Nosebag. Why, like as if you stamped upon it. Here’s a good deal about this christening in this here newspaper; printed, they do say, by the ’thority of the Palace. The man that writes it wears the royal livery; scarlet run up and down with gold. He says (reads), “The particulars of this interesting event are subjoined; and they will be perused by the readers with all the attention which the holy rite as well as the lofty ranks of the parties present must command.”
Nutts. Humph! “Holy rite” and “lofty rank,” as if a little Christian was any more a Christian for being baptized by a archbishop! Go on.
Nosebag. Moreover, he says (reads), “The ceremony was of the loftiest and most magnificent character, befitting in that respect at once the service of that all-powerful God who commanded His creatures to worship Him in pomp and glory under the old law.”
Nutts. Hallo! Stop there. What have we to do with the “old law” in christening? I thought the “old law” was only for the Jews. Isn’t the “old law” repealed for Christians?
Nosebag. Be quiet. (Reads.) “The vase which contained the water was brought from the river of Jordan”——
Nutts. Well, when folks was christened then, I think there was no talk about magnificence; not a word about the pomp of the “old law.” Don’t read it through. Give us the little nice bits here and there.
Nosebag. Well, here’s a procession with field-marshals in it, and major-generals, and generals.
Nutts. There wasn’t so much as a full private on the banks of the Jordan.
Nosebag. And “the whole of the costumes of both ladies and gentlemen were very elegant and magnificent; those of the former were uniformly white, of valuable lace, and the richest satins or silks. The gentlemen were either in uniform or full Court dress.”
Nutts. Very handsome indeed; much handsomer than any coat of camel’s hair.