT IT DOES.
According to the Scriptures, "_Baptism doth now save us_".[11] As God
did "save Noah and his family in the Ark from perishing by water," so
does God save the human family from perishing by sin. As Noah and his
family could, by an act of free will, have opened a window in the Ark,
and have leapt into the waters, and frustrated God's purpose after they
had been saved, so can any member of the human family, after it has
been taken into the "Ark of Christ's Church," frustrate God's "good
will towards" it, and wilfully leap out of its saving shelter. Baptism
is "a beginning," not an end.[12] It puts us into a state of
Salvation. It starts us in the way of Salvation. St. Cyprian says
that in Baptism "we start crowned," and St. John says: "Hold fast that
which thou hast that no man take thy crown".[13] Baptism is the
Sacrament of initiation, not of finality. Directly the child is
baptized, we pray that he "may lead the rest of his life according {71}
to _this beginning_," and we heartily thank God for having, in Baptism,
called us into a state of Salvation. In this sense, "Baptism doth save
us".
But what does it save us from? Sin. In the Nicene Creed we say: "I
believe in one Baptism for the remission of _sins_". Baptism saves us
from our sins.
In the case of infants, Baptism saves from original, or inherited,
sin--the sin whose origin can be traced to the Fall. In the case of
adults, Baptism saves from both original and actual sin, both birth sin
and life sin.
The Prayer Book is as explicit as the Bible on this point. In the case
of infants, we pray:
"We call upon Thee for this infant, that he, _coming to Thy Holy
Baptism_, may receive remission of his sins"--before, i.e., the child
has, by free will choice, committed actual sin. In the case of adults,
we read: "Well-beloved, who are come hither desiring _to receive Holy
Baptism_, ye have heard how the congregation hath prayed, that our Lord
Jesus Christ would vouchsafe to ... _release you of your sins_". And,
again, dealing with infants, the Rubric at the end of the "Public
Baptism of Infants" declares that "It is certain, by God's Word, that
children _who are {72} baptized_, dying before they commit _actual
sin_, are undoubtedly saved".
In affirming this, the Church does not condemn all the unbaptized,
infants or adults, to everlasting perdition, as the teaching of some
is. Every affirmation does not necessarily involve its opposite
negation. It was thousands of years before any souls at all were
baptized on earth, and even now, few[14] in comparison with the total
population of the civilized and uncivilized world, have been baptized.
The Church nowhere assumes the self-imposed burden of legislation for
these, or limits their chance of salvation to the Church Militant.
What she does do, is to proclaim her unswerving belief in "one Baptism
for the remission of sins"; and her unfailing faith in God's promises
to those who _are_ baptized--"which promise, He, for His part, will
most surely keep and perform". On this point, she speaks with nothing
short of "undoubted certainty"; on the other point, she is silent. She
does not condemn an infant because no responsible person has brought it
to Baptism, though she does condemn the person for not bringing it.
She does not limit {73} the power of grace to souls in this life only,
but she does offer grace in this world, which may land the soul safely
in the world to come.
One other thing Baptism does. Making the child a member of Christ, it
gives it a "Christ-ian" name.
_The Christian Name_.
This Christian, or fore-name as it was called, is the real name. It
antedates the surname by many centuries, surnames being unknown in
England before the Norman invasion. The Christian name is the
Christ-name. It cannot, by any known legal method, be changed.
Surnames may be changed in various legal ways: not so the Christian
name.[15] This was more apparent when the baptized were given only one
Christian name, for it was not until the eighteenth century that a
second or third name was added, and then only on grounds of convenience.
Again, according to the law of England, the only legal way in which a
Christian name can be given, is by Baptism. Thus, if a child has been
registered in one name, and is afterwards baptized {74} in another, the
Baptismal, and not the registered, name is its legal name, even if the
registered name was given first.
