Baptism

BAPTISM

The holy ordinance by which persons are admitted as members of the Christian community. It is administered in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and is a visible and public profession of faith in Christ and his salvation, of vital union with him, of the obligation to live a new life according to his precepts and in his service, and of the expectation of sharing in his glorious and heavenly immortality. It is not by any means to be regarded as a regenerating ordinance, though significant of regeneration. It was established in the Christian church by Christ and his apostles, and is binding on his followers to the end of time. The use of water in this ordinance is grounded in part on its qualities as the great element of purification, and on the rites of the ancient dispensation, in which “water and blood: were the divinely appointed symbols of moral renovation and atonement.

Fuente: American Tract Society Bible Dictionary

Baptism

1. Christian baptism in the NT.-It will be convenient at the beginning of this article to collect the narratives of and allusions to Christian baptism in the NT. The command of our Lord to make disciples of all the nations by baptism (Mat 28:19; see below, 4 and 8) was faithfully carried out by the first disciples. Actual baptisms are recorded in Act 2:38; Act 2:41 (the 3000 converts), Act 8:12 f., Act 8:16 (Samaritans, men and women, and Simon), Act 8:36; Act 8:38 (the Ethiopian eunuch), Act 9:18; Act 22:16 (Saul), Act 10:47 f. (Cornelius and his friends), Act 16:15 (Lydia and her household), Act 16:33 (the Philippian jailer and all his), Act 18:8 (Crispus and his house, and many Corinthians), Act 19:5 (about twelve Ephesians), 1Co 1:14; 1Co 1:16 (Crispus, Gaius, and the household of Stephanas).

In addition to these narratives there are many allusions to Christian baptism in the NT-Rom 6:11., Col 2:12, baptized into Christ Jesus, into His death, buried with Him in baptism: a common thought in early times-e.g. Apost. Const. ii. 7 and often in that work (see A. J. Maclean, Ancient Church Orders, 123).-1Co 6:11, sanctification and justification connected with the washing of baptism; three aorists, referring to a definite event: ye washed away (, middle) [your sins] in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God; cf. Act 22:16 (above): arise and be baptized (, seek baptism) and wash away () thy sins.-1Co 12:13, [Jews and Gentiles] all baptized in one Spirit into one body.-Gal 3:27, baptized into Christ, put on Christ.-Eph 4:5, one Lord, one faith, one baptism.-Eph 5:26, Christ sanctified the Church, having cleansed it by the washing () of water with the word. The word is said by Robinson (Com. in loc.) to be the solemn invocation of the name of the Lord Jesus; Westcott (in loc.) adds: accompanied by the confession of the Christian faith, cf. Rom 10:9; Chase (Journal of Theological Studies viii. 165) interprets it of the word or fiat of Christ, and compares Cyril of Jerusalem (Cat. iii. 5).-Tit 3:5, by the washing of regeneration ( ) and renewing of the Holy Ghost; see below, 8.-Heb 6:2; Heb 6:4, the first principles are repentance, faith, teaching of baptisms () and of laying on of hands, resurrection, and judgment; Christians were once enlightened () and tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost; hence the name illumination () and illuminated for baptism and the baptized in Justin (Apol. i. 61, 65) and elsewhere. Westcott interprets the teaching [, but B reads -, which is adopted in Revised Version margin and by Westcott-Horts Greek Testament ] of baptisms as instruction about the difference between Christian baptism and other lustral rites. Chase (Confirmation in Apostol. Age, p. 44f.) denies this, and interprets the phrase of the baptism of different neophytes, the Christian rite in its concrete application to individual believers: the heavenly gift is one part of the illumination or baptism, i.e. the gift of the Son, of Eternal life, of sonship (Chase); the partaking of the Holy Ghost is the other part. In any case the must refer to the laying on of hands which followed immersion (see below, 6), though Westcott would extend it to benedictions, ordinations, etc., as well.-Heb 10:22 f., our body washed with pure water (our sacramental bathing contrasted with the symbolic bathings of the Jews [Westcott]), let us hold fast the confession () of our hope.-In 1Pe 3:21 baptism is the antitype of the bringing of Noah safe through the water; the antitype is here the nobler member of the pair of relatives (Bigg, International Critical Commentary , in loc.), the fulfilment of the type; but in Heb 9:24 it is used conversely, as it often is in Christian antiquity when the Eucharistic bread and wine are called the antitype of our Lords body and blood, e.g. Verona Didascalia (ed. Hauler, p. 112) panem quidem in exemplar quod dicit Graecus antitypum corporis Christi; so Cyr. Jer., Cat. xxiii. 20; Tertullian similarly uses figura (adv. Marc. iv. 10), and Serapion (Liturgy, 1). For other instances, see Cooper-Maclean, Test. of our Lord, Edinburgh, 1902, p. 172f., and Apost. Const. v. 14, vi. 30, vii. 25. In Ps.-Clem. 2 Cor. 14 the flesh is the antitype of the Spirit.

In the Gospels, Christian baptism is three times referred to: Mat 28:19, Mar 16:16, Joh 3:3; Joh 3:5. In the last passage the words , read in all Manuscripts and VSS [Note: SS Versions.] , have been judged by K. Lake (Inaug. Lecture at Leyden, 17th Jan. 1904, p. 14) to be an interpolation, as they are not quoted by Justin. This deduction is very precarious (for an examination of it, see Chase, Journal of Theological Studies vi. [1905] 504, note, who deems the theory unscientific); but in any case the birth of the Spirit could not but convey to the Christian readers of the Fourth Gospel a reference to baptism. Westcott truly remarks (Com. in loc.) that to Nicodemus the words would suggest a reference to Johns baptism. An attempt to explain water here without reference to baptism is examined by Hooker (Eccl. Pol. v. 59), who lays down the oft-quoted canon that while a literal construction will stand, the farthest from the letter is commonly the worst (see below, 8).

In these passages water is not always mentioned; but the word , which to us is a mere technical expression, and its Aramaic equivalent (rt. [Note: root.] ) would to the first disciples at once convey the idea of water. The clement is mentioned or alluded to in Act 8:36, 1Co 6:11; 1Co 12:13 (drink of one Spirit), Eph 5:26, Tit 3:5, Heb 10:22, 1Pe 3:20, and is necessitated by the metaphor of burial in baptism in Rom 6:4, Col 2:12. Justin (Dial. 14) emphasizes the element used, by calling baptism the water of life: so in Hermas (Vis. iii. 3) the Church (the tower) is built on the waters, because your life is saved and shall be saved by water.

More indirect allusions to Christian baptism are found in the NT. The Israelites, by a metaphor from it, are said to have been baptized into () Moses in the cloud and in the sea (1Co 10:2). Whatever view is taken of baptism for the dead (1Co 15:29), it alludes to the Christian rite. It has been interpreted (a) of vicarious baptism on behalf of those who had died unbaptized (cf. 2Ma 12:43 ff., offering made for the dead); this was the practice of some heretics (so Tert., de Res. Carn. 48, adv. Marc. v. 10, and Goudge, Alford). But there is no evidence that it existed in the 1st cent., and the practice may have originated from this verse; could St. Paul have even tacitly approved of such a thing?-(b) The words are rendered by many Greek Fathers in expectation of the resurrection of the dead; but this forces the grammar, and gives no good sense to , which is the best attested reading at the end of the verse; also they which are baptized means not all Christians, but some of them.-(c) Others interpret the verse of people being drawn to the faith and to baptism out of affection for some dead friend; Robertson-Plummer (International Critical Commentary , in loc.) incline to this.-(d) Estius and Calvin render as now about to die, jamjam morituri; but see (b).-(e) Luther renders over the graves of the dead; here again see (b). Many other suggestions have been made. It is probable that the problem is insoluble with our present knowledge, and that the reference is to some ceremony in the then baptismal rite at Corinth of which we hear no more, but not to vicarious baptism (see Plummer in Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols) i. 245).

Other allusions to baptism (the complete rite, see below, 6) may probably be found in the metaphors of anointing and sealing. For anointing, see 2Co 1:21 (, aorist), 1Jn 2:20; 1Jn 2:27 (the anointing abides in us and is not only a historical act). Though anointing may have accompanied the rite in the NT, and Chase (Confirmation, 53ff.) decides that it was so used, yet it is also not improbable that its institution at a very early age of the Church may have been due to these very passages-that the practice came from the metaphor. We notice that in the Didache, 7, anointing is not mentioned, but that in Apost. Const. vii. 22 (4th cent.), which incorporates and enlarges the Didache, it is introduced. It was certainly used very early. Irenaeus says that some of the Gnostic sects anointed alter baptism (c. Haer. i. xxi. 3f.); and as the Gnostic rites were a parody of those of the Church, this carries the evidence back to c. [Note: . circa, about.] a.d. 150. It is mentioned by Tert., de Bapt. 7, de Res. Carn. 8; by Cyr. Jer., Cat. xxii. 1. From the anointing came the custom of calling the baptized christs, (Cyr. Jer., loc. cit.; Methodius, Banquet of the Ten Virgins, viii. 8, where Psa 105:15 Septuagint is quoted). In the NT, is used metaphorically of our Lord; cf. Luk 4:18, Act 4:27; Act 10:38, Heb 1:9.

For sealing, see 2Co 1:22 (same context as the anointing), Eph 1:13 (having believed ye were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise), Eph 4:30 (sealed in the Holy Spirit). The aorists in all three passages, which connect the Holy Ghost with the sealing, point to the definite time when they became believers (Chase, Confirmation, p. 52). (The metaphor is used in Rom 4:11 of circumcision; and otherwise in Joh 3:33; Joh 6:27, Rom 15:28, 1Co 9:2, 2Ti 2:19.) Hence in Christian antiquity the baptismal rite, either as a whole or in one or other of its parts, is frequently called the seal, ; e.g. Hermas, Sim. ix. 16, the seal is the water; cf. viii. 6; Ps.-Clem., 2 Corinthians 7; Clem. Alex., Quis dives, 42; Tert., de Spect. 24 (signaculum); Cyr. Jer., Cat. iv. 16, etc.

To these passages must be added those which speak of Christian adoption; Rom 8:15; Rom 8:23, Gal 4:5, Eph 1:5; for these see article Adoption.

2. Predecessors of Christian baptism

-(a) The words , , are used in the NT of various ceremonial washings of the Jews. The verb is derived from , to dip (found in the NT only in Luk 16:24, Joh 13:26, and some Manuscripts of Rev 19:13, always literally), and has in classical Greek the same meaning. In the NT is used either metaphorically, of the Passion of our Lord (Mar 10:38 f., Luk 12:50, and some Manuscripts of Mat 20:22 f.-so also ) and of the descent of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost (Act 1:5; Act 11:16, see below, 6), or else of baptism and of Jewish ablations. For these last, see Mar 7:4 (the Jews baptize, v.l. [Note: .l. varia lectio, variant reading.] sprinkle, themselves before meat and have baptizings, , of vessels), Luk 11:38 (of washing before breakfast, ), Heb 9:10 (divers baptisms, i.e. washings).* [Note: is used of Christian baptism in Col 2:12 (v.l. ), and in the plural in Heb 6:2 (see above, 1); Josephus (Ant. XVIII. v. 2) uses it of Johns baptism. is used in the NT 12 times of Johns baptism and 3 (or 4) times of Christian baptism; for its metaphorical nee see above.] Ceremonial ablution was a common practice of the Jews (Exo 29:4 etc., Mar 7:3 , Joh 2:6; Joh 3:25); and the allusions to washing in connexion with baptism (above, 1) would be familiar to the early Christians, who also had the metaphor of cleansing; see 2Co 7:1, 1Jn 1:7, Rev 1:5 (some Manuscripts ) Rev 7:14; cf. 2Pe 2:22.

(b) Baptism of proselytes.-The Jews admitted proselytes of righteousness, i.e. full proselytes, with baptism, circumcision, and sacrifice. This custom was very common in Rabbinical times, though Josephus and Philo do not mention it, and some have therefore concluded that it did not exist in the 1st cent.; but Edersheim has clearly proved from ancient evidence that it was then in use (LT [Note: T Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (Edersheim).] ii. 746, Appendix xii.). It may be added that the Jews in later times would not have borrowed baptism from the Christians, though it is intelligible that first John and then our Lord and His disciples should have adopted a custom already existing and have given it a new meaning. Such a baptized person was said by the Rabbis to be as a little child just born (cf. Tit 3:5; see Edersheim, loc. cit.).

(c) The baptism of John is described in all the Gospels. It was a preparatory baptism (Mat 3:11), the baptism of repentance (Mar 1:4, Luk 3:8, Act 13:24; Act 19:4), intended, by an outward symbol, to induce repentance which is the essential requisite for the reception of spiritual truth. So marked a feature of his teaching was baptism, that John is called pre-eminently the Baptist ( , Mat 3:1; Mat 11:11 f., Mar 8:28, Luk 7:20; Luk 7:33; Luk 9:19; Josephus, Ant. xviii. v. 2; in Mar 6:14; Mar 6:24 f. ). But he himself shows the difference between his baptism and that of Jesus, in that the latter was to be with the Holy Ghost (Mat 3:11, Mar 1:8, Luk 3:16, Joh 1:33) and with fire (Mt., Lk.). For the meaning of baptism with the Holy Ghost, see below 6 and 8 (e). Baptism with fire is explained in Mat 3:12; it is a baptism of judgment separating the wheat from the chaff, and burning the chaff with fire unquenchable (Allen, Com. in loc.; so || Luk 3:17). This interpretation, however, is denied by Plummer (International Critical Commentary on Luk 3:16), who prefers a reference to the purifying power of the grace given, or to the fiery trials that await Christians. Others see a reference to the tongues like as of fire at Pentecost (Act 2:3). However this may be, the fundamental difference between the two baptisms is that Johns was a ceremonial rite symbolizing the need of repentance and of washing away sin, while that of our Lord was, in addition, the infusing of a new life; see below, 8. The baptism of John is mentioned in the NT outside the Gospels in Act 1:5; Act 1:22; Act 10:37; Act 11:15; Act 13:24; Act 18:25; Act 19:3 f.; the last two passages show that it survived after Pentecost among those who had not yet received the gospel.

To this preparatory stage is also to be assigned the baptism of Jesus by John; it was not the institution of Christian baptism, though it paved the way for it, and in some sense our Lord may be said to have thereby sanctified water to the mystical washing away of sin. Such also was the baptizing by Jesus disciples during His earthly ministry (Joh 3:22; Joh 4:2); we note that our Lord carried on the Baptists teaching about the approach of the kingdom and about repentance (Mar 1:15; cf. Mat 3:2), though in His teaching the Good Tidings predominated, while in that of John repentance was the chief note (Swete, Com. in loc.).

3. Preparation for baptism.-Instruction in Christian doctrine before baptism is to some extent necessary, because otherwise there cannot be faith and repentance. Our Lord commanded the disciples to teach (Mat 28:20, ) as well as to baptize. St. Peter instructed the people and Cornelius before he commanded them to be baptized (Act 2:14-38; Act 10:34-43; Act 10:48). Philip instructed the Samaritans and the Eunuch before baptism (Act 8:5 f., Act 8:12; Act 8:35). The instruction of Theophilus (Luk 1:4) was probably, at least in part, before baptism. Lydias baptism followed a preaching (Act 16:18), as did that of the Corinthians (Act 18:5). But in most of these cases the teaching was very short, in some of them not lasting more than one day. And no instruction that can be properly so called is mentioned in the case of Saul (Act 9:18; Act 22:16), or the Philippian jailer (Act 18:8; note immediately), or the twelve Ephesians (Act 19:5). Apollos had been instructed ( ) in the way of the Lord, but only imperfectly, and Priscilla and Aquila taught him more carefully (, Act 18:26). The allusions to the instruction of Christians in 1Co 14:19, Gal 6:6 (), Rom 12:7, Col 1:28 etc. (), have no special reference to baptism. In Rom 2:18 is used of Jewish instruction.

At a later period, persons under instruction for baptism were called catechumens (, those in a state of being taught; cf. Gal 6:6), and their preparation was called catcchsis (; cf. our word catechism from , through Latin). The catechumens were taught the Creed, or Christian doctrine, during their catechumenate, and their instruction was called the traditio symboli; they professed their faith at baptism, and this profession was called the redditio symboli (see below, 5). The baptism in later times normally took place in the early morning of Easter Day, and the selection of candidates for baptism took place on the 40th day before (Cyr. Jer., Cat., Introd. 4; it was called the inscribing of names, ); thenceforward the selected candidates were called competentes, . In the 4th cent. the catechumenate lasted two years (Elvira, can. 42) or three years (Ap. Const. viii. 32, and several Church Orders); but this was never a hard and fast rule. Catechumens were not allowed to be present at the main part of the Eucharist or at the Agape (Didache, 9, and often in the Church Orders). See, further, A. J. Maclean, op. cit. pp. 16-19, 97; Dict. of Christian Antiquities , article Catechumens.

4. Formula of baptism.-It is not quite clear what words were used for baptism in NT times. In Mat 28:19 our Lord bids His followers make disciples of all the nations, baptizing (, present part.) them into the name ( , Authorized Version in the name, see 8) of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. These words are in all Manuscripts and VSS [Note: SS Versions.] , but F. C. Conybeare (Zeitschrift fr die neutest. Wissenschaft , 1901, p. 275ff.; HJ [Note: J Hibbert Journal.] i. [Oct. 1902] 102ff.) and K. Lake (Inaug. Lect. at Leyden, 17th Jan. 1904) dispute their authenticity, because Eusebius often quotes the text without them or with make disciples of all the nations in my name. The careful refutation of this view by Chase (Journal of Theological Studies vi. 483ff.) and Riggenbach (Der trinitar. Taufbefehl Mat 28:19, in Beitrge zur Frderung christl. Theol., Gtersloh, 1903) has made this position untenable, and we can with confidence assert that the full test is part of the First Gospel. It has, however, been denied that the words were spoken by our Lord. But the view that He made some such utterance, of which the words in Mat 28:19 are doubtless a much abbreviated record, is the only way in which we can comprehend how such a Trinitarian passage as 2Co 13:14 could have been written, or understand the numerous passages in the NT which affirm the Godhead of the Son and of the Holy Ghost (Chase, Journal of Theological Studies vi. 509f.; see also article God in Hastings Single-vol. Dictionary of the Bible ).

In Acts we read of people being baptized (almost always in the passive) in () the name of the Lord Jesus (Act 2:38 [v.l. [Note: .l. varia lectio, variant reading.] ]), or into () the name of the Lord Jesus (Act 8:16; Act 19:5), or in () the name of Jesus Christ (Act 10:48). In the Pauline Epistles we read of baptism into Christ Jesus, into His death (Rom 6:3), into Christ (Gal 3:27); with these passages cf. 1Co 1:13; 1Co 1:15 (into the name of Paul, into my name), 1Co 10:2 (into Moses), 1Co 12:13 (into one body), Act 19:3 (into what?-into Johns baptism); all these passages also have the passive to be baptized, except 1Co 10:2 which (according to the best reading) has the middle (cf. 1Co 6:11, Act 22:16; above, 1); 1Co 6:11 has in () the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. Of these passages only Act 8:16; Act 10:48; Act 19:5 are narratives of baptisms.

The Pauline references clearly do not refer to the formula used, though 1Co 1:13; 1Co 1:15 makes it probable that in some form the Name was mentioned in the words of baptism. Do the other passages refer to a formula? On this point there is much diversity of opinion. (a) It is maintained that the formula at first ran in the name of the Lord Jesus or the like; and that the First Evangelist introduced into his Gospel the Trinitarian formula which was in use towards the end of the 1st century (Robinson, Encyclopaedia Biblica , article Baptism). It is not easy to see how, if the other formula was the original apostolic usage, this one could have been invented in the third or even in the last quarter of the lat cent., unless indeed our Lord had really spoken such words as are found in Mat 28:19; and in that case it is hard to see why the apostles should have used a quite different formula.-(b) It is thought that the passages in Mt. and Acts alike refer to the formula used, but that baptism into Christs name is necessarily the same as baptism into that of the Holy Trinity. The latter statement is quite true, but it does not meet the whole difficulty.-(c) It is said that none of the passages in Acts refers to a formula at all, but only to the theological import of baptism (see below, 8). This is quite probable; at least the differences of wording show that if a formula is referred to at all in Acts, it was not stereotyped in the first age.-(d) Assuming that our Lord spoke, at any rate in substance, the words recorded in Mat 28:19, many think that He did not here prescribe a formula, bat unfolded the spiritual meaning of the rite (so Chase, Journal of Theological Studies vi. 506ff., viii. 177; Swete, Holy Spirit in NT, p. 124; W. C. Allen, International Critical Commentary , in loc.). This view is extremely probable, whatever interpretation we put upon the passage, for which see below, 8. It was our Lords habit not to make regulations but to establish principles; so Socrates (HE [Note: E Historia Ecclesiastica (Eusebius, etc.).] v. 22), speaking of the keeping of Easter, contrasts the practice of Jesus with that of the Mosaic Law in the matter of the making of rules.

It is quite possible that no formula of baptism is given in the NT at all, and even that at first there were no fixed words. It is probable that all the NT passages refer primarily to the theological import of the rite, though they may have a remote allusion to the mode of baptizing. But though we cannot assert that there was in the Apostolic Age a fixed form of words, it was a sound instinct which induced the Church, at least from the 1st cent. onwards, to adopt the Trinitarian formula, and it would be rash indeed to depart from it. If our Lords words did not prescribe a form of words, at least they suggested it. We find it in the Didache ( 7: baptize into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost), though in describing Christians in 9 the writer speaks of them as baptized into the name of the Lord. So Justin paraphrases: They then receive the washing with water in the name ( ) of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, and says that he who is illuminated (see above, 1) is washed in the name of Jesus Christ and in the name of the Holy Ghost (Apol. i. 61). Tertullian says that the formula has been prescribed [by Christ], and quotes Mat 28:19 exactly (de Bapt. 13; note especially that he translates by in nomen though Migne, apparently by error, gives nomine). In de Praescr. 20 he paraphrases the text: He bade them go and teach the nations who were to be baptized (intinguendas) into the Father (in Patrem), and into the Son, and into the Holy Ghosts; and in adv. Prax. 26 thus: He commands them to baptize into the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, non in unum-i.e. not into one Person. The Trinitarian formula is the only one found in the Church in ancient times. It is prescribed or referred to in Origen, Hom. in Leviticus 7 4, in the Church Orders (Can. of Hipp. xix. [ed. Achelis, 133]; Ap. Const. iii. 16, vii. 22; Ethiopic Didascalia, 16, ed. Platt; Test. of our Lord, ii. 7), in the Acts of Xanthippe twice (M. R. James, Apocr. Anecd. i. [=Texts and Studies ii. 3, Cambridge, 1893] p. 79), and in the Apostolic Canons [c. [Note: . circa, about.] a.d. 400], can. 49f. The fact that this last work forbids any other form probably shows that in some heretical circles other words were used.

Most of the Eastern Churches, Orthodox or Separated, use the passive voice N. is baptized, or the like. The Westerns, on the contrary, always use the active: N., I baptize thee. The latter is perhaps the older form; it is found in the Canons of Hippolytus and (in the plural, We baptize thee) in the Acts of Xanthippe (as above); and it is favoured by Mat 28:19 itself (baptizing them) and Didache, 7 (baptize, imperative). It is also found among the Copts and Abyssinians (Dict. of Christian Antiquities i. 162b; H. Denzinger, Ritus Orientalium, Wurzburg, 1863, i. 208, 230, 235).

We may ask what is meant by the invocation of the Divine name over the persons who were being baptized, of which we read in Justin, Apol. i. 61 (the name of God is pronounced over him) and Ap. Const. iii. 16 (having named, , the invocation, , of Father and Son and Holy Ghost, thou shalt baptize them in the water, ). In connexion with this, Act 22:16 (calling on his name) is quoted; but there it is the baptized, not the baptizer, who invokes; baptism is given in response to the prayer of the candidate. More to the point are Act 15:17 (the Gentiles upon whom my name is called, from Amo 9:12), and Jam 2:7 (the honourable name which was called upon you, Revised Version margin, ); cf. Num 6:27, where Gods name is put upon the Israelites by the threefold blessing, and Act 19:13, where the Jewish exorcists names the name of the Lord Jesus over the demoniacs, saying, I adjure you by Jesus It is quite possible that in the NT passages there may be some reference to the words used in baptizing, which, as we have seen, probably (at least in the ordinary way) included a mention of the Name. But there is no evidence that any invocation was part of the rite in apostolic times, and Chase denies that it was so (Journal of Theological Studies viii. 164). Is it necessary to suppose that Justin and the writer of the Apostolic Constitutions refer to anything else than the Trinitarian formula of baptism?

5. Baptismal customs.-Some traces of customs which were part of the rite in the early Church are found in the NT.

(a) A profession of faith and renunciation of evil is common in ancient times (e.g. Justin, Apol. i. 61, where the candidate undertakes to be able to live according to the faith; Tert. de Bapt. 6, de Idol. 6, de Cor. 3, de Spect. 4-Tertullian mentions the renunciations, for which see Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics i., article Abrenuntio). To such a profession the gloss of Act 8:37, which is older than Irenaeus who mentions it (c. Haer. III. xii. 8), is the oldest certain reference. But it is possible that there is an allusion to it in 1Co 15:3-8 -or at least to an instruction before baptism-though no form of Creed can be intended (note v. 3: I delivered unto you first of all that which also I received-the delivery of the faith to the catechumens, see above, 3); also in Rom 6:17; Rom 10:9, 1Ti 6:12, 2Ti 1:13 f., Heb 10:22 f., 1Pe 3:21 (for this verse see Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics i. 38), Jud 1:3. While, however, it is extremely probable that some sort of a profession of faith was always made at baptism, the NT passages fall short of proof of the fact.

