THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
the practise in Britain till the reign of Elizabeth, and is still demanded in the order of the Church of England for the baptism of infants unless the parents shall certify that the child is weak. Though pouring or sprinkling is now employed rather as a matter of convenience, affusion was for many centuries resorted to only in case of necessity.
The first extended discussion of the question is found in the epistle of Cyprian to Magnus written about the middle of the third century. Being asked whether those can be deemed legitimi Christian!, "Christians in full standing," who, being converted in sickness are non loti sed perfusi, " not immersed in the water but having it 2. The Tes- simply poured over them," he gives an timony of affirmative opinion but does so with Cyprian, the very greatest hesitation. His words are: " So far as my poor ability comprehends the matter;" and " I have answered your letter so far as my poor and small ability is capable of doing; " and " So far as in me lies I have shown what I think." He disclaims any intention of saying that other officials should recognize affusion as baptism and even goes so far as to suggest that those who have thus received affusion may on their recovery from sickness be immersed. But, citing various sprinklings in the Mosaic ritual, he gives the view, that necessitate cogente, immersion being out of the question, those who have been poured upon may be comforted by being told that they have been truly baptized (Cypriani epist., lxxv [lxix], 12-14; ANF, v, 400-401). This epistle makes it clear beyond all controversy that in the third century the ordinary baptism was immersion, and that even in the Latin Church there were those who declared it the only baptism. It further appears with equal clearness that affusion was never practised in the Apostolic Church, for had the apostles resorted thereto even in a single instance Cyprian would certainly have known the fact and would never have presented so mild an apology for a usage which had apostolic precedent, nor indeed would any one have taken exception to the practise.
For a thousand years the resort to the use of affusion was justified only on the ground of necessity. And the supposed necessity existed in the idea that baptism was essential to salvation and so that when immersion, the established rite, was out of the question, something must be put 3. Origin of in its place or the soul would be lost. Affusion. The use of affusion would never have been thought of except for the idea that water baptism was essential to salvation. But those who deny that salvation is conditioned on baptism, who regard baptism as merely a token of a salvation already wrought, see no necessity for a resort to affusion. They will continue to administer immersion whenever it is practicable, and where it is not they will let the convert die without any water baptism whatever. They condemn the use of affusion not only as unnecessary but as based on a gross superstition.
To the declaration that baptism is simply a washing, it is answered that Jesus's baptism of suffering was not a washing but a submersion beneath the
tide of wo and that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is a whelming in the waves of divine influence, while many of the Fathers regarded 4. The the baptism of fire, not as a purifica- Argument tion, but as a swallowing up of the from Sym- wicked in waves of burning. And bolism. granting that originally the immersion was but a lustration, the apostles point out in it another image; viz., that of burial and resurrection. The act of affusion contains nothing whatever of purely Christian symbolism, for simple lustration is found in the Mosaic and even in heathen ritual. The burial in water is the only distinctively Christian baptism, for it alone sets forth the death and resurrection of our Lord, which is the central fact of the Christian system. To the idea that the purpose of the "apostolic" immersion was simply a washing and that this can be attained just as well by a pouring or sprinkling, it may be added that the purpose of the pouring is simply a profession of faith, which can be given just as well by word of mouth, and thus that all use of water may be dispensed with. Those who abandon the " apostolic " immersion simply on the ground of convenience leave the way clear for the adoption of the position of the Society of Friends, the abandonment of water baptism entirely.
As to the subjects of the rite, the Baptists hold that it should be administered only on profession of faith. There is found in Scripture no instance of the baptism of an unconscious infant nor will a fair exegesis discover in any text the remotest reference to such a usage. On the con-
5. Objec- trary, it stands in direct antagonism tions to In- to the New Testament idea of the
fant Bap- Church. The baptism of infants tism. arose from the idea that in baptism one is regenerated and christened, that is, made a Christian. But, as they grow up, no difference appears between the baptized child of Roman Catholic or Episcopalian and the unbaptized offspring of the pious Quaker or the Baptist, or indeed of the unbeliever.
The Presbyterians baptize infants on the ground that the Church is to consist (Westminster Confession, xxv, 2), not of the converted alone, but of believers " together with their children." The sons of believers, however, may grow up unbelievers, even atheists, and thus the Church, the bride of Christ, come to be made up in part, possibly the greater part, of the unregenerate, perhaps the immoral. When a child is " dedicated " to Christ, to baptize it without awaiting its hoped-for conversion is not only as unreasonable as it would be to ordain the infant to the ministry on faith that he will yet be another Jonathan Edwards, but it is also to introduce an impenitent element into the Church. As well might the missionary baptize at the start the whole heathen tribe, who, he has faith to believe, will be converted.
If an infant may be baptized on the ground that it is pure and sinless, then, since the babe of Turk or pagan is as pure as the child of the Christian, there is no reason why all infants, even the whole race of man, should not be baptized into the Church. The Church is based on the idea that there is a