It is strange that, in view of all this, peers should drop their
Christian names, i.e. their real names, their Baptismal names. The
custom, apparently, dates only from the Stuart period, and is not easy
to account for. It would seem to suggest a distinct loss. The same
loss, if it be a loss, is incurred by the Town Clerk of London, who
omits his Christian name in signing official documents.[16] The King,
more happily, retains his Baptismal or Christian name, and has no
surname.[17] Bishops sign themselves by both their {75} Christian and
official name, as "Randall Cantuar; Cosmo Ebor.; A. F. London; H. E.
Winton; F. Oxon.".
We may consider three words, both helps and puzzles, used in connexion
with Holy Baptism: _Regeneration, Adoption, Election_. Each has its
own separate teaching, though there are points at which their meanings
run into each other.
_Regeneration_.
"We yield Thee hearty thanks that it hath pleased Thee to regenerate
this infant." So runs the Prayer-Book thanksgiving after baptism.
What does it mean? The word regeneration comes from two Latin words,
_re_, again, _generare_, to generate, and means exactly what it says.
In Prayer-Book language, it means being "_born again_". And, notice,
it refers to infants as well {76} as to adults. The new birth is as
independent of the child's choice as the natural birth.
And this is just what we should expect from a God of love. The child
is not consulted about his first birth, neither is he consulted about
his second birth. He does not wait (as the Baptists teach) until he is
old enough to make a free choice of second birth, but as soon as he is
born into the world ("within seven or fourteen days," the Prayer Book
orders) he is reborn into the Church. Grace does not let nature get
ten to twenty years' start, but gives the soul a fair chance from the
very first: and so, and only so, is a God of love "justified in His
saying, and clear when He is judged".
_Adoption_.
But there is a second word. The Baptismal Thanksgiving calls the
Baptized "God's own child by Adoption". A simple illustration will
best explain the word. When a man is "naturalized," he speaks of his
new country as the land of his _adoption_. If a Frenchman becomes a
naturalized Englishman, he ceases legally to be a Frenchman; ceases to
be under French law; ceases to serve in the French army. He {77}
becomes legally an Englishman; he is under English law; serves in the
English army; has all the privileges and obligations of a "new-born"
Englishman. He may turn out to be a bad Englishman, a traitor to his
adopted country; he may even hanker after his old life as a
Frenchman--but he has left one kingdom for another, and, good, bad, or
indifferent, he is a subject of his new King; he is a son of his
adopted country. He cannot belong to two kingdoms, serve under two
kings, live under two sets of laws, at the same time.
It is so with the Baptized. He has been "adopted" into a new kingdom.
He is a subject of "the Kingdom of Heaven". But he cannot belong to
two kingdoms at the same time. His "death unto sin" involves a "new
birth (regeneration) unto righteousness". He ceases to be a member of
the old kingdom, to serve under the sway of the old king, to be a
"child of wrath". He renounces all allegiance to Satan; he becomes
God's own child by "adoption". He may be a good, bad, or indifferent
child; he may be a lost child, but he does not cease to be God's child.
Rather, it is just because he is still God's child that there is hope
for him. It is because he is {78} the child of God by adoption that
the "spirit of adoption" within him can still cry, "Abba, Father," that
he can still claim the privilege of his adopted country, and "pardon
through the Precious Blood". True, he has obligations and
responsibilities, as well as privileges, and these we shall see under
the next word, Election.
_Election_.
The Catechism calls the Baptized "the elect people of God," and the
Baptismal Service asks that the child may by Baptism be "taken into the
number of God's elect children". What does it mean? The word itself
comes from two Latin words, _e_, or _ex_, out; and _lego_, to choose.
The "elect," then, are those chosen out from others. It sounds like
favouritism; it reads like "privileged classes"--and so it is. But the
privilege of election is the privilege of service. It is like the
privilege of a Member of Parliament, the favoured candidate--the
privilege of being elected to serve others. Every election is for the
sake of somebody else. The Member of Parliament is elected for the
sake of his constituents; the Town Councillor is elected for the sake
of his fellow-townsmen; the Governor is elected for the sake of the
{79} governed. It is so with spiritual elections. The Jews were
"elect"; but it was for the sake of the Gentiles--"that the Gentiles,
through them, might be brought in". The Blessed Virgin was "elect";
but it was that "all generations might call her blessed". The Church
is "elect," but it is for the sake of the world,--that it, too, might
be "brought in". No election ends with itself. The Baptized are
"elect," but not for their own sakes; not to be a privileged class,
save to enjoy the privilege of bringing others in. They are "chosen
out" of the world for the sake of those left in the world. This is
their obligation; it is the law of their adopted country, the kingdom
into which they have, "by spiritual regeneration," been "born again".