(b) Trine immersion is a very early custom, being mentioned in the Didache ( 7) and by Tertullian (de Cor. 3, adv. Prax. 26). The practice of immersion would probably be suggested by the word (see above, 1). But J. A. Robinson (Journal of Theological Studies vii. 187ff.) denies this, and says that as the word is used of ceremonial washings in Mar 7:4, Luk 11:38, it need not imply immersion, though (see above, 2) does; but need only denote ceremonial cleansing with water. Chase (Journal of Theological Studies viii. 179f.) replies that the vessels in Mar 7:4 must have been dipped in order to be cleansed, and also that Luk 11:38 means bathing; to this may be added that ceremonial baptizing of themselves in Mar 7:4 is shown by Mar 7:3 to mean the dipping of their hands into water. However this may be with regard to those passages, it seems more than probable that the word to the first disciples, when used of baptism, conveyed the idea of immersion, both because it would be difficult otherwise to explain the metaphor of baptismal burial and resurrection (Rom 6:4, Col 2:12), and because the Jewish practice in proselyte-baptism (see above, 2) was to undress the candidate completely, and to immerse him so that every part or his body was touched by the water (Edersheim, LT [Note: T Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (Edersheim).] ii. 745f.; the candidate also made a profession of faith before the fathers of the baptism or sponsors). But it is also probable that total immersion could not always be practised, as in the case of the Philippian jailer; and that when this was the case the candidate stood in the water, which vas then poured over him.

There is no trace in the NT of trine immersion, which doubtless was founded on the Trinitarian formula, though this is no evidence against its existence, in the apostolic period. Flowing (living) water, if it can be had, is prescribed in the Didache ( 7) and in several Church Orders (Maclean, p. 104). In case of necessity the Didache (loc. cit.) expressly allows affusion. Immersion is implied in Ep. of Barnabas, 11, where we read of going down into the water laden with sin, and rising up from it bearing fruit in the heart.

(c) Clothing the neophytes.-In the early Church the putting off of the clothes of the candidates before baptism, and the clothing of them afterwards, usually in white robes, were emphasized as ceremonial actions; but of this we have no certain evidence before the 4th century. Constantine was buried in his baptismal robes ( , Dict. of Christian Antiquities i. 162). The Church Orders make a great point of the clothing, and the Test. of our Lord mentions white robes (ii. 12, see Maclean, p. 105), as does Ambrose, de Myst. 34 (vii.). Even from the first, whether immersion was total or partial, there must have been an unclothing and a re-clothing; and this, as it would seem, gives point to the metaphor about putting off () the old man, and putting on () the new, in Col 3:9 f., and about putting on Christ in baptism in Gal 3:27; cf. Rom 13:14, Eph 4:24. The metaphor goes back in some degree to OT times; in Zec 3:3 f. Joshua the high priest is stripped of his filthy garments as a symbol, and Justin (Dial. 116) perhaps applies this to Christian baptism: even so we have been stripped of the filthy garments, that is, of our sins. Josephus tells us (Bellum Judaicum (Josephus) ii. viii. 5) that the Essenes clothed themselves in white veils and bathed as a purification, and then partook of a common meal with benediction before and after it; then, laying aside their garments, they went to work till the evening. But there was apparently no symbolism about this clothing.

(d) The kiss of peace after baptism is common in Christian antiquity. Justin (Apol. i. 65) describes it as taking place after the newly-baptized are received among the faithful and after the peoples prayers, i.e. at the Eucharist which followed the rite of baptism. Cyprian (Ep. lviii.4, ad Fidum) alludes to it at the baptism of infants. In the Church Orders it is used at Confirmation, as well as at the Eucharist, and (apparently) at all times of prayer (Maclean, pp. 18f., 108). Tertullian (de Orat. 18) says that some did not observe it in times of fasting. There could be no better symbol of Christian love than this, and it is highly probable that it was used in worship in NT times; such would seem to be the suggestion of the holy kiss in Rom 16:16, 1Co 16:20, 2Co 13:12, 1Th 5:26, and of the kiss of love in 1Pe 5:14. But there is no evidence in the NT as to its use in baptism.

(e) For a possible use of anointing in the NT, see 1; for the laying on of hands, see 6. The sign of the cross was used in early times, and was often called the seal (Maclean, p. 108; Cyr. Jer., Cat. xiii. 36). Some think that this is referred to in the passages cited above in 1 about sealing; but this is more than doubtful.

(f) Of three other early baptismal customs there is no trace in the NT. () Sponsors are mentioned by Tertullian in de Bapt. 18 (sponsores); cf. de Cor. 3 (inde suscepti). They were called susceptores () because they received the newly-baptized when they came up from the font; cf. , Socrates, HE [Note: E Historia Ecclesiastica (Eusebius, etc.).] vii. 4. They are found in the Church Orders (Maclean, p. 98f.); and, especially in the case of infants, when they make the responses for them, they might be the parents or others of their houses (Test. of our Lord, ii. 8). In Justin (Apol. i. 61) he who leads the person that is to be washed to the laver seems to be the baptizer. () Fasting before baptism is ordered in the Didache ( 7), and is mentioned by Justin (Apol. i. 61) and Tertullian (de Bapt. 20; cf. de Jejun. 8), and frequently in the Church Orders (Maclean, pp. 133f., 137f.). This is analogous to the fasting in Act 13:2 before the sending forth of Barnabas and Saul. () The tasting of milk and honey by the newly-baptized after baptism (and communion) seems originally to have been an Egyptian and African custom only. It is mentioned by Tertullian (de Cor. 3, adv. Marc. i. 14), by Clement of Alexandria (Paed. i. 6), and in the Egyptian and Ethiopic Church Orders, the Canons of Hippolytus, and the Verona Didascalia (all these four are probably Egyptian), but not in the Test. of our Lord or in the Apostolic Constitutions (see Maclean, p. 46). It was, however, probably introduced into Rome by the 4th cent., for Jerome mentions it (Dial. c. Luciferianos, 8), and he was baptized in Rome c. [Note: . circa, about.] a.d. 365. Thereafter it is several times mentioned in the West. It is suggested by Exo 3:8, which describes the promised land as flowing with milk and honey; though the Canons of Hippolytus (xix. [ed. Achelis, 144, 148]) say that it is because the neophytes are as little children whose natural food is milk and honey, or because of the sweetness of the blessings of the future life.

6. The complement of immersion: the laying on of hands.-In Acts we have two detailed accounts of baptism in the Apostolic Age (Act 8:12-17; Act 19:1-6), and in both cases we read first of an immersion and then of a laying on of hands, the latter being expressly connected with the gift of the Holy Ghost. In Acts 8 Philip, one of the Seven, had preached to the Samaritans, and they were baptized. But as yet the Holy Ghost had fallen upon none of them, only they had been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. Then the apostles Peter and John, who were sent down from Jerusalem by their fellow apostles, prayed for the newly-baptized that they might receive the Holy Ghost, and laid their hands upon them; and they received the Holy Ghost. In ch. 19, St. Paul finds about twelve men at Ephesus who had received Johns baptism; these are baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus, and St. Paul himself lays his hands upon them and the Holy Ghost comes upon them. We may note in passing that there is nothing in the narrative to lead us to suppose that ho followed at Ephesus a course which he did not follow elsewhere (Chase, Confirmation, p. 32). With these passages we may take Heb 6:1 ff. (see above, 1), where the teaching of the laying on of hands is added to that of baptisms as part of the foundation. Even if it does not refer exclusively to the baptismal imposition of hands after immersion, it at least includes it.

The meaning of this laying on of hands will be considered in 8 below. Here we must notice the other passages of the NT which speak of the gift of the Holy Ghost. But two preliminary remarks must be made. (a) It would save much confusion of thought if it were remembered that in Christian antiquity baptism is constantly used to comprehend the whole rite, immersion, and also laying on of hands, and other similar actions. It would therefore be well if we more often used the word immersion (including in it all possible varieties of usage, total or partial immersion or affusion) when we are speaking of the action at the font, rather than the technical name baptism. We are apt to put ancient references to baptism into a wrong perspective because we are accustomed to the long-continued separation of the two parts of the rite in the West.-(b) In studying Acts we shall do well to remember that St. Luke does not attempt in his narrative to give all the details of the historical actions which he records. As W. M. Ramsay truly observes, an author like St. Luke seizes the critical events, concentrates the readers attention on them by giving them fuller treatment, touches more lightly and briefly on the less important events, omits entirely a mass of unimportant details (St. Paul, London, 1895, p. 3).

In numerous passages of the NT the gift of the Spirit is explicitly connected with baptism (in its fullest sense), as in Act 2:38; Act 8:15-17; Act 9:17 f.; Act 10:44; Act 10:47 f. (before baptism) Act 19:6, 1Co 6:11; 1Co 12:13, Tit 3:5, Heb 6:1-4; Heb 10:29 (which appears to refer to the repudiation of the baptismal confession and covenant; see Westcott, Com. in loc; cf. Heb 10:22 f.), and in the passages which refer to sealing, 2Co 1:21 f., Eph 1:13 f.; Eph 4:30 (see above, 1); also in the Gospels, Mat 3:11, Mar 1:8, Luk 3:16, Joh 1:33; Joh 3:5, see above, 2 (c). The close connexion between the gift of the Spirit and baptism is seen also in the fact that our Lord calls the Descent at Pentecost a baptism (Act 1:5; cf. Act 11:16), although in the case of those on whom the Holy Ghost then came there was no immersion.

To these passages we may add several where a definite historical bestowal of the spirit is mentioned: Rom 5:5 (), Rom 8:14 (), 1Co 2:12 (), 2Co 5:5 (), 2Co 11:4 ( , speaking of a different Spirit in contrast to the Holy Ghost), Gal 3:2 (; cf. Gal 3:3 having begun in the Spirit, and Gal 3:5 where the present participle marks the continuance of the gift of the Spirit), Gal 4:6 (), 1Th 4:7 f. (, the definite call, connected with who ever giveth the Spirit: some Manuscripts have the aorist ; G. Milligan, Com. in loc., takes the present part. as meaning the Giver of the Spirit), 2Th 2:13 (), 1Jn 3:24 (; cf. 1Jn 4:13, where the perfect denotes the permanent effects of the gift; Brooke, International Critical Commentary on 1Jn 3:24). These aorists* [Note: The RV has often been criticized as having too slavishly followed the Greek aorist in a way that does not suit the English idiom. Whatever Justification there may be for this criticism in a version intended for public reading (though even there it is surely important that the hearers should know what the sacred writers exactly meant), yet it cannot be too strongly asserted that it is essential for the student to pay the greatest attention to the accuracies of the Greek tenses.] point to a definite event, and, taken with the passages in the preceding paragraph, would seem to refer to the Christian initiation.

In the other records of baptisms the imposition of hands is not mentioned, and in some the gift of the Holy Ghost is not alluded to. It would be unsafe (see above), especially in view of Heb 6:2, to infer that the laying on of hands was not practised except in the cases where it is explicitly referred to. But the case of Cornelius must be specially considered. Here the Holy Ghost was given before baptism and without any outward sign such as the laying on of the Apostles hands. Yet St. Peter does not judge that, even after such a signal mark of Gods favour, it is unnecessary for Cornelius and his household to be baptized in the usual manner. From this we may with Chase (Confirmation, p. 28) see on the one hand that it is wrong to undervalue the sacraments, and on the other that God is not tied down to them, but may give His grace without the interposition of outward ordinances. He is not bound, if we are. The same thing was seen at Pentecost, when the Spirit was given without the outward act of immersion having preceded.

Again, other reference to the laying on of hands after immersion is seen by some in 2Ti 1:6 (which is usually taken to refer to Timothys ordination, though Chase refers it-not 1Ti 1:14 -to his baptism, i.e. confirmation). In Act 9:17 (cf. Act 9:12) also, Ananias lays his hands on Saul before baptism; but the allusion in both cases is doubtful. For the anointing, see above, 1.

The name confirmation, i.e. strengthening, for the complement of immersion is not found before the 5th cent.; it may he founded on the use of in 2Co 1:21 f. with the allusion there to baptism.

For many centuries the baptismal rite-immersion, anointing (when practised), and laying on of hands-was normally one, and took place at one time. Tertullian (de Bapt. 8) speaks of the immersion, unction, and imposition of hands with invocation of the Holy Ghost as being administered on the same occasion; and the Church Orders are equally definite (Maclean, pp. 18f., 105ff.). Laying on of hands is also referred to in Tert. de Res. Carn. 8 (with immersion, unction, sealing with the sign of the cross, and communion), and by Cyprian (Ep. lxxi.), who speaks of those who have been baptized by heretics being received into the Church with imposition of hands that they might receive the Holy Ghost (cf. Ep. lxxii. 9, referring to Acts 8). Origen (de Princ. i. iii. 2) says that the Holy Spirit was given by the laying on of the apostles hands in baptism; so Athanasius, ad Serap. Orat. i. 6. It is curious that Cyril of Jerusalem (Cat. xx.-xxii.), who mentions immersion, anointing, and the communion of the neophytes, omits the laying on of hands, seeing that the contemporary Church Orders strongly emphasize it. It is a mistake to suppose that this custom ceased with Tertullian. The baptismal Eucharist with the first communion of the neophytes follows immediately in the Church Orders; cf. also Tertullian and Cyril as above, and Justin (Apol. i. 65).

In case of necessity there might be an interval between the immersion and the imposition of hands, as there had been in Acts 8. The Council of Elvira (circa, about a.d. 305, can. 38, 77) says that in such a case if the baptized dies before [his confirmation], be may be justified by the faith which he has professed; cf. also Jerome, Dial. c. Lucif. 9, who mentions the laying on of hands.

For the theological significance of the laying on of hands, see below, 8.

7. Minister of baptism.-We gather from the NT that the apostles themselves did not usually baptize; their task was to preach the Gospel, and St. Paul only rarely administered the sacrament himself, lest any should say that his converts were baptized into his name (1Co 1:14-17). It is not recorded who baptized the 3000 at Pentecost (Act 2:41), or the Samaritans (Act 8:12 f., probably Philip), or Lydia and her household (Act 16:15), or the jailer at Philippi and all his (Act 16:33), or the Corinthians (Act 18:8), or the Ephesians (Act 19:5); St. Peters companions clearly baptized Cornelius and his company (Act 10:47 f.): he commanded them to be baptized. Philip baptized the Eunuch (Act 8:38), and evidently Ananias baptized St. Paul (Act 9:18; Act 22:16). It has been suggested that baptism was one of the functions or John Mark as minister () to Barnabas and Saul (Act 13:5; Rackham, Com. in loc.). On the other hand, St. Peter and St. John laid their hands on those who had been baptized in Samaria (Act 8:17), and St. Paul laid his hands on the Ephesian neophytes (Act 19:6; contrast Act 19:5).

A similar rule is found in the baptismal customs of the succeeding ages. In the Church Orders the bishop is normally present at baptisms, but the presbyters actually immerse: and the deacons assist; then the newly-baptized are immediately brought to the bishop for anointing and laying on of hands; though the custom as to the person who anoints and the number and place of the unctions in the rite varies, the bishop always lays on hands (for details, see Maclean, p. 104ff.). When, therefore, it is said that the bishop was the normal minister of baptism, it is not meant that he actually immersed, though doubtless he sometimes did so. St. Ambrose (de Myst. 8 [iii.]) speaks only of the bishop (summum sacerdotem) interrogating, and hallowing (the water, or the oil [?]). As time went on, either the immersion and the confirmation had to be separated, or else the latter was administered by the presbyter with oil consecrated by the bishop.

Deacons were allowed at Elvira (can. 77) to baptize in case of necessity; and so Tertull. de Bapt. 17 (who, like Elvira, allows laymen to baptize in such a case), Test. of our Lord, ii. 11, Didascalia, iii. 12 (ed. Funk); but this is forbidden in Ap. Const. viii. 28, 46 (ed. Funk). The Ap. Const. (3:9) and the Fourth Council of Carthage, a.d. 398 (can. 100, Hefele, Councils, Eng. translation , ii. [1896] 417), forbid women to baptize. There is perhaps a permission to deacons to baptize in country places, in Cyr. Jer., Cat. xvii. 35; but this is uncertain. There may be a trace of presbyters confirming in the Sacramentary of Serapion and in the Ap. Const. (see Maclean, pp. 107, 110, 155).

8. Theological aspects

(a) A study of the NT leads us to the conclusion that baptism is no mere ceremony whereby outsiders are fitly received into the Christian Church. It is a means of grace-it conveys by an outward sign the grace of God, but always under certain conditions, for which see below (f). St. Peter says that water after a true likeness () saves us, even baptism: a cleansing of the body, but also a cleansing of the soul; the outward part, water, is the symbol or sign of the inward washing (1Pe 3:21). God saved us (, aorist) through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost (Tit 3:5). The writer of the Appendix to Mk. says that he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved (Mar 16:16). And this is in accordance with Gods usual way of working. He normally uses outward instruments and means, though He is not bound by them and can work otherwise if He wills. On the one hand, He uses human beings as His instruments (cf., e.g., Act 9:15; Act 13:2, Gal 1:15 f., Eph 3:7 for men as preachers of the gospel), and, on the other hand, He uses inanimate things or outward actions. Thus the gift of God is conveyed by imposition of hands (2Ti 1:6). Jesus ordinarily (but not always) used outward means in healing and in doing other mighty works (Dict. of Christ and the Gospels i., article Gestures, 1). So He instituted outward means (water, bread, and wine) for the two sacraments of the gospel. Among OT analogies may be noted the cloud and pillar of fire, which symbolized Gods presence. By using outward means, God shows that matter is not, as Gnostic dualism asserted, naturally evil, but that it is consecrated by Him for His sacred purposes.

The same truth may be expressed by saying that baptism is a pledge or witness of grace, by which God assures us that He will perform His part of the covenant between Him and man; cf. the passages where the gift of the Spirit, the earnest () of our inheritance, is associated with faith, and by implication with baptism (Eph 1:13 f.; see above, 1).

(b) Baptism is a union with God. The baptized is incorporated into the Divine Being, united with Christ, apart from whom we can do nothing (Joh 15:5). This baptismal union is clearly asserted in Rom 6:3, Gal 3:27, and by contrast is implied in 1Co 1:13; 1Co 1:15; 1Co 10:2; it is made possible only by the Incarnation, and by the glorifying of Jesus humanity; see Joh 7:39. It involves sonship by adoption (Rom 8:15 ff. [note the aorist , pointing to a definite time], Gal 3:26 f., Gal 4:4 f.; see article Adoption). This aspect of baptism as an incorporation into God holds good whatever view we take of the meaning of the Lords command to baptize, which must now be considered carefully, as it is essential to the understanding of baptism.

(c) Meaning of baptism in or into the Name.-The words (or alone) in the baptismal passages are usually interpreted as denoting incorporation into a person or society, and the purpose for which the baptism is administered; but another view interprets the words in Mat 28:19 as meaning by the authority of. (For a full discussion, see F. H. Chase in Journal of Theological Studies vi. 500ff., viii. 161ff.; J. A. Robinson in Journal of Theological Studies vii. 186ff., and Encyclopaedia Biblica , article Baptism.)

It is agreed that by a Hebrew idiom common in Hellenistic Greek the name of a person is used for the person himself. To believe in the name of some one is to believe in him (Joh 1:12; Joh 2:23; Joh 3:18, 1Jn 5:13 ; 1Jn 3:23 . with dative-for the difference, see Westcott on Joh 5:24; Joh 8:30 f.; cf. Act 3:16); to come, or to act, or to receive a person, in the name of some one, is to come or act or to receive one as his representative (Mat 18:5; Mat 21:9; Mat 23:39, Mar 9:37; Mar 11:9; Mar 13:6, Luk 13:35, Joh 5:43; Joh 10:25; Joh 12:13; Joh 14:26, all with [] ; Mat 24:5 with ); to hope in Gods name is to hope in Him (Mat 12:21, with simple dative, = Isa 42:4 Septuagint with ); to have life in Christs name is to receive life from Him (Joh 20:31); to ask or give thanks in () Christs name is to do so in Him, i.e. for His merits (Joh 14:13 f.; Joh 15:16; Joh 16:23 f.,Joh 16:26, Eph 5:20); to adjure in () the name of a person is to adjure by him (Act 16:18; cf. 1Co 1:10 ); to receive remission of sins through () Jesus name is to receive it through Him (Act 10:43). In Joh 17:11 f. Jesus prays the Father to keep the disciples in () thy name which thou hast given me (so best test; cf. Php 2:9), and says that He has kept them while on earth in the Fathers name-a very difficult passage. The latter phrase must mean as the Fathers representative (as above); for the former, cf. Joh 17:6; Joh 17:26, where the name stands for God and His attributes, and we may perhaps paraphrase: in thyself, with whom I am one (cf. Joh 10:30). In Col 3:17 to do all in () the name of Christ is to do all in Christ, however we are to understand that characteristic Pauline phrase (see J. A. Robinson, Ephes., London, 1903, p. 22ff.). So again in Luk 6:22 cast out your name is equivalent to cast yon out; in Act 15:26 Barnabas and Paul are said to have hazarded their lives for the name of Jesus, i.e. for Him.

In the above passages the translation by the authority of is not possible. But in the name can well be so translated in some passages, as when the disciples spoke or preached in Jesus name, Act 4:17 f. () Act 9:27 (); cf. Luk 24:47 (); though here also it can be rendered as the representatives of. So by the authority of suits beat in passages where devils are cast out or mighty works done in the name, as Mat 7:22 (dative without prep.), Mar 9:38 f. (, ), Mar 16:17 (), Luk 9:49 (, v.l. [Note: .l. varia lectio, variant reading.] ), Act 3:6 (; cf. Act 4:7; Act 4:10); and in Luk 10:17, where demons are subject in () Christs name.

Three passages remain to be considered. Mar 9:41 has in () name that ye are Christs, which is usually treated as an idiom: because ye are Christs (Revised Version , Swete; the text followed by Authorized Version is faulty here), though Chase (Journal of Theological Studies viii. 170) renders in the Name, because ye are Christs. In Mat 10:42 f.; Mat 18:20 is used. In the former passage, into the name of a prophet or disciple can only mean as a prophet or disciple, i.e. with a view to the prophetic office or to discipleship. In the latter, gathered together into my name is best rendered as drawn nigh to me; cf. Deu 12:5, 1Ki 9:3 (so Chase, loc. cit.).

Another line of interpretation of the passages with in the name is that of F. C. Conybeare, who makes in the name of Jesus a theurgic formula, an application of ancient magic (Jewish Quarterly Review ix. 66, 581). For an answer to this theory, which is quite inapplicable to several of the passages cited above, and which takes no account of the OT use of the Name, see G. B. Gray in Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols) iii. 480.

We may now consider the baptismal passages. In Mat 28:19, Act 8:16; Act 19:5, 1Co 1:13; 1Co 1:15 we read of baptism into () the name; and so 1Co 10:2 into Moses, 1Co 12:13 into one body, Act 19:3 into Johns baptism, Rom 6:3, Gal 3:27 into Christ, or into his death; while in Act 2:38; Act 10:48, 1Co 6:11 we read of baptism in () the name. The usual interpretation, at least of the former set of passages, is that the neophytes are in baptism incorporated with the Holy Trinity, or with Christ, with a view to () remission of sins (Act 2:38) or to dying with Christ; the disciples of John are baptized with his baptism. Further, into the name implies proprietorship: we are baptized so as to belong to God; and the same idea attaches to , by which Justin explains baptism to the heathen (above, 4; see Swete, Holy Spirit in NT, p. 125; Chase, Journal of Theological Studies vi. 501). If conveyed to the first Christians the idea of immersion (above, 5), this interpretation follows necessarily. In that case, what is the difference, if any, between baptism in and into? Chase, who upholds the above interpretation, thinks that both involve the idea of incorporation or union, though the latter emphasizes the entrance into the name, while the former conveys the idea of the name encompassing the baptized (Journal of Theological Studies viii. 177, 184).

This line of interpretation is denied by Robinson (Encyclopaedia Biblica , article Baptism, and Journal of Theological Studies vii. 191), who holds that and are synonymous in the NT, as they undoubtedly are in the Modern Greek vernacular, which has entirely lost except in a few phrases, having taken its place. On this view, in the name is the translation preferred, and it is taken to mean by the authority of the person mentioned. The statement that the two prepositions have the same meaning in the NT is hardly borne out by the facts. It is true that the tendency to confuse them had begun in the Apostolic Age; but it had not got very far, hardly beyond a fondness for constructio praegnans, as in Mar 1:9, where = went into the Jordan and was baptized there (in Mar 1:5 we have ), or else = was immersed in Jordan (Swete, Com. in loc.); cf. also Act 8:40 , went to Azotus and was found there, and Luk 4:44. The nearest approach to a real confusion of the prepositions is in Mat 5:34 f.: Swear not by () the heaven nor by () the earth nor by (, Revised Version margin toward) Jerusalem, where Chase (Journal of Theological Studies viii. 166) suggests that is avoided so as to exclude a local meaning, and that represents the direction of the oath, just as in Act 2:25, Eph 5:32, Heb 7:14 can only mean with reference to.

In the opinion of the present writer no argument can be deduced from the fact that our Lord spoke Aramaic, and that both and represent the simple phrase . For (though we know little of the Palestinian Aramaic of the 1st cent.) the preposition in Syriac not infrequently denotes motion; see Payne Smith, Thesaur. Syr., Oxford, 1879-1901, i. 430. And, as Chase remarks (Journal of Theological Studies vi. 507), the argument from the Aramaic preposition is robbed of all its force by the consideration that the Peshitta uses it in Rom 6:3, Gal 3:27 for into Christ [Jesus], which can only denote incorporation. Therefore the Aramaic phrase can mean (incorporation into the name.

The grave objection to Robinsons interpretation is that it does not suit the Pauline passages, which cannot be put aside as irrelevant. That Paul was not crucified for the Corinthians and they were not baptized into his name (1Co 1:13 f.), is a proposition in direct contrast to the statement that all we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death (Rom 6:3). The latter passage denotes incorporation, and so therefore must the former. Indeed, the passage in 1 Cor. would lose all force if it were translated by his authority.

For a long list of Greek Fathers who interpret Mat 28:19 of incorporation, see Chase, Journal of Theological Studies viii. 173ff. On the other hand, Robinson says that the Western formula in nomine can only mean by the authority. This is not clear, and in any case it is significant that Tertullian, the father of ecclesiastical Latinity, understood Mat 28:19 otherwise, for he translates by in nomen, and paraphrases by in Patrem, etc.; see above, 4. He clearly understood the baptismal command to denote incorporation.

