A Brighter Day Begins with His Word.

New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge • VOLUME 1

THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG

['Herzog, J. J. (Johann Jakob), 1805-1882', 'Schaff, Philip, 1819-1893', 'Hauck, Albert, 1845-1918', 'Jackson, Samuel Macauley, 1851-1912', 'Sherman, Charles Colebrook, 1860-1927', 'Gilmore, George W. (George William), 1858-1933'] • Public-domain historical edition in the United States (published 1908); OCR from Internet Archive scan

THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG

tially influenced by this tendency. The Anglican Prayer-book requires children who have been privately baptized to be brought to their parish church as soon as possible thereafter for a solemn ceremony of formal " reception into the Church."

7. Sponsors: The institution of godfathers and godmothers is not coeval with infant baptism, but originated in the custom of requiring an adult pagan unknown to the bishop to be accompanied, when he came to seek baptism, by a Christian who could vouch for him, and who was also bound to watch over his preparation and instruction. It is worth noting that in the Eleusinian mysteries the candidate to be initiated had a similar sponsor, known as mystagogos. The date of the Christian function is unknown. Since Tertullian is the first witness for sponsors at infant baptism (De baptismo, xviii), the custom must have been established before his time; and its existence may possibly be inferred from Justin (I Apol., lxi, 2). But the duties attached in modern times to the office of sponsor are rather those which would be connected with infant baptism. The sponsor was obliged to represent the child, since the oldest baptismal formularies, drawn up for adults, were used without change for infants, who could not answer questions, make the renunciation, or recite the profession of faith. This is clearly brought out in the oldest Egyptian baptismal ritual, where the parents are regarded as the most natural sponsors. Augustine takes the same view (Epist., xcviii, 6); but he also contemplates the bringing of children of slaves by their masters and of orphans or foundlings by other benevolent persons. Attempts have been made to prove that the sponsorship of parents continued the usual custom down to the eighth century, and that an innovation is represented by the Synod of Mainz (813); but it is usually the case that such synodal decisions have a long previous history and raise to the rank of laws things already established as customs. Thus the seventh Roman Ordo speaks simply of godfathers and godmothers, and mentions the parents only in connection with the oblation, and then in addition to the sponsors. Casarius of Aries speaks clearly of the spiritual relationship into which the sponsors enter with the child in a way which, taken in connection with Augustinian ideas, would soon tend to exclude the parents from this office. Another consequence of the notion of spiritual affinity was the prohibition of marriage between sponsors, which appears as early as the Code of Justinian (V, iv, 26). The Trullan Council (canon liii) absolutely forbids marriage between a child's godfather and its mother. By the thirteenth century this view had extended so far as to prohibit marriages between the baptizer and the baptized or the latter's parents, between the sponsors themselves, between them or their children and the baptized person, or even between a godfather's widow and the godson or his natural parent. The Council of Trent diminished these restrictions, so that, according to the Catechismus Romanus (II, ii, 21), marriage is now forbidden only between baptizer or sponsor and the baptized person, and between the sponsors and parents.

The close relation between sponsors and child

was considered to lay a grave responsibility upon the former. Having renounced the devil and professed the faith on the child's behalf, they were bound to see that these vows were carried out. This is emphasized in the instructions of Csesarius of Aries and in those issued for the Frankish mission, where Charlemagne insisted that the sponsors should know the creed and the Lord's Prayer thoroughly. This insistence tended to diminish, though Thomas Aquinas still presupposed the instruction of children by their godparents (Summa, III, lxxi, 4); but the Catechismus Romanus complains that " nothing more than the bare name of this function remains," and attempts to enforce its duties.

Originally there was but one sponsor, but with the admission of parents to the office this principle was broken through. A tendency to increase the number as much as possible is attested by synodal decrees of the early Middle Ages, which place the proper number at two, three, or four. The Council of Trent allows only one sponsor of the same sex as the candidate, or at most two of different sexes. According to Roman Catholic law, a sponsor must have been baptized and preferably confirmed; the Rituale Romanum excludes infidels and heretics, those laboring under excommunication or interdict, notorious criminals, the insane, and those ignorant of the rudiments of the faith; monks and nuns, since their separation from the world makes it difficult for them to perform the duties, are not supposed to undertake them.

The institution of sponsors was retained, with infant baptism, by the Evangelical Churches at the Reformation. Though parents were still excluded, the notion of spiritual affinity was dropped, and any baptized Christian is now, though it was not usual at first, permitted to take the office without regard to his creed — a latitude which would be illogical if the function carried with it the duty of religious instruction, as it does not at present. Some among those who recognize that it is practically an empty form are in favor of abolishing it altogether, while others would have it reformed and made once more a living reality. [The Anglican baptismal office (which contemplates two godfathers and one godmother for a boy, and vice versa) contains a solemn charge to them as to their duties, including spiritual instruction and bringing the child to confirmation at the proper time.]

(P. Drews.)

IV. Discussion of Controverted Points. — 1. The Argument against the Necessity of Immersion: In the view of those who do not practise immersion, baptism is a "washing with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," in which the " dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; " but it may be " rightly administered by pouring or sprinkling water upon the person " (Westminster Shorter Catechism, Q. xciv, and Confession, xxviii, 3). " We must bear in mind," said Walafrid Strabo a thousand years ago (De rebus eccl., xxvi, MPL, cxiv, 959), " that many have been baptized not only by immersion but by affusion, and may yet be so baptized if necessary." " Whether the person who

Historical source record →