Part 6 (2/2)

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 G.o.d did ”save Noah and his family in the Ark from peris.h.i.+ng by water,” so does G.o.d save the human family from peris.h.i.+ng 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 G.o.d'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 G.o.d'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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d'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 a.s.sumes 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 G.o.d'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 doc.u.ments.[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.

<script>