The issue does not rest on the question whether and are interchangeable. It is the whole sentence in Mat 28:19 which must be considered, and it is difficult to follow Robinson in thinking that it conveyed no idea of immersion to the first Christians. No doubt our Lord gave a new and more spiritual significance to a Jewish method of speech, but this is just what He did frequently in His teaching. If, as is probable, the account in Mt. is greatly condensed (above, 4), there is no difficulty about this. No doubt He explained His meaning to the disciples; we are led to interpret it by the writings of the disciples themselves. For these reasons the present writer cannot but think that Chases interpretation is right, and that the Revised Version has properly given the words as into the name.

(d) Meaning of being born anew or from above.-In Joh 3:3; Joh 3:5 our Lord speaks to Nicodemus of another birth, which He connects with water (see above, 1) and the Spirit, and which is requisite for seeing or entering the Kingdom of God; this birth is , which may be translated anew (Revised Version , and Westcott, Com. in loc.) or from above (Revised Version margin, and Swete, Holy Spirit in NT, p. 131). In favour of the latter is Joh 3:31 (he that cometh from above, ) and Joh 19:11, and the fact that the writer often speaks of our being begotten of God (Joh 1:13, 1Jn 3:9; 1Jn 4:7; 1Jn 5:1; 1Jn 5:4; 1Jn 5:18; in Joh 3:3; Joh 3:5 the word is ). In this case it is a heavenly birth that Jesus speaks of. In favour of the former is Gal 4:9 ( = over again), but especially the fact that Nicodemus takes this meaning (Gal 4:4), and also that the term regeneration (), which was used in the Apostolic Church (Tit 3:5) can best be explained as a reminiscence of our Lords words on such an occasion, handed down orally. But may not both meanings of in John 3 be valid? The birth is both from above and new. A single word with more than one meaning is often used to express more than one truth.

This new or heavenly birth is the now start, the implanting of the new life, which is given to us by the Ascended and Glorified Christ through the Holy Ghost. And this new life is expressly connected with Christian baptism, whatever view we take of in Joh 3:5; St. Paul speaks (Col 2:12 f.) of the Christian having been buried with () Christ in baptism, wherein (not in whom, i.e. Christ) ye were raised with him (), and you being dead did he quicken together with him ()-note the aorists, denoting an action at a given time; cf. also Eph 2:5 f. (the sitting in heavenly places in Eph 2:6 is not future, but present). This new implanting of life is called regeneration in Tit 3:5 (as above), and is effected by washing or a laver (), that is, by baptism. ( is used in Mat 19:28 of the new age hereafter [cf. Act 3:21 the restitution of all things]; the application of it to the present age, as has been lately suggested, is most unlikely: for its use by non-Christian writers, see Swete, Holy Spirit in NT, p. 390, Appendix M.)

But the new life is like a seed. It may blossom and flourish, or it may die. It is the opportunity, the talent; but if it is not seized and put to good use, it is of no avail to the recipient, and even condemns him; see, further, below (f).

The figure of a new birth is very common in the Fathers in connexion with baptism; e.g. Justin, Apol. i. 61, 66, and Irenaeus, c. Haer, i. xxi. 1, iii. xvii. 1 (); Tert. adv. Marc. i. 28, de Res. Carn. 47 (regeneratio).

(e) Baptism and the gift of the Spirit.-We have seen (above, 6) how closely the gift of the Spirit is connected with baptism in the NT. We may now consider the meaning of that gift. Though the Holy Ghost is the Agent of all the Divine working, and therefore must be the Giver of life (cf. Rom 8:2; Rom 8:11 etc.) at the immersion, yet the gift of the Spirit is said in Act 8:16 not to be bestowed then, but at a later stage of the same rite-at the laying on of hands (see above, 6). Tertullian remarks (de Bapt. 6) that in the waters we do not receive the Holy Spirit, but, having been cleansed in the water under the influence of an angel (sub angelo), we are prepared for the Holy Spirit. What, then, did St. Peter and St. John pray for when they prayed that the Samaritans might receive the Holy Ghost (Act 8:15)? What was the gift of the Holy Ghost received in Act 8:17? One answer which has been given to this question must be dismissed as quite insufficient-that the miraculous signs vouchsafed in the infancy of the Church were the gift. It may be said that in Act 8:18 Simon saw that the Holy Ghost was given, and that therefore there must have been some outward manifestation. In Act 19:6 the neophytes spoke with tongues and prophesied (cf. Act 2:4; Act 10:46). To state the matter in this way, however, is to confuse the outward evidences of the activity of the Spirit with the gift of the Spirit Himself. No one could suppose that all that the Church received on the Day of Pentecost was a mere speaking with other tongues. To understand what the gift is, we cannot do better than consider our Lords promise of the gift, in John 14-16. As He describes it, it is a gift of guidance and teaching (Joh 14:26; Joh 15:26; Joh 16:8; Joh 16:13 ff.), and, above all, a continued presence of the Spirit with us for ever (Joh 14:16 ff.). It was not to be a gift for one generation only, but for us in modern times as well as for the first Christians. There is nothing in these chapters about the gift of tongues or other wonderful signs. Indeed, as Chase remarks (Confirmation, p. 114), in the teaching of the Apostles the thought of extraordinary charismata has a quite subordinate place. When Saul received the Holy Ghost (Act 9:17) there appear to have been no outward phenomena. And, whether the laying on of hands in 2Ti 1:6 was at baptism or at ordination (see above, 6), it is significant that the gift of God which was in Timothy by the laying on of St. Pauls hands was the spirit of power and love and discipline (). Indeed, it is difficult to suppose that the apostles could have laid so much stress on the gift if it was merely a speaking with tongues (which St. Paul somewhat disparages in 1Co 14:2), or prophesying. Throughout the Epistles, the gift of the Spirit is a very different thing; it is that inward strengthening which enables the Church to fight the battle with the hosts of evil and to win the victory. And this is what our Lord promised in the Johannine chapters quoted above.

(f) Baptism not a magical charm.-To say that God uses outward means or instruments as the normal manner in which He gives His grace is not to assert, on the one hand, that all who receive the outward means receive the grace, or, on the other hand, that God cannot give the grace otherwise. Hence the emphasis on the need of repentance and faith in those who are baptized; e.g. cf. Act 2:38 for repentance, Act 18:8 for faith: believed and were baptized; in Act 19:2 f. when ye believed is equivalent to when ye were baptized (-). One or two references to the early Fathers (out of a large number) will show how strongly they felt this. Repentance and faith are both insisted on by Justin (Apol. i. 61). Origen says that the Spirit may leave the unworthy Christian after baptism (in Joann. vi. 33). Cyril of Jerusalem says that the outward rite will not convey the gift of the Spirit if the candidate does not come in faith (Cat. xvii. 35ff.). It is equally recognized in Christian antiquity that it is possible for man to receive the grace without the outward sign in cases of necessity. For example, the baptism in blood of unbaptized martyrs is recognized as sufficient by Tertullian, de Bapt. 16, and in the Church Orders (Test. of our Lord, ii. 5; Can. of Hippolytus, xix. [ed. Achelis, 101]; Egyptian Church Orders, 44) and elsewhere. The work of God is mighty, though the instrument is insignificant. Thus Tertullian (de Bapt. 2, 4) remarks on the simplicity of baptism, which makes people disparage the greatness of its effect, not realizing that the Spirit sanctifies the water.

9. Infant baptism.-There is no historical account in the NT of an infant being baptized; but the indirect evidence of the practice is strong. In view of the analogy of circumcision, it would be strange, supposing that infants had been excluded from baptism, that such exclusion should not have been mentioned. If infants needed to be brought into the inferior covenant by the outward sign of circumcision, still more would they need to be brought into the higher covenant by the outward sign of baptism. The Talmud says that infant children of proselytes are to be baptized with their parents (John Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr. on Mat 3:6 in Works, xi. [London, 1823] 53ff.), and this was probably the custom in the 1st cent. (see above, 2). Our Lord by blessing little children with an imposition of hands (Mar 10:13 ff. ; Luk 18:15 , babes) shows that they are capable of receiving grace. In Mat 10:42, Jesus speaks of giving one of these little ones a cup of cold water in the name of a disciple, i.e. as a disciple (above, 8), showing that infants can be disciples. No limit is placed on the baptismal command of Mat 28:19 (all the nations, not all the adults). The households of Lydia, the Philippian jailer, Crispus, and Stephanas, not improbably included some infants, but all were baptized (cf. Act 16:33, all his). It is disputed whether 1Co 7:14 refers to infant baptism (Robertson-Plummer, Com. in loc., think that it does not), but at least it seems to point to the right of children to baptism, for otherwise could they be called holy or consecrated ()? Cf. Goudge and Alford, Comm. in loc.

When we turn from the NT to the successors of the apostles, we find that the practice of infant baptism was probably in force at least c. [Note: . circa, about.] a.d. 69. For Polycarp at his martyrdom (circa, about a.d. 155: for the date see Lightfoot, Apostol. Fathers, pt. ii. vol. i. [1889] 437ff) says that he had served Christ for 86 years. It is extremely unlikely that he was older, or at any rate more than 3 or 4 years older, than this at his death, and he must therefore have been baptized when he was an infant, or at least as a very young child; he seems to have been born of Christian parents (ib.). Justin speaks of men and women of 60 or 70 who had been made disciples () from childhood (Apol. i. 15), and compares baptism to circumcision (Dial. 43). Irenaeus (c Haer. ii. xxii. 4) says that Jesus came to save all who through Him are born again to God-infants, children, boys, youths, and old men. He passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants, etc. Tertullian (de Bapt. 18), who advocates delaying baptism lest it should be rashly administered, especially in the case of infants, bears witness to the common practice of his day. It is to be noted that he does not blame infant baptism as a novelty, as he assuredly would have done had it been such. And thereafter the evidence of its existence is very abundant; see, e.g., Cyprian, Ep. lviii.; Can. of Hipp. xix. (113, ed. Achelis), and all the Church Orders.

It is objected to these arguments that faith is required in the NT for baptism, and that infants cannot have faith. But this is not a true objection. If an adult coming to baptism has not faith, he puts the barrier of non-faith between God and himself; he cannot be in a neutral condition, but, if he does not believe in God, must disbelieve in Him. With an infant it is not so. In the age of innocence he cannot put a barrier between God and himself, and therefore the fact that he has not yet learnt to have an active faith does not preclude the working of the grace of God within him.

Literature.-R. Hooker, Eccl. Pol., bk. v. (ed. Bayne, London, 1902), esp. chs. lvii.-lxvi.; H. B. Swete, The Holy Spirit in the New Testament2, do. 1910, esp. Appendix I and J; D. Stone, Holy Baptism, do. 1899; A. J. Mason, The Relation of Confirmation to Baptism2, do. 1893; D. Macleane, The Heavenly Citizenship of Infants, do. 1891; F. H. Chase, Confirmation in the Apostolic Age, do. 1909; A. C. A. Hall, Confirmation, do. 1900; F. E. Warren, Liturgy and Ritual of the Ante-Nicene Church2, do. 1912; A. J. Maclean, The Ancient Church Orders, Cambridge, 1910; articles on The Lords Command to Baptize in Journal of Theological Studies vi. [1904-05], vii. [1905-06], viii. [1906-07], by F. H. Chase and J. A. Robinson; articles on Baptism in Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols) i. (A. Plummer), Dict. of Christ and the Gospels i. (M. Dods), Hastings Single-vol. Dictionary of the Bible (C. A. Scott), Encyclopaedia Biblica i. (J. A. Robinson), Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics ii. (J. V. Bartlet, K. Lake, H. G. Wood); article Laying on of Hands in HDE iii. (H. B. Swete); articles Confirmation in Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics iv. (H. J. Lawlor and H. Thurston).

A. J. Maclean.

Fuente: Dictionary of the Apostolic Church

BAPTISM

The ceremony of washing, or the application of water to a person, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, by which he is initiated into the visible church. Baptism exhibits to us the blessings of pardon, salvation through Jesus Christ, union to and communion with him, the out-pouring of the Spirit, regeneration, and sanctification. From baptism results the obligation of repentance, love to Christ, and perpetual devotedness to his praise. Baptism does not constitute a visible subject, but only recognizes one. Ministers only have a right to administer it; and have a negative voice in opposition to all claims. It is an ordinance binding on all who have been given up to God in it; and to be perpetuated to the end of the world. It is not, however, essential to salvation; for mere participation of sacraments cannot qualify men for heaven: many have real grace, consequently in a salvable state, before they were baptized: besides, to suppose it essential, is to put it in the place of that which it signifies.

Baptism has been supposed by many learned persons to have had its origin from the Jewish church; in which, they maintain, it was the practice, long before Christ’s time, to baptize proselytes or converts to their faith, as part of the ceremony of their admission. “It is strange to me, ” says Dr. Doddridge, “that any should doubt of this, when it is plain, from express passages in the Jewish law, that no Jew who had lived like a Gentile for one day could be restored to the communion of this church without it. Compare Num 19:19-20. and many other precepts relating to ceremonial pollutions, in which may be seen, that the Jews were rendered incapable of appearing before God in the tabernacle or temple, till they were washed either by bathing or sprinkling.” Others, however, insist, that the Jewish proselyte baptism is not by far so ancient; and that John the Baptist was the first administrator of baptism among the Jews.

The baptism of John, and that of our Saviour and his apostles, have been supposed to be the same; because they agree, it is said in their subjects, form, and end. But it must be observed, that though there be an agreement in some particulars, yet there is not in all. The immediate institutor of John’s baptism was God the Father, Joh 1:33; but the immediate institutor of the Christian baptism was Christ, Mat 28:19. John’s baptism was a preparatory rite, referring the subjects to Christ, who was about to confer on them spiritual blessings, Mat 3:11. John’s baptism was confined to the Jews; but the Christian was common to Jews and Gentiles, Mat 3:5; Mat 3:7. Mat 28:19. It does not appear that John had any formula of administration; but the Christian baptism has, viz. “in the name, ” &c.

The baptism of John was the concluding scene of the legal dispensation, and, in fact, part of it; and to be considered as one of those “divers washings” among the Jews; for he did not attempt to make any alteration in the Jewish religion, nor did the persons he baptized cease to be members of the Jewish church on the account of their baptism; but Christian baptism is the regular entrance into, and is a part of, the evangelical dispensation, Gal 3:27. It does not appear from the inspired narrative (however probable from inferential reasoning) that any but John himself was engaged as operator in his baptism; whereas Christ himself baptized none; but his disciples, by his authority, and in his name, Joh 4:2. Baptism has been the subject of long and sharp controversy, both as it respects the subject and the mode. To state all that has been said on both sides, would be impossible in a work of this kind. An abstract, however, of the chief arguments, I think it my duty to present to the reader, in order that he may judge for himself, as to the subject.

The ANTIPAEDOBAPTISTS hold that believing adults only are proper subjects, because Christ’s commission to baptize appears to them to restrict this ordinance to such only as are taught, or made disciples; and that consequently, infants, who cannot be thus taught, are to be excluded. It does not appear, say they, that the apostles, in executing Christ’s commission ever baptized any but those who were first instructed in the Christian faith, and professed their belief of it. They content that infants can receive no benefit from it, and are not capable of faith and repentance, which are to be considered as pre- requisites. As to the mode.

They observe that the meaning of the word in Greek signifies immersion, or dipping only; that John baptized in Jordan; that he chose a place where there was much water; that Jesus came up out of the water; that Phillip and the eunuch went down both into the water. That the terms washing, purifying, burying in baptism, so often mentioned in Scripture, alludes to this mode; that immersion only was the practice of the apostles and the first Christians; and that is was only laid aside from the love of novelty, and the coldness of our climate. These positions, they think, are so clear from Scripture, and the history of the church, that they stand in need of but little argument to support them. Farther, they also insist that all positive institutions depend entirely upon the will and declaration of the institutor, and that, therefore, reasoning by analogy from previous abrogated rites, is to be rejected, and the express command of Christ respecting baptism ought to be our rule.

PAEDOBAPTISTS

The Paedobaptists, however, are of a different opinion. As to the subject, they believe that qualified adults who have not been baptized before, are certainly proper subjects; but, then, they think also that infants are not to be excluded. They believe that, as the Abrahamic and the Christian covenants are the same, Gen 17:7. Heb. viii 12; that as children were admitted under the former; and that as baptism is now a seal, sign, or confirmation of this covenant, infants have as great a right to it as the children had a right to the seal of circumcision under the law. Act 2:39. Rom 4:11. That if children are not to be baptized because there is no positive command for it, for the same reason women should not come to the Lord’s supper; we should not keep the first day of the week, nor attend public worship, for none of these are expressly commanded; that if infant baptism had been a human invention, how would it have been so universal in the first 3000 years, and yet no record left when it was introduced, nor any dispute or controversy about it?

Some bring it to these two ideas:

1.That God did constitute in his church the membership of infants, and admitted them to it by a religious ordinance, Gen 17:1-27 : Gal 3:14; Gal 3:17.

2.That this right of infants to church membership was never taken away. This being the case, infants must be received, because God has instituted it; and since infants must be received, it must be either without baptism or with it; but none must be received without baptism, therefore infants must of necessity be baptized. Hence, it is clear, that, under the Gospel, infants are still continued exactly in the same relation to God and his church, in which they were originally placed under the former dispensation. That infants are to be received into the church, and as such baptized, is also inferred from the following passages of Scripture: Gen 17:1-27 : Is. 44:3. Mat 19:13. Luk 9:47-48. Mar 9:14. Act 2:1-47; Rom 11:17; Rom 11:21. 1Co 7:14.

Though there are no express examples in the New Testament of Christ and his apostles baptizing infants, yet this is no proof that they were excluded. Jesus Christ actually blessed little children; and it would be hard to believe that such received his blessing, and yet were not to be members of the Gospel church. If Christ received them, and would have us receive them in his name, how can it be reconciled to keep them out of the visible church? Besides, if children were not to be baptized, it would have been expressly forbidden. None of the Jews had any apprehension of the rejection of infants, which they must have had, if infants had been rejected. As whole households were baptized, it is probable there were children among them. From the year 400 to 1150, no society of men in all that period of 750 years, ever pretended to say it was unlawful to baptize infants; and still nearer the time of our Saviour there appears to have been scarcely any one that so much as advised the delay of infant baptism.

Irenxus, who lived in the second century, and was well acquainted with Polycarp, who was John’s disciple, declares expressly that the church learned from the apostles to baptize children. Origen, in the third century, affirmed that the custom of baptizing infants was received from Christ and his apostles. Cyprian, and a council of ministers (held about the year 254) no less than sixty-six in number, unanimously agreed that children might be baptized as soon as they were born. Ambrose, who wrote about 274 years from the apostles, declares that the baptism of infants had been the practice of the apostles themselves, and of the church, till that time. The Catholic church every where declared, says Chrysostom, in the fifth century, that infants should be baptized; and Augustin affirmed that he never heard nor read of any Christian, Catholic, or sectarian, but who always held that infants were to be baptized. They farther believe, that there needed no mention in the New Testament of receiving infants into the church, as it had been once appointed, and never repealed. The dictates of nature, also, in parental feelings; the verdict of reason in favour of privileges; the evidence in favour of children being sharers of the seals of grace, in common with their parents, for the space of 4000 years; and especially the language of prophecy, in reference to the children of the Gospel church, make it very probable that they were not to be rejected.

So far from confining it to adults, it must be remembered that there is not a single instance recorded in the New Testament in which the descendants of Christian parents were baptized in adult years

That infants are not proper subjects for baptism, because they cannot profess faith and repentance, they deny. This objection falls with as much weight upon the institution of circumcision as infant baptism; since they are as capable, or are as fit subjects for the one as the other. It is generally acknowledged, that, if infants die (and a great part of the human race do die in infancy, ) they are saved: if this be the case, then, why refuse them the sign in infancy, if they are capable of enjoying the thing signified? “Why, ” says Dr. Owen, “is it the will of God that unbelievers should not be baptized? It is because, not granting them the grace, he will not grant them the sign. If God, therefore, denies the sign to the infant seed of believers, it must be because he denies them the grace of it; and then all the children of believing parents (upon these principles)dying in their infancy, must, without hope, be eternally damned. I do not say that all must be so whom God would not have baptized.”

Something is said of baptism, it is observed, that cannot agree to infants: faith goes before baptism; and as adults are capable of believing, so no others are capable of baptism; but it is replied, if infants must not be baptized because something is said of baptism that does not agree to infants, Mar 16:16. then infants must not be saved, because something is said of salvation that does not agree to infants, Mar 16:16. As none but adults are capable of believing, so, by the argument of the Baptists, none but adults are capable of salvation: for he that believeth not shall be damned. But Christ, it is said, set an example of adult baptism. True; but he was baptized in honour to John’s ministry, and to conform himself to what he appointed to his followers; for which last reason he drank of the sacramental cup: but this is rather an argument for the Paedobaptists than against them; since it, plainly shows, as Doddridge observes, that baptism may be administered to those who are not capable of all the purposes for which it was designed; could not be capable of that faith and repentance which are said to be necessary to this ordinance.

As to the mode.

They believe that the word in Greek signifies to dip or to plunge; but that the Greek term, which is only derivative of another Greek term, and consequently must be somewhat less in its signification, should be invariably used in the New Testament to express plunging, is not so clear. It is therefore doubted whether dipping be the only meaning, and whether Christ absolutely enjoined immersion, and that it is his positive will that no other should be used. As the word in Greek is used for the various ablutions among the Jews, such as sprinkling, pouring, &c. Heb 9:10; for the custom of washing before meals, and the washing of household furniture, pots, &c; it is evident from hence that it does not express the manner of doing, only the thing done; that is, washing, or the application of water in one form or other. Dr. Owen observes, that it no where signifies to dip, but as denoting a mode or, and in order to washing or cleansing: and, according to others, the mode of use is only the ceremonial part of a positive institute; just as in the supper of the Lord, the time of the day, the number and posture of communicants, the quality and quantity of bread and wine, are circumstances not accounted essential by any party of Christians. As to the Hebrew word Tabal, it is considered as a generic term; that its radical, primary, and proper meaning is, to tinge, to dye, or wet, or the like: which primary design is effected by different modes of application.

If in baptism also there is an expressive emblem of the descending influence of the Spirit, pouring must be the mode of administration; for that is the Scriptural term most commonly and properly used for the communication of divine influences. There is no object whatever in all the New Testament so frequently and so explicitly signified by baptism as these divine influences, Mat 3:11. Mar 1:8; Mar 1:10. Luk 3:16-22. Joh 1:33, Act 1:5. Act 2:38-39. Act 8:12; Act 8:17. Act 11:1-30

The term sprinkling, also, is made use of in reference to the act of purifying, Is 52: 15; Heb 9:1-28. Eze 36:25, and therefore cannot be inapplicable to baptismal purification. But it is observed that John baptized in Jordan: to this it is replied, to infer always a plunging of the whole body in water from this word, would, in many instances, be false and absurd: the same Greek preposition is used when it is said they should be baptized with fire; while few will assert that they should be plunged into it. The apostle, speaking of Christ, says, he came not by water only, but by water and blood. There the same wore is translated by, and with justice and propriety, for we know no good sense in which we could say he came in water. It has been remarked, that this Greek word is more than a hundred times in the New Testament, rendered “at” and in a hundred and fifty others, it is translated with. If it be rendered so here, “John baptized at Jordan, or with the water of Jordan, there is no proof from thence that he plunged his disciples in it. It is urged that John’s choosing a place where there was much water is a certain proof of immersion. To which it is answered, that as there went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, that by choosing a place where there were many streams or rivulets, it would be much more expeditiously performed by pouring; and that it seems in the nature of things highly improbable that John would have baptized this vast multitude by immersion, to say nothing of the indecency of both sexes being baptized together. Jesus, it is said, came up out of the water; but this is said to be no proof of his being immersed, as the Greek term often signifies from; for instance, “Who hath warned you to flee from, not out of, the wrath to come.” with many others which might be mentioned.

Again: it is said that Phillip and the eunuch went down both into the water. To this it is answered, that here is no proof of immersion; for if the expression of their going down into the water necessarily includes dipping, then Phillip was dipped as well as the eunuch. The Greek preposition translated into, often signifies no more than to or unto.

See Mat 15:24. Rom 10:10. Act 28:14. Mat 17:27. Mat 3:11. So that, from all these circumstances, it cannot be conclude that there was a single person of all the baptized who went into the water ankle deep. As to the apostle’s expression, “buried with him in baptism, ” they think it has no force; and that it does not allude to any custom of dipping, any more than our baptismal crucifixion and death has any such reference. It is not the sign but the thing signified that is here alluded to. As Christ was buried and rose again to a heavenly life, so we by baptism signifying that we are cut off from the life of sin, that we may rise again to a new life of faith and love. To conclude this article, it is observed against the mode of immersion, that, as it carries with it too much of the appearance of a burdensome rite for the Gospel dispensation; that as it is too indecent for so solemn an ordinance; as it has a tendency to agitate the spirits, often rendering the subject unfit for the exercise of proper thought and affections, and indeed utterly incapable of them; as in many cases the immersion of the body would in all probability be instant death; as in other situations it would be impracticable for want of a sufficient quantity of water, it cannot be considered as necessary to the ordinance of baptism.

See Gale, Robinson, Stennett, Gill, and Booth, on Antipaedobaptism; and Wall, Henry, Bradbury, Bostwick, Towgood, Addington, Williams, Edwards, Miller, Evans, &c. on the other side.