All this, and much more, Baptism does. How does it do it?
(III) HOW DOES IT DO IT?
This new Birth! How is it accomplished? Nobody knows. How Baptism
causes all that it effects, is as yet unrevealed. The Holy Ghost moves
upon the face of the waters, but His operation is overshadowed. Here,
we are in the realm of faith. Faith is belief in that which is out of
{80} sight. It is belief in the unseen, not in the non-existent. We
hope for that we see not.[18] The _mode_ of the operation of the Holy
Ghost in Baptism is hidden: the result alone is revealed. In this, as
in many another mystery, "We wait for light".[19]
[1] See Service for the "Private Baptism of Children".
[2] Service for the Ordination of Deacons.
[3] From an old word, Gossip or _Godsib_, i.e. God relation.
[4] Cf. Rom. vi. 4; Eph. v. 26.
[5] _Trine_ Immersion, i.e. dipping the candidate thrice, or thrice
pouring water upon him, dates from the earliest ages, but exceptional
cases have occurred where a single immersion has been held valid.
[6] From _Chrisma_, sacred oil--first the oil with which a child was
anointed at Baptism, and then the robe with which the child was covered
after Baptism and Unction, and hence the child itself was called a
_Chrisome-child_, i.e. a child wearing the Chrisome robe.
[7] In the 1549 Prayer Book, the Prayer at the Anointing in the
Baptismal Service ran: "Almighty God, Who hath regenerated thee by
water and the Holy Ghost, and hath given unto thee the 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_."
[8] St. Jerome, writing in the second century, says of the Baptized,
that he "bore on his forehead the banner of the Cross".
[9] 1 Kings vii. 22.
[10] It is a real loss to use the Service for the Public Baptism of
Infants as a private office, as is generally done now. The doctrinal
teaching; the naming of the child; the signing with the cross; the
response of, and the address to, the God-parents--all these would be
helpful reminders to a congregation, if the service sometimes came, as
the Rubric orders, after the second lesson, and might rekindle the
Baptismal and Confirmation fire once lighted, but so often allowed to
die down, or flicker out.
[11] 1 Pet. iii. 21.
[12] Baptismal Service.
[13] Rev. iii. 11.
[14] Not more, it is estimated, than two or three out of every eight
have been baptized.
[15] I may take an _additional_ Christian name at my Confirmation, but
I cannot change the old one.
[16] The present Town Clerk of London has kindly informed me that the
earliest example he has found dates from 1418, when the name of John
Carpenter, Town Clerk, the well-known executor of Whittington, is
appended to a document, the Christian name being omitted.
[17] The following letter from Mr. Ambrose Lee of the Heralds' College
may interest some. "... Surname, in the ordinary sense of the word,
the King has none. He--as was his grandmother, Queen Victoria, as well
as her husband, Prince Albert--is descended from Witikind, who was the
last of a long line of continental Saxon kings or rulers. Witikind was
defeated by Charlemagne, became a Christian, and was created Duke of
Saxony. He had a second son, who was Count of Wettin, but clear and
well-defined and authenticated genealogies do not exist from which may
be formulated any theory establishing, by right or custom, _any_
surname, in the ordinary accepted sense of the word, for the various
families who are descended in the male line from this Count of
Wettin.... And, by-the-by, it must not be forgotten that the earliest
Guelphs were merely princes whose baptismal name was Guelph, as the
baptismal name of our Hanoverian Kings was George."
[18] Rom. viii. 25.
[19] Is. lix. 9.
{81}