This most likely belonged to a company of Shrophan ringers. It has but one handle, and is rather curiously ornamented.
Note.—This article was written about twenty-five years ago.—Editor.
Customs and Superstitions of Baptism.
By the Rev. Canon Benham, b.d., f.s.a.
The present paper is, of course, in no sense a discussion of the doctrine of Christian Baptism. The names by which this Sacrament has been called, however, express, to some degree, the views which have been taken of it in the Christian Church, and these names must be briefly recounted. One of the earliest titles was Indulgentia, “remission of sin.” This is a title as old as the third century, and the idea has found expression in the Nicene Creed. Palingenesia, “new birth,” is an expression equally old. It will be remembered that one of the earliest symbolical names of our Lord Jesus Christ was Ichthus, “Fish;” it is found on the walls of the Roman Catacombs. Now this is really an acrostic, the letters which made it up are the initial letters of the sentence, “Jesus Christ, Son of God, our Saviour,” and Tertullian, the first writer of the Latin Church, says, “We are fishes, born in water, conformable to the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, Ichthus.” Justin Martyr (middle of the second century) speaks of the baptismal water as “the water of life,” and Cassiodorus (fifth century) calls it fons divinus, “the divine fountain,” whence comes our name “Font.” S. Chrysostom and other Greek fathers use the name “Illumination,” (Photismos,) and S. Augustine calls it Salus, “Salvation,” as he calls the Lord’s Supper “Life.” Another word was Sphragis, “Seal,” because it was the seal of a covenant made between God and man. This title is as old as the second century. The same idea is conveyed in Augustine’s expression, Character Dominicus, “the Divine, i.e., stamp mark.”
Baptism was rejected by some of the early heretics, chiefly by the Gnostics, who asserted that all religion lay in knowledge, and under pretence of exalting spiritual worship, would admit of no external or corporeal symbols whatsoever, and also by the Manichæans, who, holding that all matter is in itself evil, consistently rejected the religious use of water. Some early heretics also objected to the use of water only, asserting that this was no better than the baptism of John, whereas our Lord was to baptize also with fire, and they seem, while baptizing with water, to have also touched the ears with fire. Others, by some chemical art, created an appearance of fire on the surface of the water. (Bingham, iii. 414.)
But to come down to later times, there are curious records which tell how the matter used in the Baptismal rite was not always water as it is with us. A letter of Pope Gregory to Archbishop Sigurd of Norway (A.D. 1241) says “Forasmuch as we learnt from you, that it is sometimes the custom, on account of the want of water, for infants in your country to be baptized in ale, we hereby decree that as according to the Gospel Doctrine, it is necessary that they be born of water and of the Holy Spirit, they ought not to be accounted as baptized who are baptized in ale.” And there are Bulls and decrees of Councils to the same effect. In Notes and Queries (ii. 5, 524) is a quotation from an unpublished diary of the sixteenth century, telling how “at Prestone, Aug. 30, 1574, one Griffith ap Bedo Du, which dwelt at Pilleth, at the christening of his son would not have the same to be christened as the manner is, in water, but upon a proud stomach caused the water to be voided out of the font, and filled it with wine, and so caused his son to be therein christened.” And the diarist goes on to say that all the country round noted from that time that “he and his continued to grow to decay in substance and credit until his race was extinguished.”
Controversies concerning Infant Baptism, as well as concerning Immersion as distinguished from affusion, or pouring water upon the baptized, would be out of place here. The latter practice, rendered necessary in our northern climate, has led to the use of the font. Nevertheless, baptism by immersion is not unknown in the Church of England. Under the Church of S. Lawrence, Reading, there is a baptistery under the pews, and in 1866, these pews were temporarily removed and a family of Quakers were baptized in it. At Trinity Church, Marylebone and at Scarborough, there are records within the last few years of adults baptized by immersion. In the parish church of Cranbrook, in the Weald of Kent, is a curious bath for immersion, of which the following is the history. John Johnson, who was Vicar there at the end of the seventeenth century, found on entering upon the incumbency that there were many of his parishioners who were unbaptized, and who, though they were desirous of attending his ministry, were in favour of being baptized by immersion. The Anabaptists were strong in that district during the Commonwealth. He therefore resolved to meet their views. There was a flight of steps leading up, on the inside, into the Parvise or room over the southern porch. At the top of these steps, on the landing so to speak, he constructed a deep bath, reaching down in fact to the floor of the church, so that the minister could take the person to be baptized up the steps and there immerse him. This charitable concession to the convictions of his people is still to be seen. I believe, however, that there are only two records of it having been used since its erection. Similar baptisteries are to be seen at Ebbw Vale, Aberdare, and elsewhere.