Fuente: Theological Dictionary

Baptism

(Greek: baptizo, wash or immerse)

The act of immersing or washing. In Holy Scripture it also signifies, figuratively, great suffering, e.g., Christ’s Passion (Luke, 12). It is the “first” sacrament, or sacrament of initiation and regeneration, the “door of the Church.” Defined theologically, it is a sacrament, instituted by Christ, in which by the invocation of the Holy Trinity and external ablution with water one becomes spiritually regenerated and a disciple of Christ. Saint Thomas says it is the “external ablution of the body performed with the prescribed form of words.” The Sacrament of Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation, because all are subject to original sin: wherefore Christ’s words to Nicodemus, “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost , he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (John, 3). The chief effects of this sacrament are:

the impression of a character or seal by which we are incorporated with Christ (Galatians 3; 1st Corinthians 6);

regeneration and remission of original sin (and actual if necessary), as well as punishment due to sin, and infusion of sanctifying grace (with its gifts). Baptism is administered by pouring water on the head of the candidate, saying at the same time,

I baptize thee, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost .

with the intention of Christ or His Church. The water must flow over the skin. These essentials are apart from the beautiful requirements of the Church for solemn Baptism. Infusion (pouring), immersion, and aspersion (sprinkling) are equally valid. The present ritual of the Latin Church allows for the first two, favoring infusion by the law of custom. Baptism of desire (flaminis) and of blood (sanguinis) are called such analogically, in that they supply the remission of sin and the regenerative grace, but not the character; the former presupposes perfect charity or love of God (therefore implicitly the desire for the sacrament), while the latter is simply martyrdom for the sake of Christ or His Church. Without the Sacrament of Baptism or martyrdom it is commonly taught that infants cannot attain to the enjoyment of the Beatific Vision.

Goffine’s Devout Instructions

New Catholic Dictionary

Fuente: New Catholic Dictionary

Baptism

One of the Seven Sacraments of the Christian Church; frequently called the “first sacrament”, the “door of the sacraments”, and the “door of the Church”. The subject will be treated under the following headings: I. Authoritative Statement of Doctrine II. Etymology III. Definition IV. Types V. Institution of the Sacrament VI. Matter and Form of the Sacrament VII. Conditional Baptism VIII. Rebaptism IX. Necessity of Baptism X. Substitutes for the Sacrament XI. Unbaptized Infants XII. Effects of Baptism XIII. Minister of the Sacrament XIV. Recipient of Baptism XV. Adjuncts of Baptism XVI, Ceremonies of Baptism XVII. Metaphorical Baptism

I. AUTHORITATIVE STATEMENT OF DOCTRINE

At the outset we think it advisable to give two documents which express clearly the mind of the Church on the subject of baptism. They are valuable, also, as containing a summary of the main points to be considered in the treatment of this important matter. Baptism is defined positively in the one and negatively in the other.

(1) The Positive Document: “The Decree for the Armenians”

“The Decree for the Armenians”, in the Bull “Exultate Deo” of Pope Eugene IV, is often referred to as a decree of the Council of Florence. While it is not necessary to hold this decree to be a dogmatic definition of the matter and form and minister of the sacraments, it is undoubtedly a practical instruction, emanating from the Holy See, and as such, has full authenticity in a canonical sense. That is, it is authoritative. The decree speaks thus of Baptism:

Holy Baptism holds the first place among the sacraments, because it is the door of the spiritual life; for by it we are made members of Christ and incorporated with the Church. And since through the first man death entered into all, unless we be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, we can not enter into the kingdom of Heaven, as Truth Himself has told us. The matter of this sacrament is true and natural water; and it is indifferent whether it be cold or hot. The form is: I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. We do not, however, deny that the words: Let this servant of Christ be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost; or: This person is baptized by my hands in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, constitute true baptism; because since the principal cause from which baptism has its efficacy is the Holy Trinity, and the instrumental cause is the minister who confers the sacrament exteriorly, then if the act exercised by the minister be expressed, together with the invocation of the Holy Trinity, the sacrament is perfected. The minister of this sacrament is the priest, to whom it belongs to baptize, by reason of his office, In case of necessity, however, not only a priest or deacon, but even a layman or woman, nay, even a pagan or heretic can baptize, provided he observes the form used by the Church, and intends to perform what the Church performs. The effect of this sacrament is the remission of all sin, original and actual; likewise of all punishment which is due for sin. As a consequence, no satisfaction for past sins is enjoined upon those who are baptized; and if they die before they commit any sin, they attain immediately to the kingdom of heaven and the vision of God.

(2) The Negative Document: “De Baptismo”

The negative document we call the canons on baptism decreed by the Council of Trent (Sess. VII, De Baptismo), in which the following doctrines are anathematized (declared heretical): The baptism of John (the Precursor) had the same efficacy as the baptism of Christ, True and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and therefore the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost” are metaphorical. The true doctrine of the sacrament of baptism is not taught by the Roman Church, Baptism given by heretics in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost with the intention of performing what the Church performs, is not true baptism, Baptism is free, that is, not necessary for salvation. A baptized person, even if he wishes it, can not lose grace, no matter how much he sins, unless he refuses to believe. Those who are baptized are obliged only to have faith, but not to observe the whole law of Christ. Baptized persons are not obliged to observe all the precepts of the Church, written and traditional, unless of their own accord they wish to submit to them. All vows made after baptism are void by reason of the promises made in baptism itself; because by these vows injury is done to the faith which has been professed in baptism and to the sacrament itself. All sins committed after baptism are either forgiven or rendered venial by the sole remembrance and faith of the baptism that has been received. Baptism although truly and properly administered, must be repeated in the case of a person who has denied the faith of Christ before infidels and has been brought again to repentance. No one is to be baptized except at the age at which Christ was baptized or at the moment of death. Infants, not being able to make an act of faith, are not to be reckoned among the faithful after their baptism, and therefore when they come to the age of discretion they are to be rebaptized; or it is better to omit their baptism entirely than to baptize them as believing on the sole faith of the Church, when they themselves can not make a proper act of faith. Those baptized as infants are to be asked when they have grown up, whether they wish to ratify what their sponsors had promised for them at their baptism, and if they reply that they do not wish to do so, they are to be left to their own will in the matter and not to be forced by penalties to lead a Christian life, except to be deprived of the reception of the Eucharist and of the other sacraments, until they reform.

The doctrines here condemned by the Council of Trent, are those of various leaders among the early reformers. The contradictory of all these statements is to be held as the dogmatic teaching of the Church.

II. ETYMOLOGY

The word Baptism is derived from the Greek word, bapto, or baptizo, to wash or to immerse. It signifies, therefore, that washing is of the essential idea of the sacrament. Scripture uses the term baptize both literally and figuratively. It is employed in a metaphorical sense in Acts 1:5, where the abundance of the grace of the Holy Ghost is signified, and also in Luke 12:50, where the term is referred to the sufferings of Christ in His Passion. Otherwise in the New Testament, the root word from which baptism is derived is used to designate the laving with water, and it is employed, when speaking of Jewish lustrations, and of the baptism of John, as well as of the Christian Sacrament of Baptism (cf. Hebrews 6:2; Mark 7:4). In ecclesiastical usage, however, when the terms Baptize, Baptism are employed without a qualifying word, they are intended to signify the sacramental washing by which the soul is cleansed from sin at the same time that water is poured upon the body. Many other terms have been used as descriptive synonyms for baptism both in the Bible and Christian antiquity, as the washing of regeneration, illumination, the seal of God, the water of eternal life, the sacrament of the Trinity, and so on. In English, the term christen is familiarly used for baptize. As, however, the former word signifies only the effect of baptism, that is, to make one a Christian, but not the manner and the act, moralists hold that “I christen” could probably not be substituted validly for “I baptize” in conferring the sacrament.

III. DEFINITION

The Roman Catechism (Ad parochos, De bapt., 2, 2, 5) defines baptism thus: Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration by water in the word (per aquam in verbo). St. Thomas Aquinas (III:66:1) gives this definition: “Baptism is the external ablution of the body, performed with the prescribed form of words.” Later theologians generally distinguish formally between the physical and the metaphysical defining of this sacrament. By the former they understand the formula expressing the action of ablution and the utterance of the invocation of the Trinity; by the latter, the definition: “Sacrament of regeneration” or that institution of Christ by which we are reborn to spiritual life. The term “regeneration” distinguishes baptism from every other sacrament, for although penance revivifies men spiritually, yet this is rather a resuscitation, a bringing back from the dead, than a rebirth. Penance does not make us Christians; on the contrary, it presupposes that we have already been born of water and the Holy Ghost to the life of grace, while baptism on the other hand was instituted to confer upon men the very beginnings of the spiritual life, to transfer them from the state of enemies of God to the state of adoption, as sons of God. The definition of the Roman Catechism combines the physical and metaphysical definitions of baptism. “The sacrament of regeneration” is the metaphysical essence of the sacrament, while the physical essence is expressed by the second part of the definition, i.e. the washing with water (matter), accompanied by the invocation of the Holy Trinity (form). Baptism is, therefore, the sacrament by which we are born again of water and the Holy Ghost, that is, by which we receive in a new and spiritual life, the dignity of adoption as sons of God and heirs of God’s kingdom.

IV. TYPES

Having considered the Christian meaning of the term “baptism”, we now turn our attention to the various rites which were its forerunners before the New Dispensation. Types of this sacrament are to be found among the Jews and Gentiles. Its place in the sacramental system of the Old Law was taken by circumcision, which is called by some of the Fathers “the washing of blood” to distinguish it from “the washing of water”. By the rite of circumcision, the recipient was incorporated into the people of God and made a partaker in the Messianic promises; a name was bestowed upon him and he was reckoned among the children of Abraham, the father of all believers. Other forerunners of baptism were the numerous purifications prescribed in the Mosaic dispensation for legal uncleannesses. The symbolism of an outward washing to cleanse an invisible blemish was made very familiar to the Jews by their sacred ceremonies. But in addition to these more direct types, both the New Testament writers and the Fathers of the Church find many mysterious foreshadowings of baptism. Thus St. Paul (1 Corinthians 10) adduces the passage of Israel through the Red Sea, and St. Peter (1 Peter 3) the Deluge, as types of the purification to be found in Christian baptism. Other foreshadowings of the sacrament are found by the Fathers in the bathing of Naaman in the Jordan, in the brooding of the Spirit of God over the waters, in the rivers of Paradise, in the blood of the Paschal Lamb, during Old Testament times, and in the pool of Bethsaida, and in the healing of the dumb and blind in the New Testament,

How natural and expressive the symbolism of exterior washing to indicate interior purification was recognized to be, is plain from the practice also of the heathen systems of religion. The use of lustral water is found among the Babylonians, Assyrians, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Hindus, and others. A closer resemblance to Christian baptism is found in a form of Jewish baptism, to be bestowed on proselytes, given in the Babylonian Talmud (Dollinger, First Age of the Church). But above all must be considered the baptism of St. John the Precursor. John baptized with water (Mark 1) and it was a baptism of penance for the remission of sins (Luke 3). While, then, the symbolism of the sacrament instituted by Christ was not new, the efficacy which He joined to the rite is that which differentiates it from all its types. John’s baptism did not produce grace, as he himself testifies (Matthew 3) when he declares that he is not the Messias whose baptism is to confer the Holy Ghost. Moreover, it was not John’s baptism that remitted sin, but the penance that accompanied it; and hence St. Augustine calls it (De Bapt. contra Donat., V) “a remission of sins in hope”. As to the nature of the Precursor’s baptism, St. Thomas (III:38:1) declares: The baptism of John was not a sacrament of itself, but a certain sacramental as it were, preparing the way (disponens) for the baptism of Christ.” Durandus calls it a sacrament, indeed, but of the Old Law, and St. Bonaventure places it as a medium between the Old and New Dispensations. It is of Catholic faith that the Precursor’s baptism was essentially different in its effects from the baptism of Christ, It is also to be noted that those who had previously received John’s baptism had to receive later the Christian baptism (Acts 19).

V. INSTITUTION OF THE SACRAMENT

That Christ instituted the Sacrament of Baptism is unquestionable. Rationalists, like Harnack (Dogmengeschichte, I, 68), dispute it, only by arbitrarily ruling out the texts which prove it. Christ not only commands His Disciples (Matthew 28:19) to baptize and gives them the form to be used, but He also declares explicitly the absolute necessity of baptism (John 3): “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he can not enter into the Kingdom of God.” Moreover, from the general doctrine of the Church on the sacraments, we know that the efficacy attached to them is derivable only from the institution of the Redeemer. When, however, we come to the question as to when precisely Christ instituted baptism, we find that ecclesiastical writers are not agreed. The Scriptures themselves are silent upon the subject. Various occasions have been pointed out as the probable time of institution, as when Christ was Himself baptized in the Jordan, when He declared the necessity of the rebirth to Nicodemus, when He sent His Apostles and Disciples to preach and baptize. The first opinion was quite a favorite with many of the Fathers and Schoolmen, and they are fond of referring to the sanctification of the baptismal water by contact with the flesh of the God-man. Others, as St. Jerome and St. Maximus, appear to assume that Christ baptized John on this occasion and thus instituted the sacrament. There is nothing, however, in the Gospels to indicate that Christ baptized the Precursor at the time of His own baptism. As to the opinion that it was in the colloquy with Nicodemus that the sacrament was instituted, it is not surprising that it has found few adherents. Christ’s words indeed declare the necessity of such an institution, but no more. It seems also very unlikely that Christ would have instituted the sacrament in a secret conference with one who was not to be a herald of its institution.

The more probable opinion seems to be that baptism, as a sacrament, had its origin when Christ commissioned His Apostles to baptize, as narrated in John, iii and iv. There is nothing directly in the text as to the institution, but as the Disciples acted evidently under the instruction of Christ, He must have taught them at the very outset the matter and form of the sacrament which they were to dispense. It is true that St. John Chrysostom (Hom., xxviii in Joan.), Theophylactus (in cap. iii, Joan.), and Tertullian (De Bapt., c. ii) declare that the baptism given by the Disciples of Christ as narrated in these chapters of St. John was a baptism of water only and not of the Holy Ghost; but their reason is that the Holy Ghost was not given until after the Resurrection. As theologians have pointed out, this is a confusion between the visible and the invisible manifestation of the Holy Spirit. The authority of St. Leo (Ep. xvi ad Episc. Sicil.) is also invoked for the same opinion, inasmuch as he seems to hold that Christ instituted the sacrament when, after His rising from the dead, He gave the command (Matthew 28): “Go and teach . . . baptizing”; but St. Leo’s words can easily be explained otherwise, and in another part of the same epistle he refers to the sanction of regeneration given by Christ when the water of baptism flowed from His side on the Cross; consequently, before the Resurrection. All authorities agree that Matthew 28, contains the solemn promulgation of this sacrament, and St. Leo does not seem to intend more than this. We need not delay on the arguments of those who declare baptism to have been necessarily established after Christ’s death, because the efficacy of the sacraments is derived from His Passion. This would prove also that the Holy Eucharist was not instituted before His death, which is untenable. As to the frequent statement of the Fathers that the sacraments flowed from the side of Christ upon the Cross, it is enough to say that beyond the symbolism found therein, their words can be explained as referring to the death of Christ, as the meritorious cause or perfection of the sacraments, but not necessarily as their time of institution.

All things considered, we can safely state, therefore, that Christ most probably instituted baptism before His Passion. For in the first place, as is evident from John 3 and 4, Christ certainly conferred baptism, at least by the hands of His Disciples, before His passion. That this was an essentially different rite from John the Precursor’s baptism seems plain, because the baptism of Christ is always preferred to that of John, and the latter himself states the reason: “I baptize with water . . . [Christ] baptizeth with the Holy Ghost” (John 1). In the baptism given by the Disciples as narrated in these chapters we seem to have all the requisites of a sacrament of the New Law: the external rite, the institution of Christ, for they baptized by His command and mission, and the conferring of grace, for they bestowed the Holy Ghost (John 1). In the second place, the Apostles received other sacraments from Christ, before His Passion, as the Holy Eucharist at the Last Supper, and Holy orders (Conc. Trid., Sess. XXVI, c. i). Now as baptism has always been held as the door of the Church and the necessary condition for the reception of any other sacrament, it follows that the Apostles must have received Christian baptism before the Last Supper. This argument is used by St. Augustine (Ep. clxiii, al. xliv) and certainly seems valid. To suppose that the first pastors of the Church received the other sacraments by dispensation, before they had received baptism, is an opinion with no foundation in Scripture or Tradition and devoid of verisimilitude. The Scriptures nowhere state that Christ Himself conferred baptism, but an ancient tradition (Niceph., Hist. eccl, II, iii; Clem. Alex. Strom., III) declares that He baptized the Apostle Peter only, and that the latter baptized Andrew, James, and John, and they the other Apostles.

VI. MATTER AND FORM OF THE SACRAMENT

(1) Matter

In all sacraments we treat of the matter and the form. It is also usual to distinguish the remote matter and the proximate matter. In the case of baptism, the remote matter is natural and true water. We shall consider this aspect of the question first.

(a) Remote matter

It is of faith (de fide) that true and natural water is the remote matter of baptism. In addition to the authorities already cited, we may also mention the Fourth Council of the Lateran (c. i). Some of the early Fathers, as Tertullian (De Bapt., i) and St. Augustine (Adv. Hær., xlvi and lix) enumerate heretics who rejected water entirely as a constituent of baptism. Such were the Gaians, Manichians, Seleucians, and Hermians. In the Middle Ages, the Waldensians are said to have held the same tenet (Ewald, Contra Walden., vi). Some of the sixteenth century reformers, while accepting water as the ordinary matter of this sacrament, declared that when water could not be had, any liquid could be used in its place. So Luther (Tischr., xvii) and Beza (Ep., ii, ad Till.). It was in consequence of this teaching that certain of the Tridentine canons were framed. Calvin held that the water used in baptism was simply symbolic of the Blood of Christ (Instit., IV, xv). As a rule, however, those sects which believe in baptism at the present time, recognize water as the necessary matter of the sacrament. Scripture is so positive in its statements as to the use of true and natural water for baptism that it is difficult to see why it should ever be called in question. Not only have we the explicit words of Christ (John 3:5) “Unless a man be born again of water”, etc., but also in the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles of St. Paul there are passages that preclude any metaphorical interpretation. Thus (Acts 10:47) St. Peter says “Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized?” In the eighth chapter of the Acts is narrated the episode of Philip and the eunuch of Ethiopia, and in verse 36 we read: “They came to a certain water; and the eunuch said: See, here is water: what doth hinder me from being baptized?” Equally positive is the testimony of Christian tradition. Tertullian (op. cit.) begins his treatise: “The happy sacrament of our water”. Justin Martyr (Apol., I) describes the ceremony of baptism and declares: Then they are led by us to where there is water . . . and then they are laved in the water”. St. Augustine positively declares that there is no baptism without water (Tr. xv in Joan.).

The remote matter of baptism, then, is water, and this taken in its usual meaning. Theologians tell us consequently that what men would ordinarily declare water is valid baptismal material, whether it be water of the sea, or fountain, or well, or marsh; whether it be clear or turbid; fresh or salty; hot or cold; colored or uncolored. Water derived from melted ice, snow, or hail is also valid. If, however, ice, snow, or hail be not melted, they do not come under the designation water. Dew, sulfur or mineral water, and that which is derived from steam are also valid matter for this sacrament. As to a mixture of water and some other material, it is held as proper matter, provided the water certainly predominates and the mixture would still be called water. Invalid matter is every liquid that is not usually designated true water. Such are oil, saliva, wine, tears, milk, sweat, beer, soup, the juice of fruits, and any mixture containing water which men would no longer call water. When it is doubtful whether a liquid could really be called water, it is not permissible to use it for baptism except in case of absolute necessity when no certainly valid matter can be obtained. On the other hand, it is never allowable to baptize with an invalid liquid. There is a response of Pope Gregory IX to the Archbishop of Trondhjem in Norway where beer (or mead) had been employed for baptism. The pontiff says: “Since according to the Gospel teaching, a man must be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, those are not to be considered validly baptized who have been baptized with beer” (cervisia). It is true that a statement declaring wine to be valid matter of baptism is attributed to Pope Stephen II, but the document is void of all authority (Labbe, Conc., VI).

Those who have held that “water” in the Gospel text is to be taken metaphorically, appeal to the words of the Precursor (Matthew 3), “He shall baptize you in the Holy Ghost and fire”. As “fire” must certainly be only a figure of speech here, so must “water” in the other texts. To this objection, it may be replied that the Christian Church, or at least the Apostles themselves, must have understood what was prescribed to be taken literally and what figuratively. The New Testament and church history prove that they never looked on fire as a material for baptism, while they certainly did require water. Outside of the insignificant sects of Seleucians and Hermians, not even heretics took the word “fire” in this text in its literal meaning. We may remark, however, that some of the Fathers, as St. John Damascene (Orth. Fid., IV, ix), concede this statement of the Baptist to have a literal fulfillment in the Pentecostal fiery tongues. They do not refer it, however, literally to baptism. That water alone is the necessary matter of this sacrament depends of course on the will of Him Who instituted it, although theologians discover many reasons why it should have been chosen in preference to other liquids. The most obvious of these is that water cleanses and purifies more perfectly than the others, and hence the symbolism is more natural.

(b) Proximate matter

The proximate matter of baptism is the ablution performed with water. The very word “baptize”, as we have seen, means a washing. Three forms of ablution have prevailed among Christians, and the Church holds them all to be valid because they fulfill the requisite signification of the baptismal laving. These forms are immersion, infusion, and aspersion. The most ancient form usually employed was unquestionably immersion. This is not only evident from the writings of the Fathers and the early rituals of both the Latin and Oriental Churches, but it can also be gathered from the Epistles of St. Paul, who speaks of baptism as a bath (Ephesians 5:26; Romans 6:4; Titus 3:5). In the Latin Church, immersion seems to have prevailed until the twelfth century. After that time it is found in some places even as late as the sixteenth century. Infusion and aspersion, however, were growing common in the thirteenth century and gradually prevailed in the Western Church. The Oriental Churches have retained immersion, though not always in the sense of plunging the candidate’s entire body below the water. Billuart (De Bapt., I, iii) says that commonly the catechumen is placed in the font, and then water is poured upon the head. He cites the authority of Goar for this statement. Although, as we have said, immersion was the form of baptism that generally prevailed in the early ages, it must not thereby be inferred that the other forms of infusion and aspersion were not also employed and held to be valid. In the case of the sick or dying, immersion was impossible and the sacrament was then conferred by one of the other forms. This was so well recognized that infusion or aspersion received the name of the baptism of the sick (baptismus clinicorum). St. Cyprian (Epistle 75) declares this form to be valid. From the canons of various early councils we know that candidates for Holy orders who had been baptized by this method seem to have been regarded as irregular, but this was on account of the culpable negligence supposed to be manifested in delaying baptism until sick or dying. That such persons, however, were not to be rebaptized is an evidence that the Church held their baptism to be valid. It is also pointed out that the circumstances under which St. Paul (Acts 16) baptized his jailer and all his household seem to preclude the use of immersion. Moreover, the acts of the early martyrs frequently refer to baptizing in prisons where infusion or aspersion was certainly employed.

By the present authorized ritual of the Latin Church, baptism must be performed by a laving of the head of the candidate. Moralists, however, state that in case of necessity, the baptism would probably be valid if the water were applied to any other principal part of the body, as the breast or shoulder. In this case, however, conditional baptism would have to be administered if the person survived (St. Alph., no. 107). In like manner they consider as probably valid the baptism of an infant in its mother’s womb, provided the water, by means of an instrument, would actually flow upon the child. Such baptism is, however, later to be repeated conditionally, if the child survives its birth (Lehmkuhl, n. 61). It is to be noted that it is not sufficient for the water to merely touch the candidate; it must also flow, otherwise there would seem to be no real ablution. At best, such a baptism would be considered doubtful. If the water touches only the hair, the sacrament has probably been validly conferred, though in practice the safer course must be followed. If only the clothes of the person have received the aspersion, the baptism is undoubtedly void. The water to be employed in solemn baptism should also be consecrated for the purpose, but of this we shall treat in another section of this article. It is necessary in baptizing to make use of a threefold ablution in conferring this sacrament, by reason of the prescription of the Roman ritual. This necessarily refers, however, to the liceity, not to the validity of the ceremony, as St. Thomas (III:66:8) and other theologians expressly state. The threefold immersion is unquestionably very ancient in the Church and apparently of Apostolic origin. It is mentioned by Tertullian (De cor. milit., iii), St. Basil (De Sp. S., xxvii), St. Jerome (Dial. Contra Luc., viii), and many other early writers. Its object is, of course, to honor the three Persons of the Holy Trinity in whose name it is conferred. That this threefold ablution was not considered necessary to the validity of the sacrament, however, is plain. In the seventh century the Fourth Council of Toledo (633) approved the use of a single ablution in baptism, as a protest against the false trinitarian theories of the Arians, who seem to have given to the threefold immersion a significance which made it imply three natures in the Holy Trinity. To insist on the unity and consubstantiality of the three Divine Persons, the Spanish Catholics adopted the single ablution and this method had the approval of Pope Gregory the Great (I, Ep. xliii). The Eunomian heretics used only one immersion and their baptism was held invalid by the First Council of Constantinople (can. vii); but this was not on account of the single ablution, but apparently because they baptized in the death of Christ. The authority of this canon is, moreover, doubtful at best.

(2) Form

The requisite and sole valid form of baptism is: “I baptize thee (or This person is baptized) in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.” This was the form given by Christ to His Disciples in the twenty-eighth chapter of St. Matthew’s Gospel, as far, at least, as there is question of the invocation of the separate Persons of the Trinity and the expression of the nature of the action performed. For the Latin usage: “I baptize thee”, etc., we have the authority of the Council of Trent (Sess. VII, can. iv) and of the Council of Florence in the Decree of Union. In addition we have the constant practice of the whole Western Church. The Latins also recognize as valid the form used by the Greeks: “This servant of Christ is baptized”, etc. The Florentine decree acknowledges the validity of this form and it is moreover recognized by the Bull of Leo X, “Accepimus nuper”, and of Clement VII, “Provisionis nostrae.” Substantially, the Latin and Greek forms are the same, and the Latin Church has never rebaptized Orientals on their return to unity. At one time some Western theologians disputed the Greek form, because they doubted the validity of the imperative or deprecatory formula: “Let this person be baptized” (baptizetur). As a matter of fact, however, the Greeks use the indicative, or enuntiative, formula: “This person is baptized” (baptizetai, baptizetur). This is unquestionable from their Euchologies, and from the testimony of Arcudius (apud Cat., tit. ii, cap. i), of Goar (Rit. Græc. Illust.), of Martene (De Ant. Eccl. Rit., I) and of the theological compendium of the schismatical Russians (St. Petersburg, 1799). It is true that in the decree for the Armenians, Pope Eugene IV uses baptizetur, according to the ordinary version of this decree, but Labbe, in his edition of the Council of Florence seems to consider it a corrupt reading, for in the margin he prints baptizatur. It has been suggested by Goar that the resemblance between baptizetai and baptizetur is responsible for the mistake. The correct translation is, of course, baptizatur.

In administering this sacrament it is absolutely necessary to use the word “baptize” or its equivalent (Alex. VIII, Prop. damn., xxvii), otherwise the ceremony is invalid. This had already been decreed by Alexander III (Cap. Si quis, I, x, De Bapt.), and it is confirmed by the Florentine decree. It has been the constant practice of both the Latin and Greek Churches to make use of words expressing the act performed. St. Thomas (III:66:5) says that since an ablution may be employed for many purposes, it is necessary that in baptism the meaning of the ablution be determined by the words of the form. However, the words: “In the name of the Father”, etc., would not be sufficient by themselves to determine the sacramental nature of the ablution. St. Paul (Colossians 3) exhorts us to do all things in the name of God, and consequently an ablution could be performed in the name of the Trinity to obtain restoration of health. Therefore it is that in the form of this sacrament, the act of baptism must be expressed, and the matter and form be united to leave no doubt of the meaning of the ceremony. In addition to the necessary word “baptize”, or its equivalent, it is also obligatory to mention the separate Persons of the Holy Trinity. This is the command of Christ to His Disciples, and as the sacrament has its efficacy from Him Who instituted it, we can not omit anything that He has prescribed. Nothing is more certain than that this has been the general understanding and practice of the Church. Tertullian tells us (De Bapt., xiii): “The law of baptism (tingendi) has been imposed and the form prescribed: Go, teach the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.” St. Justin Martyr (Apol., I) testifies to the practice in his time. St. Ambrose (De Myst., IV) declares: “Unless a person has been baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, he can not obtain the remission of his sins,” St. Cyprian (Ad Jubaian.), rejecting the validity of baptism given in the name of Christ only, affirms that the naming of all the Persons of the Trinity was commanded by the Lord (in plena et adunata Trinitate). The same is declared by many other primitive writers, as St. Jerome (IV, in Matt.), Origen (De Princ., i, ii), St. Athanasius (Or. iv, Contr. Ar.), St. Augustine (De Bapt., vi, 25). It is not, of course, absolutely necessary that the common names Father, Son, and Holy Ghost be used, provided the Persons be expressed by words that are equivalent or synonymous. But a distinct naming of the Divine Persons is required and the form: “I baptize thee in the name of the Holy Trinity”, would be of more than doubtful validity. The singular form “In the name”, not “names”, is also to be employed, as it expresses the unity of the Divine nature. When, through ignorance, an accidental, not substantial, change has been made in the form (as In nomine patriâ for Patris), the baptism is to be held valid.

The mind of the Church as to the necessity of serving the trinitarian formula in this sacrament has been clearly shown by her treatment of baptism conferred by heretics. Any ceremony that did not observe this form has been declared invalid. The Montanists baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and Montanus and Priscilla (St. Basil, Ep. i, Ad Amphil.). As a consequence, the Council of Laodicea ordered their rebaptism. The Arians at the time of the Council of Nicæa do not seem to have tampered with the baptismal formula, for that Council does not order their rebaptism. When, then, St. Athanasius (Or. ii, Contr. Ar.) and St. Jerome (Contra Lucif.) declare the Arians to have baptized in the name of the Creator and creatures, they must either refer to their doctrine or to a later changing of the sacramental form. It is well known that the latter was the case with the Spanish Arians and that consequently converts from the sect were rebaptized. The Anomæans, a branch of the Arians, baptized with the formula: “In the name of the uncreated God and in the name of the created Son, and in the name of the Sanctifying Spirit, procreated by the created Son” (Epiphanius, Hær., Ixxvii).

Other Arian sects, such as the Eunomians and Aetians, baptized “in the death of Christ”. Converts from Sabellianism were ordered by the First Council of Constantinople (can. vii) to be rebaptized because the doctrine of Sabellius that there was but one person in the Trinity had infected their baptismal form. The two sects sprung from Paul of Samosata, who denied Christ’s Divinity, likewise conferred invalid baptism. They were the Paulianists and Photinians. Pope Innocent I (Ad. Episc. Maced., vi) declares that these sectaries did not distinguish the Persons of the Trinity when baptizing. The Council of Nicæa (can. xix) ordered the rebaptism of Paulianists, and the Council of Aries (can. xvi and xvii) decreed the same for both Paulianists and Photinians.

There has been a theological controversy over the question as to whether baptism in the name of Christ only was ever held valid. Certain texts in the New Testament have given rise to this difficulty. Thus St. Paul (Acts 19) commands some disciples at Ephesus to be baptized in Christ’s name: “They were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” In Acts 10, we read that St. Peter ordered others to be baptized “in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ”. Those who were converted by Philip. (Acts 8) “were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ”, and above all we have the explicit command of the Prince of the Apostles: “Be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins (Acts 2).

Owing to these texts some theologians have held that the Apostles baptized in the name of Christ only. St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure, and Albertus Magnus are invoked as authorities for this opinion, they declaring that the Apostles so acted by special dispensation. Other writers, as Peter Lombard and Hugh of St. Victor, hold also that such baptism would be valid, but say nothing of a dispensation for the Apostles. The most probable opinion, however, seems to be that the terms “in the name of Jesus”, “in the name of Christ”, either refer to baptism in the faith taught by Christ, or are employed to distinguish Christian baptism from that of John the Precursor. It seems altogether unlikely that immediately after Christ had solemnly promulgated the trinitarian formula of baptism, the Apostles themselves would have substituted another. In fact, the words of St. Paul (Acts 19) imply quite plainly that they did not. For, when some Christians at Ephesus declared that they had never heard of the Holy Ghost, the Apostle asks: “In whom then were you baptized?” This text certainly seems to declare that St. Paul took it for granted that the Ephesians must have heard the name of the Holy Ghost when the sacramental formula of baptism was pronounced over them.

The authority of Pope Stephen I has been alleged for the validity of baptism given in the name of Christ only. St. Cyprian says (Ep. ad Jubaian.) that this pontiff declared all baptism valid provided it was given in the name of Jesus Christ. It must be noted that the same explanation applies to Stephen’s words as to the Scriptural texts above given. Moreover, Firmilian, in his letter to St. Cyprian, implies that Pope Stephen required an explicit mention of the Trinity in baptism, for he quotes the pontiff as declaring that the sacramental grace is conferred because a person has been baptized “with the invocation of the names of the Trinity, Father and Son and Holy Ghost”. A passage that is very difficult of explanation is found in the works of St. Ambrose (Lib. I, De Sp. S., iii), where he declares that if a person names one of the Trinity, he names all of them: “If you say Christ, you have designated God the Father, by whom the Son was anointed, and Him Who was anointed Son, and the Holy Ghost in whom He was anointed.” This passage has been generally interpreted as referring to the faith of the catechumen, but not to the baptismal form. More difficult is the explanation of the response of Pope Nicholas I to the Bulgarians (cap. civ; Labbe, VIII), in which he states that a person is not to be rebaptized who has already been baptized “in the name of the Holy Trinity or in the name of Christ only, as we read in the Acts of the Apostles (for it is one and the same thing, as St. Ambrose has explained)”. As in the passage to which the pope alludes, St. Ambrose was speaking of the faith of the recipient of baptism, as we have already stated, it has been held probable that this is also the meaning that Pope Nicholas intended his words to convey (see another explanation in Pesch, Prælect. Dogm., VI, no. 389). What seems to confirm this is the same pontiff’s reply to the Bulgarians (Resp. 15) on another occasion when they consulted him on a practical case. They inquired whether certain persons are to be rebaptized on whom a man, pretending to be a Greek priest, had conferred baptism? Pope Nicholas replies that the baptism is to be held valid “if they were baptized, in the name of the supreme and undivided Trinity”. Here the pope does not give baptism in the name of Christ only as an alternative. Moralists raise the question of the validity of a baptism in whose administration something else had been added to the prescribed form as “and in the name of the Blessed Virgin Mary”. They reply that such baptism would be invalid, if the minister intended thereby to attribute the same efficacy to the added name as to the names of the Three Divine Persons. If, however, it was done through a mistaken piety only, it would not interfere with the validity (S. Alph., n. 111).

VII. CONDITIONAL BAPTISM

From the foregoing it is evident that not all baptism administered by heretics or schismatics is invalid. On the contrary, if the proper matter and form be used and the one conferring the sacrament really “intends to perform what the Church performs” the baptism is undoubtedly valid. This is also authoritatively stated in the decree for the Armenians and the canons of the Council of Trent already given. The question becomes a practical one when converts to the Faith have to be dealt with. If there were one authorized mode of baptizing among the sects, and if the necessity and true significance of the sacrament were uniformly taught and put in practice among them, there would be little difficulty as to the status of converts from the sects. But there is no such unity of teaching and practice among them, and consequently the particular case of each convert must be examined into when there is question of his reception into the Church. For not only are there religious denominations in which baptism is in all probability not validly administered, but there are those also which have a ritual sufficient indeed for validity, but in practice the likelihood of their members having received baptism validly is more than doubtful. As a consequence converts must be dealt with differently. If it be certain that a convert was validly baptized in heresy, the sacrament is not repeated, but the ceremonies which had been omitted in such baptism are to be supplied, unless the bishop, for sufficient reasons, judges that they can be dispensed with. (For the United States, see Conc. Prov. Balt., I.) If it be uncertain whether the convert’s baptism was valid or not, then he is to be baptized conditionally. In such cases the ritual is: “If thou art not yet baptized, then I baptize thee in the name”, etc. The First Synod of Westminster, England, directs that adult converts are to be baptized not publicly but privately with holy water (i.e. not the consecrated baptismal water) and without the usual ceremonies (Decr. xvi). Practically, converts in the United States are almost invariably baptized either absolutely or conditionally, not because the baptism administered by heretics is held to be invalid, but because it is generally impossible to discover whether they had ever been properly baptized. Even in cases where a ceremony had certainly been performed, reasonable doubt of validity will generally remain, on account of either the intention of the administrator or the mode of administration. Still each case must be examined into (S. C. Inquis., 20 Nov., 1878) lest the sacrament be sacrilegiously repeated.

As to the baptism of the various sects, Sabetti (no. 662) states that the Oriental Churches and the “Old Catholics” generally administer baptism accurately; the Socinians and Quakers do not baptize at all; the Baptists use the rite only for adults, and the efficacy of their baptism has been called in question owing to the separation of the matter and the form, for the latter is pronounced before the immersion takes place; the Congregationalists, Unitarians and Universalists deny the necessity of baptism, and hence the presumption is that they do not administer it accurately; the Methodists and Presbyterians baptize by aspersion or sprinkling, and it may be reasonably doubted whether the water has touched the body and flowed upon it; among the Episcopalians many consider baptism to have no true efficacy and to be merely an empty ceremony, and consequently there is a well-grounded fear that they are not sufficiently careful in its administration. To this may be added, that Episcopalians often baptize by aspersion, and though such a method is undoubtedly valid if properly employed, yet in practice it is quite possible that the sprinkled water may not touch the skin. Sabetti also notes that ministers of the same sect do not everywhere follow a uniform method of baptizing. The practical method of reconciling heretics with the Church is as follows:– If baptism be conferred absolutely, the convert is to make no abjuration or profession of faith, nor is he to make a confession of his sins and receive absolution, because the sacrament of regeneration washes away his past offences. If his baptism is to be conditional, he must first make an abjuration of his errors, or a profession of faith, then receive the conditional baptism, and lastly make a sacramental confession followed by conditional absolution. If the convert’s former baptism was judged to be certainly valid, he is only to make the abjuration or the profession of faith and receive absolution from the censures he may have incurred (Excerpta Rit. Rom., 1878). The abjuration or profession of faith here prescribed is the Creed of Pius IV, translated into the vernacular. In the case of conditional baptism, the confession may precede the administration of the rite and the conditional absolution be imparted after the baptism. This is often done as a matter of fact, as the confession is an excellent preparation for the reception of the sacrament (De Herdt, VI, viii; Sabetti, no. 725).

VIII. REBAPTISM

To complete the consideration of the validity of baptism conferred by heretics, we must give some account of the celebrated controversy that raged around this point in the ancient Church. In Africa and Asia Minor the custom had been introduced in the early part of the third century of rebaptizing all converts from heresy. As far as can be now ascertained, the practice of rebaptism arose in Africa owing to decrees of a Synod of Carthage held probably between 218 and 222; while in Asia Minor it seems to have had its origin at the Synod of Iconium, celebrated between 230 and 235. The controversy on rebaptism is especially connected with the names of Pope St. Stephen and of St. Cyprian of Carthage. The latter was the main champion of the practice of rebaptizing. The pope, however, absolutely condemned the practice, and commanded that heretics on entering the Church should receive only the imposition of hands in paenitentiam. In this celebrated controversy it is to noted that Pope Stephen declares that he is upholding the primitive custom when he declares for the validity of baptism conferred by heretics.

Cyprian, on the contrary, implicitly admits that antiquity is against his own practice, but stoutly maintains that it is more in accordance with an enlightened study of the subject. The tradition against him he declares to be “a human and unlawful tradition”. Neither Cyprian, however, nor his zealous abettor, Firmilian, could show that rebaptism was older than the century in which they were living. The contemporaneous but anonymous author of the book “De Rebaptismate” says that the ordinances of Pope Stephen, forbidding the rebaptism of converts, are in accordance with antiquity and ecclesiastical tradition, and are consecrated as an ancient, memorable, and solemn observance of all the saints and of all the faithful. St. Augustine believes that the custom of not rebaptizing is an Apostolic tradition, and St. Vincent of Lérins declares that the Synod of Carthage introduced rebaptism against the Divine Law (canonem), against the rule of the universal Church, and against the customs and institutions of the ancients. By Pope Stephen’s decision, he continues, antiquity was retained and novelty was destroyed (retenta est antiquitas, explosa novitas). It is true that the so-called Apostolic Canons (xlv and xlvi) speak of the non-validity of baptism conferred by heretics, but Döllinger says that these canons are comparatively recent, and De Marca points out that St. Cyprian would have appealed to them had they been in existence before the controversy. Pope St. Stephen, therefore, upheld a doctrine already ancient in the third century when he declared against the rebaptism of heretics, and decided that the sacrament was not to be repeated because its first administration had been valid, This has been the law of the Church ever since.

IX. NECESSITY OF BAPTISM

Theologians distinguish a twofold necessity, which they call a necessity of means (medii) and a necessity of precept (præcepti), The first (medii) indicates a thing to be so necessary that, if lacking (though inculpably), salvation can not be attained, The second (præcepti) is had when a thing is indeed so necessary that it may not be omitted voluntarily without sin; yet, ignorance of the precept or inability to fulfill it, excuses one from its observance. Baptism is held to be necessary both necessitate medii and præcepti. This doctrine is rounded on the words of Christ. In John, iii, He declares: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he can not enter into the kingdom of God.” Christ makes no exception to this law and it is therefore general in its application, embracing both adults and infants. It is consequently not merely a necessity of precept but also a necessity of means. This is the sense in which it has always been understood by the Church, and the Council of Trent (Sess, IV, cap, vi) teaches that justification can not be obtained, since the promulgation of the Gospel, without the washing of regeneration or the desire thereof (in voto), In the seventh session, it declares (can. v) anathema upon anyone who says that baptism is not necessary for salvation. We have rendered votum by “desire” for want of a better word. The council does not mean by votum a simple desire of receiving baptism or even a resolution to do so. It means by votum an act of perfect charity or contrition, including, at least implicitly, the will to do all things necessary for salvation and thus especially to receive baptism, The absolute necessity of this sacrament is often insisted on by the Fathers of the Church, especially when they speak of infant baptism. Thus St. Irenæus (II, xxii): “Christ came to save all who are reborn through Him to God,infants, children, and youths” (infantes et parvulos et pueros). St. Augustine (III De Anima) says “If you wish to be a Catholic, do not believe, nor say, nor teach, that infants who die before baptism can obtain the remission of original sin.” A still stronger passage from the same doctor (Ep, xxviii, Ad Hieron.) reads:”Whoever says that even infants are vivified in Christ when they depart this life without the participation of His Sacrament (Baptism), both opposes the Apostolic preaching and condemns the whole Church which hastens to baptize infants, because it unhesitatingly believes that otherwise they can not possibly be vivified in Christ,” St. Ambrose (II De Abraham., c. xi) speaking of the necessity of baptism, says:” No one is excepted, not the infant, not the one hindered by any necessity.” In the Pelagian controversy we find similarly strong pronouncements on the part of the Councils of Carthage and Milevis, and of Pope Innocent I. It is owing to the Church’s belief in this necessity of baptism as a means to salvation that, as was already noted by St. Augustine, she committed the power of baptism in certain contingencies even to laymen and women. When it is said that baptism is also necessary, by the necessity of precept (praecepti), it is of course understood that this applies only to such as are capable of receiving a precept, viz. adults.

The necessity in this case is shown by the command of Christ to His Apostles (Matthew 28): “Go and teach all nations, baptizing them”, etc. Since the Apostles are commanded to baptize, the nations are commanded to receive baptism. The necessity of baptism has been called in question by some of the Reformers or their immediate forerunners. It was denied by Wyclif, Bucer, and Zwingli. According to Calvin it is necessary for adults as a precept but not as a means. Hence he contends that the infants of believing parents are sanctified in the womb and thus freed from original sin without baptism. The Socinians teach that baptism is merely an external profession of the Christian faith and a rite which each one is free to receive or neglect. An argument against the absolute necessity of baptism has been sought in the text of Scripture: “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you” (John 6). Here, they say, is a parallel to the text: “Unless a man be born again of water”. Yet everyone admits that the Eucharist is not necessary as a means but only as a precept. The reply to this is obvious. In the first instance, Christ addresses His words in the second person to adults; in the second, He speaks in the third person and without any distinction whatever. Another favorite text is that of St. Paul (1 Corinthians 7): “The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the believing wife; and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the believing husband; otherwise your children should be unclean; but now they are holy.” Unfortunately for the strength of this argument, the context shows that the Apostle in this passage is not treating of regenerating or sanctifying grace at all, but answering certain questions proposed to him by the Corinthians concerning the validity of marriages between heathens and believers. The validity of such marriages is proved from the fact that children born of them are legitimate, not spurious. As far as the term “sanctified” is concerned, it can, at most, mean that the believing husband or wife may convert the unbelieving party and thus become an occasion of their sanctification. A certain statement in the funeral oration of St. Ambrose over the Emperor Valentinian II has been brought forward as a proof that the Church offered sacrifices and prayers for catechumens who died before baptism. There is not a vestige of such a custom to be found anywhere. St. Ambrose may have done so for the soul of the catechumen Valentinian, but this would be a solitary instance, and it was done apparently because he believed that the emperor had had the baptism of desire. The practice of the Church is more correctly shown in the canon (xvii) of the Second Council of Braga: “Neither the commemoration of Sacrifice [oblationis] nor the service of chanting [psallendi] is to be employed for catechumens who have died without the redemption of baptism.” The arguments for a contrary usage sought in the Second Council of Arles (c. xii) and the Fourth Council of Carthage (c. Ixxix) are not to the point, for these councils speak, not of catechumens, but of penitents who had died suddenly before their expiation was completed. It is true that some Catholic writers (as Cajetan, Durandus, Biel, Gerson, Toletus, Klee) have held that infants may be saved by an act of desire on the part of their parents, which is applied to them by some external sign, such as prayer or the invocation of the Holy Trinity; but Pius V, by expunging this opinion, as expressed by Cajetan, from that author’s commentary on St. Thomas, manifested his judgment that such a theory was not agreeable to the Church’s belief.

X. SUBSTITUTES FOR THE SACRAMENT

The Fathers and theologians frequently divide baptism into three kinds: the baptism of water (aquæ or fluminis), the baptism of desire (flaminis), and the baptism of blood (sanguinis). However, only the first is a real sacrament. The latter two are denominated baptism only analogically, inasmuch as they supply the principal effect of baptism, namely, the grace which remits sins. It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that when the baptism of water becomes a physical or moral impossibility, eternal life may be obtained by the baptism of desire or the baptism of blood.

(1) The Baptism of Desire

The baptism of desire (baptismus flaminis) is a perfect contrition of heart, and every act of perfect charity or pure love of God which contains, at least implicitly, a desire (votum) of baptism. The Latin word flamen is used because Flamen is a name for the Holy Ghost, Whose special office it is to move the heart to love God and to conceive penitence for sin. The “baptism of the Holy Ghost” is a term employed in the third century by the anonymous author of the book “De Rebaptismate”. The efficacy of this baptism of desire to supply the place of the baptism of water, as to its principal effect, is proved from the words of Christ. After He had declared the necessity of baptism (John 3), He promised justifying grace for acts of charity or perfect contrition (John 14): “He that loveth Me, shall be loved of my Father: and I will love him and will manifest myself to him.” And again: “If any one love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him.” Since these texts declare that justifying grace is bestowed on account of acts of perfect charity or contrition, it is evident that these acts supply the place of baptism as to its principal effect, the remission of sins. This doctrine is set forth clearly by the Council of Trent. In the fourteenth session (cap. iv) the council teaches that contrition is sometimes perfected by charity, and reconciles man to God, before the Sacrament of Penance is received. In the fourth chapter of the sixth session, in speaking of the necessity of baptism, it says that men can not obtain original justice “except by the washing of regeneration or its desire” (voto). The same doctrine is taught by Pope Innocent III (cap. Debitum, iv, De Bapt.), and the contrary propositions are condemned by Popes Pius V and Gregory XII, in proscribing the 31st and 33rd propositions of Baius.

We have already alluded to the funeral oration pronounced by St. Ambrose over the Emperor Valentinian II, a catechumen. The doctrine of the baptism of desire is here clearly set forth. St. Ambrose asks: “Did he not obtain the grace which he desired? Did he not obtain what he asked for? Certainly he obtained it because he asked for it.” St. Augustine (IV, De Bapt., xxii) and St. Bernard (Ep. Ixxvii, ad H. de S. Victore) likewise discourse in the same sense concerning the baptism of desire. If it be said that this doctrine contradicts the universal law of baptism made by Christ (John 3), the answer is that the lawgiver has made an exception (John 14) in favor of those who have the baptism of desire. Neither would it be a consequence of this doctrine that a person justified by the baptism of desire would thereby be dispensed from seeking after the baptism of water when the latter became a possibility. For, as has already been explained the baptismus flaminis contains the votum of receiving the baptismus aquæ. It is true that some of the Fathers of the Church arraign severely those who content themselves with the desire of receiving the sacrament of regeneration, but they are speaking of catechumens who of their own accord delay the reception of baptism from unpraiseworthy motives. Finally, it is to be noted that only adults are capable of receiving the baptism of desire.

(2) The Baptism of Blood

The baptism of blood (baptismus sanquinis) is the obtaining of the grace of justification by suffering martyrdom for the faith of Christ. The term “washing of blood” (lavacrum sanguinis) is used by Tertullian (De Bapt., xvi) to distinguish this species of regeneration from the “washing of water” (lavacrum aquæ). “We have a second washing”, he says “which is one and the same [with the first], namely the washing of blood.” St. Cyprian (Ep. lxxiii) speaks of “the most glorious and greatest baptism of blood” (sanguinis baptismus). St. Augustine (De Civ. Dei, XIII, vii) says: “When any die for the confession of Christ without having received the washing of regeneration, it avails as much for the remission of their sins as if they had been washed in the sacred font of baptism.” The Church grounds her belief in the efficacy of the baptism of blood on the fact that Christ makes a general statement of the saving power of martyrdom in the tenth chapter of St. Matthew: “Every one therefore that shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father who is in heaven” (verse 32); and: “He that shall lose his life for me shall find it” (verse 39). It is pointed out that these texts are so broadly worded as to include even infants, especially the latter text. That the former text also applies to them, has been constantly maintained by the Fathers, who declare that if infants can not confess Christ with the mouth, they can by act. Tertullian (Adv. Valent., ii) speaks of the infants slaughtered by Herod as martyrs, and this has been the constant teaching of the Church. Another evidence of the mind of the Church as to the efficacy of the baptism of blood is found in the fact that she never prays for martyrs. Her opinion is well voiced by St. Augustine (Tr. lxxiv in Joan.): “He does an injury to a martyr who prays for him.” This shows that martyrdom is believed to remit all sin and all punishment due to sin. Later theologians commonly maintain that the baptism of blood justifies adult martyrs independently of an act of charity or perfect contrition, and, as it were, ex opere operato, though, of course, they must have attrition for past sins. The reason is that if perfect charity, or contrition, were required in martyrdom, the distinction between the baptism of blood and the baptism of desire would be a useless one. Moreover, as it must be conceded that infant martyrs are justified without an act of charity, of which they are incapable, there is no solid reason for denying the same privilege to adults. (Cf. Suarez, De Bapt., disp. xxxix.)

XI. UNBAPTIZED INFANTS

The fate of infants who die without baptism must be briefly considered here. The Catholic teaching is uncompromising on this point, that all who depart this life without baptism, be it of water, or blood, or desire, are perpetually excluded from the vision of God. This teaching is grounded, as we have seen, on Scripture and tradition, and the decrees of the Church. Moreover, that those who die in original sin, without ever having contracted any actual sin, are deprived of the happiness of heaven is stated explicitly in the Confession of Faith of the Eastern Emperor Michael Palæologus, which had been proposed to him by Pope Clement IV in 1267, and which he accepted in the presence of Gregory X at the Second Council of Lyons in 1274. The same doctrine is found also in the Decree of Union of the Greeks, in the Bull “Lætentur Caeli” of Pope Eugene IV, in the Profession of Faith prescribed for the Greeks by Pope Gregory XIII, and in that authorized for the Orientals by Urban VIII and Benedict XIV. Many Catholic theologians have declared that infants dying without baptism are excluded from the beatific vision; but as to the exact state of these souls in the next world they are not agreed.

In speaking of souls who have failed to attain salvation, these theologians distinguish the pain of loss (paena damni), or privation of the beatific vision, and the pain of sense (paena sensus). Though these theologians have thought it certain that unbaptized infants must endure the pain of loss, they have not been similarly certain that they are subject to the pain of sense. St. Augustine (De Pecc. et Mer., I, xvi) held that they would not be exempt from the pain of sense, but at the same time he thought it would be of the mildest form. On the other hand, St. Gregory Nazianzen (Or. in S. Bapt.) expresses the belief that such infants would suffer only the pain of loss. Sfondrati (Nod. Prædest., I, i) declares that while they are certainly excluded from heaven, yet they are not deprived of natural happiness. This opinion seemed so objectionable to some French bishops that they asked the judgment of the Holy See upon the matter. Pope Innocent XI replied that he would have the opinion examined into by a commission of theologians, but no sentence seems ever to have been passed upon it. Since the twelfth century, the opinion of the majority of theologians has been that unbaptized infants are immune from all pain of sense. This was taught by St. Thomas Aquinas, Scotus, St. Bonaventure, Peter Lombard, and others, and is now the common teaching in the schools. It accords with the wording of a decree of Pope Innocent III (III Decr., xlii, 3): “The punishment of original sin is the deprivation of the vision of God; of actual sin, the eternal pains of hell.” Infants, of course, can not be guilty of actual sin.

Other theologians have urged that, under the law of nature and the Mosaic dispensation, children could be saved by the act of their parents and that consequently the same should be even more easy of attainment under the law of grace, because the power of faith has not been diminished but increased. Common objections to this theory include the fact that infants are not said to be deprived of justification in the New Law through any decrease in the power of faith, but because of the promulgation by Christ of the precept of baptism which did not exist before the New Dispensation. Nor would this make the case of infants worse than it was before the Christian Church was instituted. While it works a hardship for some, it has undoubtedly improved the condition of most. Supernatural faith is now much more diffused than it was before the coming of Christ, and more infants are now saved by baptism than were justified formerly by the active faith of their parents. Moreover, baptism can more readily be applied to infants than the rite of circumcision, and by the ancient law this ceremony had to be deferred till the eighth day after birth, while baptism can be bestowed upon infants immediately after they are born, and in case of necessity even in their mother’s womb. Finally it must be borne in mind that unbaptized infants, if deprived of heaven, would not be deprived unjustly. The vision of God is not something to which human beings have a natural claim. It is a free gift of the Creator who can make what conditions He chooses for imparting it or withholding it. No injustice is involved when an undue privilege is not conferred upon a person. Original sin deprived the human race of an unearned right to heaven. Through the Divine mercy this bar to the enjoyment of God is removed by baptism; but if baptism be not conferred, original sin remains, and the unregenerated soul, having no claim on heaven, is not unjustly excluded from it.

As to the question, whether in addition to freedom from the pain of sense, unbaptized infants enjoy any positive happiness in the next world, theologians are not agreed, nor is there any pronouncement of the Church on the subject, Many, following St. Thomas (De Malo, Q. v, a. 3), declare that these infants are not saddened by the loss of the beatific vision, either because they have no knowledge of it, and hence are not sensible of their privation; or because, knowing it their will is entirely conformed to God’s will and they are conscious that they have missed an undue privilege through no fault of their own. In addition to this freedom from regret at the loss of heaven, these infants may also enjoy some positive happiness. St. Thomas (In II Sent., dist. XXXIII, Q. ii, a. 5) says: “Although unbaptized infants are separated from God as far as glory is concerned, yet they are not separated from Him entirely. Rather are they joined to Him by a participation of natural goods; and so they may even rejoice in Him by natural consideration and love,” Again (a. 2) he says: “They will rejoice in this, that they will share largely in the divine goodness and in natural perfections.” While the opinion, then, that unbaptized infants may enjoy a natural knowledge and love of God and rejoice in it, is perfectly tenable, it has not the certainty that would arise from a unanimous consent of the Fathers of the Church, or from a favorable pronouncement of ecclesiastical authority.

[Editor’s note: On this subject, the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church states: “As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,” allows us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.”]

We may add here some brief remarks on the discipline of the Church in regard to unbaptized persons. As baptism is the door of the Church, the unbaptized are entirely without its pale. As a consequence: Such persons, by the ordinary law of the Church, may not receive Catholic funeral rites. The reason of this regulation is given by Pope Innocent III (Decr., III, XXVIII, xii): “It has been decreed by the sacred canons that we are to have no communion with those who are dead, if we have not communicated with them while alive.” According to Canon Law (CIC 1183), however, catechumens “are to be considered members of the Christian faithful” as regard funeral rites. The Plenary Council of Baltimore also decrees (No. 389) that the custom of burying the unbaptized relatives of Catholics in the family sepulchers may be tolerated. [Editor’s note: The 1983 Code of Canon Law excepts an unbaptized child of Catholic parents, if the parents had intended to have him baptized.] A Catholic may not marry an unbaptized person without dispensation, under pain of nullity. This impediment, as far as illiceity is concerned, is derived from the natural law, because in such unions the Catholic party and the offspring of the marriage would, in most cases, be exposed to the loss of faith. The invalidity of such marriage, however, is a consequence only of positive law. For, in the beginning of Christianity, unions between the baptized and unbaptized were frequent, and they were certainly held valid. When, then, circumstances arise where the danger of perversion for the Catholic party is removed, the Church dispenses in her law of prohibition, but always requires guarantees from the non-Catholic party that there will be no interference with the spiritual rights of the partner of the union. (See IMPEDIMENTS OF MATRIMONY.)

In general, we may state that the Church claims no authority over unbaptized persons, as they are entirely without her pale. She makes laws concerning them only in so far as they hold relations with the subjects of the Church.

XII. EFFECTS OF BAPTISM

This sacrament is the door of the Church of Christ and the entrance into a new life. We are reborn from the state of slaves of sin into the freedom of the Sons of God. Baptism incorporates us with Christ’s mystical body and makes us partakers of all the privileges flowing from the redemptive act of the Church’s Divine Founder. We shall now outline the principal effects of baptism.

(1) The Remission of All Sin, Original and Actual

This is clearly contained in the Bible. Thus we read (Acts 2:38): “Be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins; and you shall receive the Holy Ghost. For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, whomsoever the Lord our God shall call.” We read also in the twenty-second chapter of the Acts of the Apostles (verse 16): “Be baptized, and wash away thy sins.” St. Paul in the fifth chapter of his Epistle to the Ephesians beautifully represents the whole Church as being baptized and purified (5:25 sq.): “Christ loved the Church, and delivered Himself up for it: that he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the washing of water in the word of life: that he might present it to Himself a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.” The prophecy of Ezechiel (36:25) has also been understood of baptism: “I will pour upon you clean water, and you shall be cleansed from all your filthiness (inquinamentis), where the prophet is unquestionably speaking of moral defilements. This is also the solemn teaching of the Church. In the profession of faith prescribed by Pope Innocent III for the Waldensians in 1210, we read: We believe that all sins are remitted in baptism, both original sin and those sins which have been voluntarily committed.” The Council of Trent (Sess. V., can. v) anathematizes whomsoever denies that the grace of Christ which is conferred in baptism does not remit the guilt of original sin; or asserts that everything which can truly and properly be called sin is not thereby taken away. The same is taught by the Fathers. St. Justin Martyr (Apol., I, Ixvi) declares that in baptism we are created anew, that is, consequently, free from all stain of sin. St. Ambrose (De Myst., iii) says of baptism: “This is the water in which the flesh is submerged that all carnal sin may be washed away. Every transgression is there buried.” Tertullian (De Bapt., vii) writes: “Baptism is a carnal act in as much as we are submerged in the water; but the effect is spiritual, for we are freed from our sins.” The words of Origen (In Gen., xiii) are classic: “If you transgress, you write unto yourself the handwriting [chirographum] of sin. But, behold, when you have once approached to the cross of Christ and to the grace of baptism, your handwriting is affixed to the cross and blotted out in the font of baptism.” It is needless to multiply testimonies from the early ages of the Church. It is a point on which the Fathers are unanimous, and telling quotations might also be made from St. Cyprian, Clement of Alexandria, St. Hilary, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Basil, St. Gregory Nazianzen, and others.

(2) Remission of Temporal Punishment

Baptism not only washes away sin, it also remits the punishment of sin. This was the plain teaching of the primitive Church. We read in Clement of Alexandria (Pædagog., i) of baptism: “It is called a washing because we are washed from our sins: it is called grace, because by it the punishments which are due to sin are remitted.” St. Jerome (Ep. Ixix) writes: “After the pardon (indulgentiam) of baptism, the severity of the Judge is not to be feared.” And St. Augustine (De Pecc. et Mer., II, xxviii) says plainly: “If immediately [after baptism] there follows the departure from this life, there will be absolutely nothing that a man must answer for [quod obnoxium hominem teneat], for he will have been freed from everything that bound him.” In perfect accord with the early doctrine, the Florentine decree states: “No satisfaction is to be enjoined upon the baptized for past sins; and if they die before any sin, they will immediately attain to the kingdom of heaven and to the vision of God.” In like manner the Council of Trent (Sess. V) teaches: “There is no cause of damnation in those who have been truly buried with Christ by baptism . . . Nothing whatever will delay their entrance into heaven.”

(3) Infusion of Supernatural Grace, Gifts, and Virtues

Another effect of baptism is the infusion of sanctifying grace and supernatural gifts and virtues. It is this sanctifying grace which renders men the adopted sons of God and confers the right to heavenly glory. The doctrine on this subject is found in the seventh chapter on justification in the sixth session of the Council of Trent. Many of the Fathers of the Church also enlarge upon this subject (as St. Cyprian, St. Jerome, Clement of Alexandria, and others), though not in the technical language of later ecclesiastical decrees.

(4) Conferral of the Right to Special Graces

Theologians likewise teach that baptism gives man the right to those special graces which are necessary for attaining the end for which the sacrament was instituted and for enabling him to fulfill the baptismal promises. This doctrine of the schools, which claims for every sacrament those graces which are peculiar and diverse according to the end and object of the sacrament, was already enunciated by Tertullian (De Resurrect., viii). It is treated and developed by St. Thomas Aquinas (III:62:2). Pope Eugene IV repeats this doctrine in the decree for the Armenians. In treating of the grace bestowed by baptism, we presume that the recipient of the sacrament puts no obstacle (obex) in the way of sacramental grace. In an infant, of course, this would be impossible, and as a consequence, the infant receives at once all the baptismal grace. It is otherwise in the case of an adult, for in such a one it is necessary that the requisite dispositions of the soul be present. The Council of Trent (Sess. VI, c. vii) states that each one receives grace according to his disposition and co-operation. We are not to confound an obstacle (obex) to the sacrament itself with an obstacle to the sacramental grace. In the first case, there is implied a defect in the matter or form, or a lack of the requisite intention on the part of minister or recipient, and then the sacrament would be simply null. But even if all these essential requisites for constituting the sacrament be present, there can still be an obstacle put in the way of the sacramental grace, inasmuch as an adult might receive baptism with improper motives or without real detestation for sin. In that case the person would indeed be validly baptized, but he would not participate in the sacramental grace. If, however, at a later time he made amends for the past, the obstacle would be removed and he would obtain the grace which he had failed to receive when the sacrament was conferred upon him. In such a case the sacrament is said to revive and there could be no question of rebaptism.

(5) Impression of a Character on the Soul

Finally, baptism, once validly conferred, can never be repeated. The Fathers (St. Ambrose, Chrysostom, and others) so understand the words of St. Paul (Hebrews 6:4), and this has been the constant teaching of the Church both Eastern and Western from the earliest times. On this account, baptism is said to impress an ineffaceable character on the soul, which the Tridentine Fathers call a spiritual and indelible mark. That baptism (as well as Confirmation and Holy orders) really does imprint such a character, is defined explicitly by the Council of Trent (Sess. VII, can. ix). St. Cyril (Præp. in Cat.) calls baptism a “holy and indelible seal”, and Clement of Alexandria (De Div. Serv., xlii), “the seal of the Lord”. St. Augustine compares this character or mark imprinted upon the Christian soul with the character militaris impressed upon soldiers in the imperial service. St. Thomas treats of the nature of this indelible seal, or character, in the Summa (III:63:2).

The early leaders of the so-called Reformation held very different doctrines from those of Christian antiquity on the effects of baptism. Luther (De Captiv. Bab.) and Calvin (Antid. C. Trid.) held that this sacrament made the baptized certain of the perpetual grace of adoption. Others declared that the calling to mind of one’s baptism would free him from sins committed after it; others again, that transgressions of the Divine law, although sins in themselves, would not be imputed as sins to the baptized person provided he had faith. The decrees of the Council of Trent, drawn up in opposition to the then prevailing errors, bear witness to the many strange and novel theories broached by various exponents of the nascent Protestant theology.

XIII. MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENT

The Church distinguishes between the ordinary and the extraordinary minister of baptism. A distinction is also made as to the mode of administration. Solemn baptism is that which is conferred with all the rites and ceremonies prescribed by the Church, and private baptism is that which may be administered at any time or place according to the exigencies of necessity. At one time solemn and public baptism was conferred in the Latin Church only during the paschal season and Whitsuntide. The Orientals administered it likewise at the Epiphany.

(1) Ordinary Minister

The ordinary minister of solemn baptism is first the bishop and second the priest. By delegation, a deacon may confer the sacrament solemnly as an extraordinary minister. Bishops are said to be ordinary ministers because they are the successors of the Apostles who received directly the Divine command: “Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.” Priests are also ordinary ministers because by their office and sacred orders they are pastors of souls and administrators of the sacraments, and hence the Florentine decree declares: “The minister of this Sacrament is the priest, to whom it belongs to administer baptism by reason of his office.” As, however, bishops are superior to priests by the Divine law, the solemn administration of this sacrament was at one time reserved to the bishops, and a priest never administered this sacrament in the presence of a bishop unless commanded to do so, How ancient this discipline was, may be seen from Tertullian (De Bapt., xvii): “The right to confer baptism belongs to the chief priest who is the bishop, then to priests and deacons, but not without the authorization of the bishop.” Ignatius (Ep. ad Smyr., viii): “It is not lawful to baptize or celebrate the agape without the bishop.” St. Jerome (Contra Lucif., ix) witnesses to the same usage in his days: “Without chrism and the command of the bishop, neither priest nor deacon has the right of conferring baptism.” Deacons are only extraordinary ministers of solemn baptism, as by their office they are assistants to the priestly order. St. Isidore of Seville (De Eccl, Off., ii, 25) says: “It is plain that baptism is to be conferred by priests only, and it is not lawful even for deacons to administer it without permission of the bishop or priest.” That deacons were, however, ministers of this sacrament by delegation is evident from the quotations adduced. In the service of ordination of a deacon, the bishop says to the candidate: “It behooves a deacon to minister at the altar, to baptize and to preach.” Philip the deacon is mentioned in the Bible (Acts 8) as conferring baptism, presumably by delegation of the Apostles. It is to be noted that though every priest, in virtue of his ordination is the ordinary minister of baptism, yet by ecclesiastical decrees he can not use this power licitly unless he has jurisdiction. Hence the Roman Ritual declares: The legitimate minister of baptism is the parish priest, or any other priest delegated by the parish priest or the bishop of the place.” The Second Plenary Council of Baltimore adds: “Priests are deserving of grave reprehension who rashly baptize infants of another parish or of another diocese.” St. Alphonsus (n. 114) says that parents who bring their children for baptism without necessity to a priest other than their own pastor, are guilty of sin because they violate the rights of the parish priest. He adds, however, that other priests may baptize such children, if they have the permission, whether express, or tacit, or even reasonably presumed, of the proper pastor. Those who have no settled place of abode may be baptized by the pastor of any church they choose.

(2) Extraordinary Minister

In case of necessity, baptism can be administered lawfully and validly by any person whatsoever who observes the essential conditions, whether this person be a Catholic layman or any other man or woman, heretic or schismatic, infidel or Jew. The essential conditions are that the person pour water upon the one to be baptized, at the same time pronouncing the words: “I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.” Moreover, he must thereby intend really to baptize the person, or technically, he must intend to perform what the Church performs when administering this sacrament. The Roman Ritual adds that, even in conferring baptism in cases of necessity, there is an order of preference to be followed as to the minister. This order is: if a priest be present, he is to be preferred to a deacon, a deacon to a subdeacon, a cleric to a layman, and a man to a woman, unless modesty should require (as in cases of childbirth) that no other than the female be the minister, or again, unless the female should understand better the method of baptizing. The Ritual also says that the father or mother should not baptize their own child, except in danger of death when no one else is at hand who could administer the sacrament. Pastors are also directed by the Ritual to teach the faithful, and especially midwives, the proper method of baptizing. When such private baptism is administered, the other ceremonies of the rite are supplied later by a priest, if the recipient of the sacrament survives.

This right of any person whatsoever to baptize in case of necessity is in accord with the constant tradition and practice of the Church. Tertullian (De Bapt., vii) says, speaking of laymen who have an opportunity to administer baptism: “He will be guilty of the loss of a soul, if he neglects to confer what he freely can,” St. Jerome (Adv. Lucif., ix): “In case of necessity, we know that it is also allowable for a layman [to baptize]; for as a person receives, so may he give,” The Fourth Council of the Lateran (cap. Firmiter) decrees: “The Sacrament of Baptism . . . no matter by whom conferred is available to salvation, ” St. Isidore of Seville (can. Romanus de cons., iv) declares: “The Spirit of God administers the grace of baptism, although it be a pagan who does the baptizing,” Pope Nicholas I teaches the Bulgarians (Resp, 104) that baptism by a Jew or a pagan is valid. Owing to the fact that women are barred from enjoying any species of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, the question necessarily arose concerning their ability to bestow valid baptism, Tertullian (De Bapt., xvii) strongly opposes the administration of this sacrament by women, but he does not declare it void. In like manner, St. Epiphanius (Hær., lxxix) says of females: “Not even the power of baptizing has been granted to them”, but he is speaking of solemn baptism, which is a function of the priesthood. Similar expressions may be found in the writings of other Fathers, but only when they are opposing the grotesque doctrine of some heretics, like the Marcionites, Pepuzians, and Cataphrygians, who wished to make Christian priestesses of women. The authoritative decision of the Church, however, is plain. Pope Urban II (c. Super quibus, xxx, 4) writes, “It is true baptism if a woman in case of necessity baptizes a child in the name of the Trinity.” The Florentine decree for the Armenians says explicitly: “In case of necessity, not only a priest or a deacon, but even a layman or woman, nay even a pagan or heretic may confer baptism.” The main reason for this extension of power as to the administration of baptism is of course that the Church has understood from the beginning that this was the will of Christ. St. Thomas (III:62:3) says that owing to the absolute necessity of baptism for the salvation of souls, it is in accordance with the mercy of God, who wishes all to be saved, that the means of obtaining this sacrament should be put, as far as possible, within the reach of all; and as for that reason the matter of the sacrament was made of common water, which can most easily be had, so in like manner it was only proper that every man should be made its minister. Finally, it is to be noted that, by the law of the Church, the person administering baptism, even in cases of necessity, contracts a spiritual relationship with the child and its parents. This relationship constitutes an impediment that would make a subsequent marriage with any of them null and void unless a dispensation were obtained beforehand. See AFFINITY.

XIV. RECIPIENT OF BAPTISM

Every living human being, not yet baptized, is the subject of this sacrament.

(1) Baptism of Adults

As regards adults there is no difficulty or controversy. Christ’s command excepts no one when He bids the Apostles teach all nations and baptize them.

(2) Baptism of Infants

Infant baptism has, however, been the subject of much dispute. The Waldenses and Cathari and later the Anabaptists, rejected the doctrine that infants are capable of receiving valid baptism, and some sectarians at the present day hold the same opinion. The Catholic Church, however, maintains absolutely that the law of Christ applies as well to infants as to adults. When the Redeemer declares (John 3) that it is necessary to be born again of water and the Holy Ghost in order to enter the Kingdom of God, His words may be justly understood to mean that He includes all who are capable of having a right to this kingdom. Now, He has asserted such a right even for those who are not adults, when He says (Matthew 19:14): “Suffer the little children, and forbid them not to come to me: for the kingdom of heaven is for such.” It has been objected that this latter text does not refer to infants, inasmuch as Christ says “to come to me”. In the parallel passage in St. Luke (18:15), however, the text reads: “And they brought unto him also infants, that he might touch them”; and then follow the words cited from St. Matthew. In the Greek text, the words brephe and prosepheron refer to infants in arms. Moreover, St. Paul (Colossians 2) says that baptism in the New Law has taken the place of circumcision in the Old. It was especially to infants that the rite of circumcision was applied by Divine precept. If it be said that there is no example of the baptism of infants to be found in the Bible, we may answer that infants are included in such phrases as: “She was baptized and her household” (Acts 16:15); “Himself was baptized, and all his house immediately” (Acts 16:33); “I baptized the household of Stephanus” (1 Corinthians 1:16).

The tradition of Christian antiquity as to the necessity of infant baptism is clear from the very beginning. We have given many striking quotations on this subject already, in dealing with the necessity of baptism. A few, therefore, will suffice here. Origen (in cap. vi, Ep. ad Rom.) declares: “The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving baptism also to infants”. St. Augustine (Serm. xi, De Verb Apost.) says of infant baptism: “This the Church always had, always held; this she received from the faith of our ancestors; this she perseveringly guards even to the end.” St. Cyprian (Ep. ad Fidum) writes: “From baptism and from grace . . . must not be kept the infant who, because recently born, has committed no sin, except, inasmuch as it was born carnally from Adam, it has contracted the contagion of the ancient death in its first nativity; and it comes to receive the remission of sins more easily on this very account that not its own, but another’s sins are forgiven it.” St.Cyprian’s letter to Fidus declares that the Council of Carthage in 253 reprobated the opinion that the baptism of infants should be delayed until the eighth day after birth. The Council of Milevis in 416 anathematizes whosoever says that infants lately born are not to be baptized. The Council of Trent solemnly defines the doctrine of infant baptism (Sess. VII, can. xiii). It also condemns (can. xiv) the opinion of Erasmus that those who had been baptized in infancy, should be left free to ratify or reject the baptismal promises after they had become adult. Theologians also call attention to the fact that as God sincerely wishes all men to be saved, He does not exclude infants, for whom baptism of either water or blood is the only means possible. The doctrines also of the universality of original sin and of the all-comprehending atonement of Christ are stated so plainly and absolutely in Scripture as to leave no solid reason for denying that infants are included as well as adults.

To the objection that baptism requires faith, theologians reply that adults must have faith, but infants receive habitual faith, which is infused into them in the sacrament of regeneration. As to actual faith, they believe on the faith of another; as St. Augustine (De Verb. Apost., xiv, xviii) beautifully says: “He believes by another, who has sinned by another.” As to the obligation imposed by baptism, the infant is obliged to fulfill them in proportion to its age and capacity, as is the case with all laws. Christ, it is true, prescribed instruction and actual faith for adults as necessary for baptism (Matthew 28; Mark 16), but in His general law on the necessity of the sacrament (John 3) He makes absolutely no restriction as to the subject of baptism; and consequently while infants are included in the law, they can not be required to fulfill conditions that are utterly impossible at their age. While not denying the validity of infant baptism, Tertullian (De Bapt., xviii) desired that the sacrament be not conferred upon them until they have attained the use of reason, on account of the danger of profaning their baptism as youths amid the allurements of pagan vice. In like manner, St. Gregory Nazianzen (Or. xl, De Bapt.) thought that baptism, unless there was danger of death, should be deferred until the child was three years old, for then it could hear and respond at the ceremonies. Such opinions, however, were shared by few, and they contain no denial of the validity of infant baptism. It is true that the Council of Neocæsarea (can. vi) declares that an infant can not be baptized in its mother’s womb, but it was teaching only that neither the baptism of the mother nor her faith is common to her and the infant in her womb, but are acts peculiar to the mother alone.

(3) Baptism of Unborn Infants

This leads to the baptism of infants in cases of difficult delivery. When the Roman Ritual declares that a child is not to be baptized while still enclosed (clausus) in its mother’s womb, it supposes that the baptismal water can not reach the body of the child. When, however, this seems possible, even with the aid of an instrument, Benedict XIV (Syn. Diaec., vii, 5) declares that midwives should be instructed to confer conditional baptism. The Ritual further says that when the water can flow upon the head of the infant the sacrament is to be administered absolutely; but if it can be poured only on some other part of the body, baptism is indeed to be conferred, but it must be conditionally repeated in case the child survives its birth, It is to be noted that in these last two cases, the rubric of the Ritual supposes that the infant has partly emerged from the womb. For if the fetus was entirely enclosed, baptism is to be repeated conditionally in all cases (Lehmkuhl, n, 61). In case of the death of the mother, the fetus is to be immediately extracted and baptized, should there be any life in it. Infants have been taken alive from the womb well after the mother’s death. After the Cæsarean incision has been performed, the fetus may be conditionally baptized before extraction if possible; if the sacrament is administered after its removal from the womb the baptism is to be absolute, provided it is certain that life remains. If after extraction it is doubtful whether it be still alive, it is to be baptized under the condition: “If thou art alive”. Physicians, mothers, and midwives ought to be reminded of the grave obligation of administering baptism under these circumstances, It is to be borne in mind that according to the prevailing opinion among the learned, the fetus is animated by a human soul from the very beginning of its conception. In cases of delivery where the issue is a mass that is not certainly animated by human life, it is to be baptized conditionally: “If thou art a man.”

(4) Baptism of Insane Persons

The perpetually insane, who have never had the use of reason, are in the same category as infants in what relates to the conferring of baptism, and consequently the sacrament is valid if administered.

If at one time they had been sane, baptism bestowed upon them during their insanity would be probably invalid unless they had shown a desire for it before losing their reason. Moralists teach that, in practice, this latter class may always be baptized conditionally, when it is uncertain whether or not they had ever asked for baptism (Sabetti, no. 661). In this connection it is to be remarked that, according to many writers, anyone who has a wish to receive all things necessary to salvation, has at the same time an implicit desire for baptism, and that a more specific desire is not absolutely necessary.

(5) Foundlings

Foundlings are to be baptized conditionally, if there is no means of finding out whether they have been validly baptized or not. If a note has been left with a foundling stating that it had already received baptism, the more common opinion is that it should nevertheless be given conditional baptism, unless circumstances should make it plain that baptism had undoubtedly been conferred. O’Kane (no. 214) says that the same rule is to be followed when midwives or other lay persons have baptized infants in case of necessity.

(6) Baptism of the Children of Jewish and Infidel Parents

The question is also discussed as to whether the infant children of Jews or infidels may be baptized against the will of their parents. To the general query, the answer is a decided negative, because such a baptism would violate the natural rights of parents, and the infant would later be exposed to the danger of perversion. We say this, of course, only in regard to the liceity of such a baptism, for if it were actually administered it would undoubtedly be valid. St. Thomas (III:68:10) is very express in denying the lawfulness of imparting such baptism, and this has been the constant judgment of the Holy See, as is evident from various decrees of the Sacred Congregations and of Pope Benedict XIV (II Bullarii). We say the answer is negative to the general question, because particular circumstances may require a different response. For it would undoubtedly be licit to impart such baptism if the children were in proximate danger of death; or if they had been removed from the parental care and there was no likelihood of their returning to it; or if they were perpetually insane; or if one of the parents were to consent to the baptism; or finally, if, after the death of the father, the paternal grandfather would be willing, even though the mother objected. If the children were, however, not infants, but had the use of reason and were sufficiently instructed, they should be baptized when prudence dictated such a course.

In the celebrated case of the Jewish child, Edgar Mortara, Pius IX indeed ordered that he should be brought up as a Catholic, even against the will of his parents, but baptism had already been administered to him some years before when in danger of death.

(7) Baptism of the Children of Protestant Parents

It is not licit to baptize children against the will of their Protestant parents; for their baptism would violate parental right, expose them to the danger of perversion, and be contrary to the practice of the Church. Kenrick also strongly condemns nurses who baptize the children of Protestants unless they are in danger of death.

(8) Baptism with the Consent of Non-Catholic Parents

Should a priest baptize the child of non-Catholic parents if they themselves desire it? He certainly can do so if there is reason to hope that the child will be brought up a Catholic (Conc. Prov, Balt., I, decr, x). An even greater security for the Catholic education of such child would be the promise of one or both parents that they themselves will embrace the Faith.

(9) Baptism of the Dead

Concerning baptism for the dead, a curious and difficult passage in St. Paul’s Epistle has given rise to some controversy. The Apostle says: “Otherwise what shall they do that are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not again at all? Why are they then baptized for them?” (1 Corinthians 15:29), There seems to be no question here of any such absurd custom as conferring baptism on corpses, as was practiced later by some heretical sects. It has been conjectured that this otherwise unknown usage of the Corinthians consisted in some living person receiving a symbolic baptism as representing another who had died with the desire of becoming a Christian, but had been prevented from realizing his wish for baptism by an unforeseen death. Those who give this explanation say that St. Paul merely refers to this custom of the Corinthians as an argumentum ad hominem, when discussing the resurrection of the dead, without approving the usage mentioned,

Archbishop MacEvilly in his exposition of the Epistles of St. Paul, holds a different opinion. He paraphrases St. Paul’s text as follows: “Another argument in favor of the resurrection. If the dead will not arise, what means the profession of faith in the resurrection of the dead, made at baptism? Why are we all baptized with a profession of our faith in their resurrection?” The archbishop comments, as follows: “It is almost impossible to glean anything like certainty as to the meaning of these very abstruse words, from the host of interpretations that have been hazarded regarding them (see Calmet’s Dissertation on the matter). In the first place, every interpretation referring the words ‘baptized’, or ‘dead’ to either erroneous or evil practices, which men might have employed to express their belief in the doctrine of the resurrection, should be rejected; as it appears by no means likely that the Apostle would ground an argument, even though it were what the logicians call an argumentum ad hominem, on either a vicious or erroneous practice. Besides, such a system of reasoning would be quite inconclusive. Hence, the words should not be referred to either the Clinics, baptized at the hour of death, or to the vicarious baptisms in use among the Jews, for their departed friends who departed without baptism. The interpretation adopted in the paraphrase makes the words refer to the Sacrament of Baptism, which all were obliged to approach with faith in the resurrection of the dead as a necessary condition. ‘Credo in resurrectionem mortuorum’. This interpretation — the one adopted by St. Chrysostom–has the advantage of giving the words ‘baptized’ and ‘dead’ their literal signification. The only inconvenience in it is that the word resurrection is introduced. But, it is understood from the entire context, and is warranted by a reference to other passages of Scripture. For, from the Epistle of the Hebrews (6:2) it appears that a knowledge of the faith of the resurrection was one of the elementary points of instruction required for adult baptism; and hence the Scriptures themselves furnish the ground for the introduction of the word. There is another probable interpretation, which understands the words ‘baptism’ and ‘dead’ in a metaphorical sense, and refers them to the sufferings which the Apostles and heralds of salvation underwent to preach the Gospel to the infidels, dead to grace and spiritual life, with the hope of making them sharers in the glory of a happy resurrection. The word ‘baptism’ is employed in this sense in Scripture, even by our divine Redeemer Himself — ‘I have a baptism wherewith to be baptized’, etc. And the word ‘dead’ is employed in several parts of the New Testament to designate those spiritually dead to grace and justice. In the Greek, the words ‘for the dead’, uper ton nekron that is, on account of or, in behalf of the dead, would serve to confirm, in some degree, this latter interpretation. These appear to be the most probable of the interpretations of this passage; each, no doubt, has its difficulties. The meaning of the words was known to the Corinthians at the time of the Apostle. All that can be known of their meaning at this remote period, can not exceed the bounds of probable conjecture” (loc. cit., chap. xv; cf. also Cornely in Ep. I Cor.).

XV. ADJUNCTS OF BAPTISM

(1) Baptistery

According to the canons of the Church, baptism except in case of necessity is to be administered in churches (Conc. Prov. Balt., I, Decree 16). The Roman Ritual says: “Churches in which there is a baptismal font, or where there is a baptistery close to the church”. The term “baptistery” is commonly used for the space set aside for the conferring of baptism. In like manner the Greeks use photisterion for the same purpose — a word derived from St. Paul’s designation of baptism as an “illumination”. The words of the Ritual just cited, however, mean by “baptistery”, a separate building constructed for the purpose of administering baptism. Such buildings have been erected both in the East and West, as at Tyre, Padua, Pisa, Florence, and other places. In such baptisteries, besides the font, altars were also built; and here the baptism was conferred. As a rule, however, the church itself contains a railed-off space containing the baptismal font. Anciently fonts were attached only to cathedral churches, but at the present day nearly every parish church has a font. This is the sense of the Baltimore decree above cited. The Second Plenary Council of Baltimore declared, however, that if missionaries judge that the great difficulty of bringing an infant to church is a sufficient reason for baptizing in a private house, then they are to administer the sacrament with all the prescribed rites. The ordinary law of the Church is that when private baptism is conferred, the remaining ceremonies are to be supplied not in the house but in the church itself. The Ritual also directs that the font be of solid material, so that the baptismal water may be safely kept in it. A railing is to surround the font, and a representation of St. John baptizing Christ should adorn it. The cover of the font usually contains the holy oils used in baptism, and this cover must be under lock and key, according to the Ritual.

(2) Baptismal Water

In speaking of the matter of baptism, we stated that true, natural water is all that is required for its validity. In administering solemn baptism, however the Church prescribes that the water used should have been consecrated on Holy Saturday or on the eve of Pentecost. For the liceity (not validity) of the sacrament, therefore, the priest is obliged to use consecrated water. This custom is so ancient that we can not discover its origin. It is found in the most ancient liturgies of the Latin and Greek Churches and is mentioned in the Apostolic Constitutions (VII, 43). The ceremony of its consecration is striking and symbolic. After signing the water with the cross, the priest divides it with his hand and casts it to the four corners of the earth. This signifies the baptizing of all the nations. Then he breathes upon the water and immerses the paschal candle in it.

Next he pours into the water, first the oil of catechumens and then the sacred chrism, and lastly both holy oils together, pronouncing appropriate prayers. But what if during the year, the supply of consecrated water should be insufficient? In that case, the Ritual declares that the priest may add common water to what remains, but only in less quantity. If the consecrated water appears putrid, the priest must examine whether or not it is really so, for the appearance may be caused only by the admixture of the sacred oils. If it has really become putrid, the font is to be renovated and fresh water to be blessed by a form given in the Ritual. In the United States, the Holy See has sanctioned a short formula for the consecration of baptismal water (Conc. Plen. Balt., II).

(3) Holy Oils

In baptism, the priest uses the oil of catechumens, which is olive oil, and chrism, the latter being a mixture of balsam and oil. The oils are consecrated by the bishop on Maundy Thursday. The anointing in baptism is recorded by St. Justin, St. John Chrysostom, and other ancient Fathers. Pope Innocent I declares that the chrism is to be applied to the crown of the head, not to the forehead, for the latter is reserved to bishops. The same may be found in the Sacramentaries of St. Gregory and St. Gelasius (Martene, I, i). In the Greek Rite the oil of catechumens is blessed by the priest during the baptismal ceremony.

(4) Sponsors

When infants are solemnly baptized, persons assist at the ceremony to make profession of the faith in the child’s name. This practice comes from antiquity and is witnessed to by Tertullian, St. Basil, St. Augustine, and others. Such persons are designated sponsores, offerentes, susceptores, fidejussores, and patrini. The English term is godfather and godmother, or in Anglo-Saxon, gossip. These sponsors, in default of the child’s parents, are obliged to instruct it concerning faith and morals. One sponsor is sufficient and not more than two are allowed. In the latter case, one should be male and the other female. The object of these restrictions is the fact that the sponsor contracts a spiritual relationship to the child and its parents which would be an impediment to marriage. Sponsors must themselves be baptized persons having the use of reason and they must have been designated as sponsors by the priest or parents. During the baptism they must physically touch the child either personally or by proxy. They are required, moreover, to have the intention of really assuming the obligations of godparents. It is desirable that they should have been confirmed, but this is not absolutely necessary. Certain persons are prohibited from acting as sponsors. They are: members of religious orders, married persons in respect to each other, or parents to their children, and in general those who are objectionable on such grounds as infidelity, heresy, excommunication, or who are members of condemned secret societies, or public sinners (Sabetti, no. 663). Sponsors are also used in the solemn baptism of adults. They are never necessary in private baptism.

(5) Baptismal Name

From the earliest times names were given in baptism. The priest is directed to see that obscene, fabulous, and ridiculous names, or those of heathen gods or of infidel men be not imposed. On the contrary the priest is to recommend the names of saints. This rubric is not a rigorous precept, but it is an instruction to the priest to do what he can in the matter. If parents are unreasonably obstinate, the priest may add a saint’s name to the one insisted upon.

(6) Baptismal Robe

In the primitive Church, a white robe was worn by the newly baptized for a certain period after the ceremony (St. Ambrose, De Myst., c. vii). As solemn baptisms usually took place on the eves of Easter or Pentecost, the white garments became associated with those festivals. Thus, Sabbatum in Albis and Dominica in Albis received their names from the custom of putting off at that time the baptismal robe which had been worn since the previous vigil of Easter. It is thought that the English name for Pentecost — Whitsunday or Whitsuntide, also derived its appellation from the white garments of the newly baptized. In our present ritual, a white veil is placed momentarily on the head of the catechumen as a substitute for the baptismal robe.

XVI. CEREMONIES OF BAPTISM

The rites that accompany the baptismal ablution are as ancient as they are beautiful. The writings of the early Fathers and the antique liturgies show that most of them are derived from Apostolic times. The infant is brought to the door of the church by the sponsors, where it is met by the priest. After the godparents have asked faith from the Church of God in the child’s name, the priest breathes upon its face and exorcises the evil spirit. St. Augustine (Ep. cxciv, Ad Sixtum) makes use of this Apostolic practice of exorcising to prove the existence of original sin. Then the infant’s forehead and breast are signed with the cross, the symbol of redemption. Next follows the imposition of hands, a custom certainly as old as the Apostles. Some blessed salt is now placed in the mouth of the child. “When salt”, says the Catechism of the Council of Trent “is put into the mouth of person to be baptized, it evidently imports that, by the doctrine of faith and the gift of grace, he should be delivered from the corruption of sin, experience a relish for good works, and be delighted with the food of divine wisdom.” Placing his stole over the child the priest introduces it into the church, and on the way to the font the sponsors make a profession of faith for the infant. The priest now touches the ears and nostrils of the child with spittle. The symbolic meaning is thus explained (Cat. C. Trid.) “His nostrils and ears are next touched with spittle and he is immediately sent to the baptismal font, that, as sight was restored to the blind man mentioned in the Gospel, whom the Lord, after having spread clay over his eyes, commanded to wash them in the waters of Siloe; so also he may understand that the efficacy of the sacred ablution is such as to bring light to the mind to discern heavenly truth.” The catechumen now makes the triple renunciation of Satan, his works and his pomps, and he is anointed with the oil of catechumens on the breast and between the shoulders: “On the breast, that by the gift of the Holy Ghost, he may cast off error and ignorance and may receive the true faith, ‘for the just man liveth by faith’ (Galatians 3:11); on the shoulders, that by the grace of the holy spirit, he may shake off negligence and torpor and engage in the performance of good works; ‘faith without works is dead’ (James 2:26)”, says the Catechism.

The infant now, through its sponsors, makes a declaration of faith and asks for baptism. The priest, having meantime changed his violet stole for a white one, then administers the threefold ablution, making the sign of the cross three times with the stream of water he pours on the head of the child, saying at the same time: “N___, I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.” The sponsors during the ablution either hold the child or at least touch it. If the baptism be given by immersion, the priest dips the back part of the head three times into the water in the form of a cross, pronouncing the sacramental words. The crown of the child’s head is now anointed with chrism, “to give him to understand that from that day he is united as a member to Christ, his head, and engrafted on His body; and therefore he is called a Christian from Christ, but Christ from chrism” (Catech.). A white veil is now put on the infant’s head with the words: “Receive this white garment, which mayest thou carry without stain before the judgment seat of Our Lord Jesus Christ, that thou mayest have eternal life. Amen.” Then a lighted candle is placed in the catechumen’s hand, the priest saying: “Receive this burning light, and keep thy baptism so as to be without blame. Observe the commandments of God; that, when Our Lord shall come to His nuptials, thou mayest meet Him together with all the Saints and mayest have life everlasting, and live for ever and ever. Amen.” The new Christian is then bidden to go in peace.

In the baptism of adults, all the essential ceremonies are the same as for infants. There are, however, some impressive additions. The priest wears the cope over his other vestments, and he should be attended by a number of clerics or at least by two. While the catechumen waits outside the church door, the priest recites some prayers at the altar. Then he proceeds to the place where the candidate is, and asks him the questions and performs the exorcisms almost as prescribed in the ritual for infants. Before administering the blessed salt, however, he requires the catechumen to make an explicit renunciation of the form of error to which he had formerly adhered, and he is then signed with the cross on the brow, ears, eyes, nostrils, mouth, breast, and between the shoulders. Afterwards, the candidate, on bended knees, recites three several times the Lord’s Prayer, and a cross is made on his forehead, first by the godfather and then by the priest. After this, taking him by the hand, the priest leads him into the church, where he adores prostrate and then rising he recites the Apostles’ Creed and the Lord’s Prayer. The other ceremonies are practically the same as for infants. It is to be noted that owing to the difficulty of carrying out with proper splendor the ritual for baptizing adults, the bishops of the United States obtained permission from the Holy See to make use of the ceremonial of infant baptism instead. This general dispensation lasted until 1857, when the ordinary law of the Church went into force. (See COUNCILS OF BALTIMORE.) Some American dioceses, however, obtained individual permissions to continue the use of the ritual for infants when administering adult baptism.

XVII. METAPHORICAL BAPTISM

The name “baptism” is sometimes applied improperly to other ceremonies.

(1) Baptism of Bells

This name has been given to the blessing of bells, at least in France, since the eleventh century. It is derived from the washing of the bell with holy water by the bishop, before he anoints it with the oil of the infirm without and with chrism within. A fuming censer is then placed under it. The bishop prays that these sacramentals of the Church may, at the sound of the bell, put the demons to flight, protect from storms, and call the faithful to prayer.

(2) Baptism of Ships

At least since the time of the Crusades, rituals have contained a blessing for ships. The priest begs God to bless the vessel and protect those who sail in it, as He did the ark of Noah, and Peter, when the Apostle was sinking in the sea. The ship is then sprinkled with holy water.

———————————–

WILLIAM H.W. FANNING Transcribed by Charles Sweeney, S.J.

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume IICopyright © 1907 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightImprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York

Fuente: Catholic Encyclopedia

Baptism

a rite of purification or initiation, in which water is used; one of the sacraments (q.v.) of the Christian Church. The word baptism is simply an Anglicized form of the Greek , a verbal noun from (likewise Anglicized baptize), and this, again, is a derivative from , the predominant signification of which latter is to whelm or dye, Lat. tingo. Not being a verb implying motion, is properly followed in Greek by the preposition , denoting the means or method (with the instrumental dative), which has unfortunately, in the Auth. Engl. Vers., often been rendered by the ambiguous particle in, whereas it really (in this connection) signifies only with or by, or at most merely designates the locality where the act is performed. The derivative verb and noun are sometimes used with reference to ordinary lustration, and occasionally with respect to merely secular acts; also in a figurative sense. In certain cases it is followed by the preposition , with the meaning to, for, or unto, as pointing out the design of the act, especially in phrases (comp. ) expressive of the covenant or relation of which this rite was the seal. (In Mar 1:9, the depends upon preceding; and in Mar 14:20, there is a constructio praegnans by which some other verb of motion is to be supplied before the preposition.) On these and other applications of the Greek word, see Robinson’s Lex. of the N.T. s.v.; where, however (as in some other Lexicons), the statement that the primary force of the verb is to dip, immerse, etc., is not sustained by its actual usage and grammatical construction. This would always require , into, after it; which occurs in 15 examples only out of the exhaustive list (175) adduced by Dr. Conant (Meaning and Use of Baptizein, N. Y. 1860); and a closer and more critical examination will show that it is only the context and association of the word that in any case put this signification upon it, and it is therefore a mere gloss or inference to assign this as the proper sense of the term. The significations p plunge, submerge, etc., are here strictly derived, as cognates, from the more general and primitive one of that complete envelopment with a liquid which a thorough wetting, saturation, or dyeing usually implies. In like manner, Dr. E. Beecher (in a series of articles first published in the Am. Bib. Repos. during 1840 and 1841) has mistaken the allied or inferential signification of purification for the primitive sense of the word, whereas it is only the result expected or attendant in the act of washing. See further below.

As preliminary to the theological discussion of this subject, it will be proper here to discuss, more fully than can be conveniently done elsewhere, the classical and Biblical uses of the word, and some subordinate topics, reserving the conitroverted points for later consideration.

I. Philological Usage of the Word .

1. By Classical Writers. No instance occurs in these writers of the use of , and only one in a very late author (Antyllus) of the use of its equivalent ; but the verb occurs frequently, especially in the later writers. It is used to designate:

(1.) The washing of an object by dipping it into water, or any other fluid, or quasi-fluid, for any purpose whatever: as , bathe yourself by going into the sea (Plut. Maor. p. 166 A.); (Ibid. p. 914).

(2.) The plunging or sinking of an object: as , where , in the sense of submersed, is contrasted with , in the sense of float;

, , being in water up to the navel (Strabo, Geogr. xiv, p. 667); (Polyb. in). So Pindar says (Pyth. 2:145), , , where the cork of the fisherman is. styled unbaptized, in contrast with the net which sinks into the water. From this, by metonomy of cause for effect, is derived the sense to drown, as v, I whelmed him in the wine (Julian AEgypt. Anacreont.).

(3.) The covering over of any object by the flowing or pouring of a fluid on it; and metaphorically (in the passive), the being overwhelmed or oppressed: thus the Pseudo-Aristotle speaks of places full of bulrushes and sea-weeds, which, when the tide is at the ebb, are not baptized (i.e. covered by the water), but at full tide are flooded over (Mirabil. Auscult. 137, p. 50, in Westermann’s edit. of the Script. Rer. Mir. Gr.); Diodorus Siculus (bk. 1) speaks of land animals being destroyed by the river overtaking them ( ); Plato and Athenaeus describe men in a state of ebriety as baptized (Sympos. p. 176 B.; and Deipnos.v.); and the former says the same of a youth overwhelmed with sophistry (Euthyd. 277 D.); Plutarch denounces the forcing of knowledge on children beyond what they can receive as a process by which the soul is baptized (De Lib. educ.); and he speaks of men as baptized by debts (Galbae, c. 21); Diodorus Siculus speaks of baptizing people with tears (bk. 1, c., 3); and Libanius says, He who hardly bears what he now bears, would be baptized by a little addition (Epist. 310), and I am one of those baptized by that great wave (Ep. 25).

(4.) The complete drenching of an object, whether by aspersion or immersion; as , , As a bladder thou shalt be washed (i.e. by the waves breaking over thee), but thou canst not go down (Orac. Sibyll. de Athenis, ap. Plutarch, Thesei).

From this it appears that in classical usage is not fixed to any special mode of applying the baptizing element to the object baptized; all that is implied by the term is, that the former is closely in contact with the latter, or that the latter is wholly in the former.

2. By the Septuagint. Here the word occurs only four times, viz. 2Ki 5:14 : And Naaman went down and baptized himself () seven times in the river Jordan, where the original Hebrew is , from , to dip, plunge, immerse; Isa 21:4; Isa 21:6 Iniquity baptizes me ( ), where the word is plainly used in the sense of overwhelm, answering to the Hebrews , to come upon suddenly, to terrify; Jdt 12:7, She went out by night . . . and baptized herself () at the fountain; and Sir 31:30, [Sirach 34], He who is baptized from a corpse ( ), etc. In these last two instances the word merely denotes washed, without indicating any special mode by which this was done, though in the former the circumstances of the case make it improbable that the act described was that of bathing (comp. Num 19:19).

In the Greek, then, of the Sept., signifies to plunge, to bathe, or to overwhelm. It is never used to describe the act of one who dips another object into a fluid, or the case of one who is dipped by another.

3. In the New Testament. Confining our notice here simply to the philology of the subject, the instances of this usage may be classified thus:

(1.) The verb or noun alone, or with the object baptized merely: as , Mat 3:13-14; , Mar 16:16; , Mar 1:4; , 7:4; , Joh 1:25; , 1Co 1:14, etc.; , Mat 3:7; , Eph 4:5; , Col 2:12; 1Pe 3:21, etc.; , Mar 7:4; Mar 7:8; , Heb 6:2; , Heb 9:10.

(2.) With addition of the element of baptism: as , Mar 1:8, etc.; , Mat 3:11, etc.; , Luk 3:16, etc. The force of in such formulse has by some been pressed, as if it indicated that the object of baptism was in the element of baptism; but by most the is regarded as merely the nota dativi, so that means no more than the simple , as the of Mat 14:13, means no more than the of Mar 6:32. (See Matthiae, sec. 401, obs. 2; Kuhner, sec. 585, Anm. 2.) Only in one instance does the accusative appear in the N.T., Mar 1:9, where we have , and this can hardly be regarded as a real exception to the ordinary usage of the N.T., because here is local rather than instrumental. In connection with this may be noticed the phrases , and or . According to some, these decisively prove that the party baptized, as well as the baptizer, went down into the water, and came up out of it. But, on the other hand, it is contended that the phrases do not necessarily imply more than that they went to (i.e. to the margin of) the water and returned thence.

(3.) With specification of the end or purpose for which the baptism is effected. This is usually indicated by : as , Mat 28:19, and frequently; . . . , Rom 6:3, al.; , 1Co 10:3; , 1Co 12:13; . . . , Act 2:38, etc. In these cases retains its proper significancy, as indicating the terminus ad quem, and tropically, that for which, or with a view to which the thing is done, modified according as this is a person or a thing. Thus, to be baptized for Moses, means to be baptized with a view to following or being subject to the rule of Moses; to be baptized for Christ means to be baptized with a view to becoming a true follower of Christ; to be baptized for his death means to be baptized with a view to the enjoyment of the benefits of his death; to be baptized for the remission of sins means to be baptized with a view to receiving this; to be baptized for the name of any one means to be baptized with a view to the realization of all that the meaning of this name implies, etc. In one passage Paul uses to express the end or design of baptism, , 1Co 15:29; but here the involved idea of substitution justifies the use of the preposition. Instead of a preposition, the genitive of object is sometimes used, as Luk 3:3, al.= , the baptism which has as its end and purpose.

(4.) With specification of the ground or basis on which the baptism rests. This is expressed by the use of in the phrases , and once by the use of with the dative, Act 2:38 : to be baptized on the name of Christ, i.e. so that the baptism is grounded on the confession of his name (Winer, p. 469). Some regard these formulae as identical in meaning with those in which is used with , but the more exact scholars view them as distinct.

The two last-mentioned usages are peculiar to the N.T., and arise directly from the new significancy which its writers attached to baptism as a rite.

II. Non-ritual Baptisms mentioned in the N.T. These are:

1. The baptism of utensils and articles of furniture, Mar 7:4; Mar 7:8.

2. The baptism of persons, Mar 7:3-4; Luk 11:38, etc.

These are the only instances in which the verb or noun is used in a strictly literal sense in the N.T. and there may be some doubt as to whether the last instance should not be remanded to the head of ritual baptisms. These instances are chiefly valuable as bearing on the question of the mode of baptism; they show that no special mode is indicated by the mere use of the word baptize, for the washing of cups, of couches, and of persons is accomplished in a different manner in each case: in the first by dipping, or immersing, or rinsing, or pouring, or simply wiping with a wet cloth; in the second by aspersion and wiping; and in the third by plunging or stepping into the bath.

3. Baptism of affliction, Mar 10:38-39; Luk 12:50. In both these passages our Lord refers to his impending sufferings as a baptism which he had to undergo. Chrysostom, and some others of the fathers, understand this objectively, as referring to the purgation which his sufferings were to effect (see the passages in Suicer, Thes. s.v. , 1:7); but this does not seem to be the idea of the speaker. Our Lord rather means that his sufferings were to come on him as a mighty overwhelming torrent (see Kuinol on Mat 20:22-23; Blomfield, ibid.). Some interpreters suppose there is an allusion in this language to submersion as essential to baptism (see Olshausen in loc.; Meyer on Mar 10:38); but nothing more seems to be implied than simply the being overwhelmed in a figurative sense, according to what we have seen to be’ a common use of the word by the classical writers.

4. Baptism with the Spirit, Mat 3:11; Mar 1:8; Luk 3:16; Joh 1:33; Act 1:5; Act 11:16; 1Co 12:13. In the first of these passages it is said of our Lord that he shall baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire. Whether this be taken as a hendiadys = the Spirit as fire, or as pointing out two distinct baptisms, the one by the Spirit, the other by fire; and whether, on the latter assumption, the baptism by fire means the destruction by Christ of his enemies, or the miraculous endowment of his apostles, it does not concern us at present to inquire. Respecting the intent of baptism by the Spirit, there can be little room for doubt or difference of opinion; it is obviously a figurative mode of describing the agency of the Divine Spirit given through and by Christ, both in conferring miraculous endowments and in purifying and sanctifying the heart of man. By this Spirit the disciples were baptized on the day of Pentecost, when there appeared unto them cloven tongues of fire, and it sat upon each of them; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they began to speak with tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance (Act 2:3-4); by this Spirit men are saved when they are born again of water and of the Spirit (Joh 3:5); when they receive the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost (Tit 3:5); and when there is the putting away from them of the filth of the flesh, and they have the answer of a good conscience toward God (1Pe 3:21); and by this Spirit believers are baptized for one body, when through his gracious agency they receive that Spirit, and those impulses by which they I are led to realize their unity in Christ Jesus (1Co 12:11). Some refer to the Spirit’s baptism also, the apostle’s expression, , Eph 4:5; but the common and more probable opinion is that the reference here is to ritual baptism as the outward sign of that inner unity which the v and the secure and produce (see Alford, Ellicott, Meyer, Matthies, etc. etc. in loc.). In this figurative use of the term baptism the tertium comparationis is found by some in the Spirit’s being viewed as the element in which the believer is made to live, and in which he receives the transforming influence; while others find it in the biblical representation of the Spirit as coming upon men, as poured upon them (Isa 32:15; Zec 12:10; Joe 2:28; Act 2:17), and as sprinkled on them like clean water (Eze 36:25).

5. Baptism for Moses. In 1Co 10:2, the apostle says of the Israelites, And they all received baptism (the middle voice is selected to express a receptive sense,’ Meyer) for Moses ( ) in (or by, ) the cloud, and in (or by) the sea. In the Syr. r. M. is translated by the hand of Moses; and this is followed by Beza and others. Some render una cum Mose; others, aupiciis Mosis; others, in Mose, i.e. sub ministerio et ductu Mosis (Calvin), etc. But all these interpretations are precluded by the proper meaning of . and the fixed significance of the phrase in the N.T. The only rendering that can be admitted is for Moses, i.e. with a view to him, in reference to him, in respect of him. They were baptized for Moses. i.e. they became bound to fidelity and obedience, and were accepted into the covenant which God then made with the people through Moses (Ruckert in loc.; see also Meyer and Alford on the passage).

III. The Types of Baptism.

1. The apostle Peter (1Pe 3:21) compares the deliverance of Noah in the Deluge to the deliverance of Christians in baptism. The apostle had been speaking of those who had perished in the days of Noah when the ark was a-preparing, in which few, that is eight souls, were saved by water. According to the A.V., he goes on, The like figure whereunto baptism doth now save us. The Greek, in the best MSS., is . Grotius well expounds by , accurately corresponding. The difficulty is in the relative . There is no antecedent to which it can refer except , water; and it seems as if must be put in ap- position with , and as an explanation of it. Noah and his company were saved by water, which water also, that is, the water of baptism, correspondingly saves us. Even if the reading were /, it -would most naturally refer to the preceding . Certainly it could not refer to , which is feminine. We must, then, probably interpret that, though water was the instrument for destroying the disobedient, it was yet the instrument ordained of God for floating the ark, and so for saving Noah and his family; and it is in correspondence with this that water also, viz. the water of baptism, saves Christians. Augustine, commenting on these words, writes that the events in the days of Noah were a figure of things to come, so that they who believe not the Gospel, when the church is building, may be considered as like those who believed not when the ark was preparing; while those who have believed and are baptized (i.e. are saved by baptism) may be compared to those who were formerly saved in the ark by water (Epist. 164, tom. 2, p. 579). The building of the ark, he says again, was a kind of preaching. The waters of the deluge pre-signified baptism to those who believed punishment to the unbelieving (ib.).

It would be impossible to give any definite explanation of the words baptism doth save us without entering upon the theological question of baptismal regeneration. The apostle, however, gives a caution which no doubt may itself have need of an interpreter, when he adds, not the putting away the filth of the flesh, but the answer () of a good conscience toward God. Probably all will agree that he intended here to warn us against resting on the outward administration of a sacrament, with no corresponding preparation of the conscience and the soul. The connection in this passage between baptism and the resurrection of Jesus Christ maybe compared with Col 2:12.

2. In 1Co 10:1-2, the passage of the Red Sea and the shadowing of the miraculous cloud are treated as types of baptism. In all the early part of this chapter the wanderings of Israel in the wilderness are put in comparison with the life of the Christian. The being under the cloud and the passing through the sea resemble baptism; eating manna and drinking of the rock are as the spiritual food which feeds the church; and the different temptations, sins, and punishments of the Israelites on their journey to Canaan are held up as a warning to the Corinthian Church. It appears that the Rabbins themselves speak of a baptism in the cloud (see Wetstein in loc., who quotes Pirke R. Eliezer, 44; see also Schottgen in loc.). The passage from the condition of bondmen in Egypt was through the Red Sea, and with the protection of the luminous cloud. When the sea was passed the people were no longer subjects of Pharaoh, but were, under the guidance of Moses, forming into a new commonwealth, and on their way to the promised land, It is sufficiently apparent how this may resemble the enlisting of a new convert into the body of the Christian Church, his being placed in a new relation, under a new condition, in a spiritual commonwealth, with a way before him to a better country, though surrounded with dangers, subject to temptations, and with enemies on all sides to encounter in his progress.

3. Another type of, or rather a rite analogous to, baptism was circumcision. Paul (Col 2:11) speaks of the Colossian Christians as having been circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, when they were buried with Christ in baptism, in which they were also raised again with him ( / . . . . . The aorist participle, as often, is contemporary with the preceding past verb. Alford in loc.). The obvious reason for the comparison of the two rites is that circumcision was the entrance to the Jewish Church and the ancient covenant, baptism to the Christian Church and to the new covenant; and perhaps also that the spiritual significance of circumcision had a resemblance to the spiritual import of baptism, viz. the putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, and the purification of the heart by the grace of God. Paul therefore calls baptism the circumcision made without hands, and speaks of the putting off of the sins of the flesh by Christian circumcision ( ), i.e. by baptism.

4. Before leaving this part of the subject, we ought perhaps to observe that in more than one instance death is called a baptism. In Mat 20:22; Mar 10:39, our Lord speaks of the cup which he had to drink, and the baptism that he was to be baptized with; and again, in Luk 12:50, I have a baptism to be baptized with. It is generally thought that baptism here means an inundation of sorrows; that, as the baptized went down in the water, and water was to be poured over him, so our Lord meant to indicate that he himself had to pass through the deep waters of affliction (see Kuinol on Mat 20:22; Schleusner, s.v. ). In after times martyrdom was called a baptism of blood. But the metaphor in this latter case is evidently different; and in the above words of our Lord baptism is used without any qualification, whereas in passages adduced from profane authors we always find some words explanatory of the mode of the immersion. Is it not then probable that some deeper significance attaches to the comparison of death, especially of our Lord’s death, to baptism, when we consider, too, that the connection of baptism with the death and resurrection of Christ is so much insisted on by Paul?

IV. Names of Baptism.

1. Baptism (: the word occurs only three times, viz. Mar 7:8; Heb 6:2; Heb 9:10). The verb from , to wet) is the rendering of , to plunge, by the Sept. in 2Ki 5:14; and accordingly the Rabbins used , for . The Latin fathers render by tingere (e.g. Tertull. adv. Prax. c. 26, Novissimo mandavit ut tingerent in Patrem Filium et Spiritum Sanctum); by mergere (as Ambros. De Sacramentis, lib. 2, c. 7, Interrogatus es, Credis in Deum Patrem Omnipotentem? Dixisti Credo; et mersisti, hoc est sepultus es); by mergztare (as Tertullian, De Corona Militis, c. 3, Dehinc ter mergitamur); see Suicer, s.v. . By the Greek fathers the word is often used figuratively for overwhelming with sleep, sorrow, sin, etc. Thus , buried in sleep through drunkenness. So , absorbed in thought (Chrysost.). , steeped in sin (Justin M.). See Suicer, s.v. .

2. The Water ( ) is a name of baptism which occurs in Act 10:47. After Peter’s discourse, the Holy Spirit came visibly on Cornelius and his company; and the apostle asked, Can any man forbid the water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost? In ordinary cases the water had been first administered, after that the apostles laid on their hands, and then the Spirit was given. But here the Spirit had come down manifestly; before the administration of baptism; and Peter argued that no one could then reasonably withhold baptism (calling it the water) from those who had visibly received that of which baptism was the sign and seal. With this phrase, , the water, used of baptism, compare the breaking of bread as a title of the Eucharist, Act 2:42.

3. The Washing of Water ( , the bath of the water) occurs Eph 5:26. There appears clearly in these words a reference to the bridal bath; but the allusion to baptism is clearer still, baptism of which the bridal bath was an emblem, a type, or mystery, signifying to us the spiritual union betwixt Christ and his church. For as the bride was wont to bathe before being presented to the bridegroom, so washing in the water is that initiatory rite by which the Christian Church is betrothed to the Bridegroom, Christ.

There is some difficulty in the construction and interpretation of the qualifying words, , by the word. According to the more ancient interpretation, they would indicate that the outward rite of washing is insufficient and unavailing without the added potency of the Word of God (comp. 1Pe 3:21), Not the putting away the filth of the flesh, etc.); and as the had reference to the bridal bath, so there might be an allusion to the words of betrothal. The bridal bath and the words of betrothal typified the water and the words of baptism. On the doctrine so expressed the language of Augustine is famous: Detrahe verbum, et quid est aqua nisi aqua? Accedit verbum ad elementum, et fit sacramentum (Tract. 80 ins Johan.). Yet the general use of in the New Testament and the grammatical construction of the passage seem to favor the opinion that the Word of God preached to the church, rather than the words made use of in baptism, is that accompaniment of the laver without which it would be imperfect (see Ellicott, in loc.).

4. The washing of regeneration ( ) is a phrase naturally connected with the foregoing. It occurs Tit 3:5. All ancient and most modern commentators have interpreted it of baptism. Controversy has made some persons unwilling to admit this interpretation; but the question probably should be, not as to the significance of the phrase, but as to the degree of importance attached in the words of the apostle to that which the phrase indicates. Thus Calvin held that the bath meant baptism; but he explained its occurrence in this context by saying that Baptism is to us the seal of salvation which Christ hath obtained for us. The current of the apostle’s reasoning is this. He tells Titus to exhort the Christians of Crete to be submissive to authority, showing all meekness to all men: for we ourselves were once foolish, erring, serving our own lusts; but when the kindness of God our Savior and His love toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we performed, but according to His own mercy He saved us by (through the instrumentality of) the bath of regeneration, and the renewing of the Holy Ghost ( ), which He shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, that, being justified by His grace, we might be made heirs of eternal life through hope (or according to hope, ).” The argument is, that Christians should be kind to all men, remembering that they themselves had been formerly disobedient, but that by God’s free mercy in Christ they had been transplanted into a better state, even a state of salvation ( ), and that by means of the bath of regeneration and the renewal of the Holy Spirit. If, according to the more ancient and common interpretation, the laver means baptism, the whole will seem pertinent. Christians are placed in a new condition, made members of the Church of Christ by baptism, and they are renewed in the spirit of their minds by the Holy Ghost.

There is so much resemblance, both in the phraseology and in the argument, between this passage in Titus and 1Co 6:11, that the latter ought by all means to be compared with the former. Paul tells the Corinthians that in their heathen state they had been stained with heathen vices; but, he adds, ye were washed (lit. ye washed or bathed yourselves, ), but ye were sanctified, but ye were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and by the Spirit of our God. It is generally believed that here is an allusion to the being baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ; though some connect sanctified and justified, as well as washed, with the words in the name, etc. (see Stanley, in loc.). But, however this may be, the reference to baptism seems unquestionable.

Another passage containing very similar thoughts, clothed in almost the same words, is Act 22:16, where Ananias says to Saul of Tarsus, Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling upon the name of the Lord ( , ). See Calvin’s Commentary on this passage.

5. Illumination (). It has been much questioned whether , enlightened, in Heb 6:4; Heb 10:32, be used of baptism or not. Justin M., Clement of Alexandria, and almost all the Greek fathers, use as a synonym for baptism. The Syriac version, the most ancient in existence, gives this sense to the word in both the passages in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, and other Greek commentators so interpret it; and they are followed by Ernesti, Michaelis, and many modern interpreters of the highest authority (Wetstein cites from Orac. Sibyll. 1, ). On the other hand, it is now very commonly alleged that the use is entirely ecclesiastical, not scriptural, and that it arose from the undue esteem for baptism in the primitive church. It is impossible to enter into all the merits of the question here. If the usage be scriptural, it is to be found only in the two passages in Hebrews above mentioned; but it may perhaps correspond with other figures and expressions in the New Testament. The patristic use of the word may be seen by referring to Suicer, s.v. , and to Bingham (E. A. bk. 11, ch. 1, 4). The rationale of the name, according to Justin Martyr, is, that the catechumens, before admission to baptism, were instructed in all the principal doctrines of the Christian faith, and hence

this laver is called illumination, because those who learn these things are illuminated in their understanding (Apol. 2:94). But if this word be used in the sense of baptism in the Epistle to the Hebrews, as we have no mention of any training of catechumens in the New Testament, we must probably seek for a different explanation of its origin. It will be remembered that was a term for admission into the ancient mysteries. Baptism was without question the initiatory rite in reference to the Christian faith (comp. , Can. Apost. 1). Now that Christian faith is more than once called by Paul the Christian mystery.

The mystery of God’s will (Eph 1:9), the mystery of Christ (Col 4:3; Eph 3:4), the mystery of the Gospel (Eph 6:19), and other like phrases, are common in his epistles. A Greek could hardly fail to be reminded by such language of the religious mysteries of his own former heathenism. But, moreover, seeing that in Him are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, it seems highly probable that in three memorable passages Paul speaks, not merely of the Gospel or the faith, but of Christ himself as the great Mystery of God or of godliness.

(1) In Col 1:27, we read, the glory of this mystery, which is Christ in you, ,

(2) In Col 2:2, Lachmann, Tregelles, and Ellicott, as we think on good grounds, adopt the reading , , rightly compared by Bp. Ellicott with the preceding passage occurring only four verses before it, and interpreted by him the mystery of God, even Christ.

(3) It deserves to be carefully considered whether the above usage in Colossians does not suggest a clear exposition of 1Ti 3:16, . . For, if Christ be the Mystery of God, he may well be called also the Mystery of godliness; and the masculine relative is then easily intelligible, as being referred to understood and implied in ; for, in the words of Hilary, Dens Christus est Sacramentum.

But, if all this be true, as baptism is the initiatory Christian rite admitting us to the service of God and to the knowledge of Christ, it may not improbably have been called , and afterward , as having reference, and as admitting to the mystery of the Gospel, and to Christ himself, who is the Mystery of God.

V. We pass to a few of the more prominent passages, not already considered, in which baptism is referred to.

1. Joh 3:5 Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God has been a well-established battle-field from the time of Calvin. Hooker states that for the first fifteen centuries no one had ever doubted its application to baptism (Eccl. Pol. v, 59). Zuinglius was probably the first who interpreted it otherwise. Calvin understood the words of water and of the Spirit as , the washing or cleansing of the Spirit (or rather perhaps by the Spirit), who cleanses as water, referring to Mat 3:11 (He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire), as a parallel usage. Stier (Words of the Lord Jesus, in loc.) observes that Licke has rightly said that we may regard this interpretation by means of a hendiadys, which erroneously appealed to Mat 3:11, as now generally abandoned. Stier, moreover, quotes with entire approbation the words of Meyer (on Joh 3:5): Jesus speaks here concerning a spiritual baptism, as in chap. vi, concerning a spiritual feeding; in both places, however, with reference to their visible auxiliary means. That our Lord probably adopted expressions familiar to the Jews in this discourse with Nicodemus may be seen by reference to Lightfoot, Hor. Heb. in loc.

2. The prophecy of John the Baptist just referred to, viz. that our Lord should baptize with the Holy Ghost and with fire (Mat 3:11), has usually been interpreted by that rhetorical figure (hendiadys) which designates one thing by a double expression. Bengel thus paraphrases it: The Holy Spirit, with which Christ baptizes, has a fiery force, and this was once even manifest to human sight (Act 2:3). The fathers, indeed, spoke of a threefold baptism with fire: first, of the Holy Ghost in the shape of fiery tongues at Pentecost; secondly, of the fiery trial of affliction and temptation (1Pe 1:7); thirdly, of the fire which at the last day is to try every man’s works (1Co 3:13). It is, however, very improbable that there is any allusion to either of the last two in Mat 3:11. There is an antithesis in John the Baptist’s language between his own lower mission and the divine authority of the Savior. John baptized with a mere earthly element, teaching men to repent, and pointing them to Christ; but He that should come after, , was empowered to baptize with the Holy Ghost and with fire. The water of John’s baptism could but wash the body; the Holy Ghost, with which Christ was to baptize, should purify the soul as with fire. SEE BAPTISM WITH FIRE.

3. Gal 3:27 : For as many as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. In the whole of this very important and difficult chapter Paul is reasoning on the inheritance by the Church of Christ of the promises made to Abraham. Christ i.e. Christ comprehending his whole body mystical is the true seed of Abraham, to whom the promises belong (Gal 3:16). The law, which came afterward, could not annul the promises thus made. The law was fit to restrain (or perhaps rather to manifest) transgression (Gal 3:23). The law acted as a pedagogue, keeping us for and leading us on to Christ, that he might bestow on us freedom and justification by faith in him (Gal 3:24). But after the coming of faith we are no longer, like young children, under a pedagogue, but we are free, as heirs in our Father’s house (Gal 3:25; comp. ch. Gal 4:1-5). For ye all are God’s sons (filii emancipati, not , but , Bengel and Ellicott) through the faith in Christ Jesus. For as many as have been baptized into Christ have put on (clothed yourselves in) Christ (see Schottgen on Rom 13:14). In him is neither Jew nor Greek, neither bond nor free, neither male nor female; for all ye are one in Christ Jesus (Rom 13:26-28). The argument is plain. All Christians are God’s sons through union with the Only-begotten. Before the faith in him came into the world, men were held under the tutelage of the law, like children, kept as in a state of bondage under a pedagogue. But after the preaching of the faith, all who are baptized into Christ clothe themselves in him; so they are esteemed as adult sons of his Father, and by faith in him they may be justified from their sins, from which the law could not justify them (Act 13:37). The contrast is between the Christian and the Jewish Church: one bond, the other free; one infant, the other adult. The transition point is naturally when by baptism the service of Christ is undertaken and the promises of the Gospel are claimed. This is represented as putting on Christ and in him assuming the position of full- grown men. In this more privileged condition there is the power of obtaining justification by faith, a justification which the law had not to offer.

4. 1Co 12:13 : For by one Spirit (or in one spirit, ) we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether bond or free, and were all made to drink of one Spirit. The resemblance of this passage to the last is very clear. In the old dispensation there was a marked division between Jew and Gentile; under the Gospel there is one body in Christ. As in Gal 3:16, Christ is the seed ( ), so here he is the body ( ) into which all Christians become incorporated. All distinctions of Jew and Gentile, bond and free, are abolished. By the grace of the same Spirit (or perhaps in one spirit of Christian love and fellowship (comp. Eph 2:18), without division or separate interests) all are joined in baptism to the one body of Christ, his universal church. Possibly there is an allusion to both sacraments. We were baptized into one body, we were made to drink of one Spirit ( : Lachm. and Tisch. omit ). Both our baptism and our partaking of the cup in the communion are tokens and pledges of Christian unity. They mark our union with the one body of Christ, and they are means of grace, in which we may look for one Spirit to be present with blessing (comp. 1Co 10:3; 1Co 10:17′; see Waterland on the Eucharist, ch. 10, and Stanley on 1Co 12:13).

5. Rom 6:4, and Col 2:12, are so closely parallel that we may notice them together. As the apostle in the two last-considered passages views baptism as a joining to the mystical body of Christ, so in these two passages he goes on to speak of Christians in their baptism as buried with Christ in his death, and raised again with him in his resurrection. As the natural body of Christ was laid in the ground and then raised up again, so his mystical body, the church, descends in baptism into the waters, in which also ( /, sc. , Col 2:12) it is raised up again with Christ, through faith in the mighty working of God, who raised him from the dead. Probably, as in the former passages Paul had brought forward baptism as the symbol of Christian unity, so in those now before us he refers to it as the token and pledge of the spiritual death to sin and resurrection to righteousness; and moreover of the final victory over death in the last day, through the power of the resurrection of Christ. It is said that it was partly in reference to this passage in Colossians that the early Christians so generally used trine immersion, as signifying thereby the three days in which Christ lay in the grave (see Suicer, s.v. , II. a). Smith, Append. s.v.

1. JEWISH BAPTISM. Purifications by washing (q.v.) were very common among the Jews. SEE ABLUTION. In the language of the prophets, cleansing -with water is used as an emblem of the purification of the heart, which in the Messianic age is to glorify the soul in her innermost recesses, and to embrace the whole of the theocratic nation (Eze 36:25 sq.; Zec 13:1).Of the antiquity of lustrations by water among the Jews there is no question, but it is still a disputed point whether baptism was practiced, as an initiatory rite, in connection with circumcision, before the coming of Christ. It is well established that, as early as the second century of the Christian sera, this proselyte baptism was an established rite among the Jews; and their writers, as well as many Christian theologians (e.g. Lightfoot, Wetstein, Wall, and others), claim for it a much greater antiquity. But this opinion is hardly tenable, for, as an act which strictly gives validity to the admission of a proselyte, and is no mere accompaniment to his admission, baptism certainly is not alluded to in the New Testament; while, as to the passages quoted in proof from the classical (profane) writers of that period, they are all open to the most fundamental objections. Nor is the utter silence of Josephus and Philo on the subject, notwithstanding their various opportunities of touching on it, a less weighty argument against this view. It is true that mention is made in the Talmud of that regulation as already existing in the first century A.D.; but such statements belong only to the traditions of the Gemara, and require careful investigation before they can serve as proper authority. This Jewish rite was probably originally only a purifying ceremony; and it was raised to the character of an initiating and indispensable rite, coordinate with that of sacrifice and circumcision, only after the destruction of the Temple, when sacrifices had ceased, and the circumcision of proselytes had, by reason of public edicts, become more and more impracticable. SEE PROSELYTE.

2. JOHN’S BAPTISM. It was the principal object of John the Baptist to combat the prevailing opinion that the performance of external ceremonies was sufficient to secure participation in the kingdom of God and his promises; he required repentance, therefore, as a preparation for the approaching kingdom of the Messiah. That he may possibly have baptized heathens also seems to follow from his censuring the Pharisees for confiding in their descent from Abraham, while they had no share in his spirit; yet it should not be overlooked that this remark was drawn from him by the course of the argument (Mat 3:8-9; Luk 3:7-8). W We must, on the whole, assume that John considered the existing Judaism as a stepping-stone by which the Gentiles were to arrive at the kingdom of God in its Messianic form. The general point of view from which John contemplated the Messiah and his kingdom was that of the Old Testament, though closely bordering on Christianity. He regards, it is true, an alteration in the mind and spirit as an indispensable condition for partaking in the kingdom of the Messiah; still, he looked for its establishment by means of conflict and external force, with which the Messiah was to be endowed; and he expected in him a Judge and Avenger, who was to set up outward and visible distinctions. It is, therefore, by no means a matter of indifference whether baptism be administered in the name of that Christ who floated before the mind of John, or of the suffering and glorified One, such as the apostles knew him; and whether it was considered a preparation for a political, or a consecration into a spiritual theocracy. John was so far from this latter view, so far from contemplating a purely spiritual development of the kingdom of God, that he even began subsequently to entertain doubts concerning Christ (Mat 11:2). John’s baptism had not the character of an immediate, but merely of a preparatory consecration for the glorified theocracy (Joh 1:31). The apostles, therefore, found it necessary to rebaptize the disciples of John, who had still adhered to the notions of their master on that head (Acts 19). To this apostolic judgment Tertullian appeals, and in his opinion coincide the most eminent teachers of the ancient’ church, both of the East and the West. Jacobi, in Kitto’s Cyclop. s.v. SEE JOHN (THE BAPTIST).

The Baptism of Jesus by John (Mat 3:13; Mar 1:9; Luk 3:21; comp. Joh 1:19), as the first act of Christ’s public career, is one of the most important events recorded in the evangelical history. We might be apt to infer from Luke and Matthew that there had been an acquaintance between Christ and John prior to the baptism, and that hence John declines (Mat 3:14) to baptize Jesus, arguing that he needed to be baptized by him. This, however, has been thought to be at variance with Joh 1:31; Joh 1:33. Lucke (Comment. 1:416 sq., 3d edit.) takes the words I knew him not in their strict and exclusive sense. John, he says, could not have spoken in this manner if he had at all known Jesus; and had he known him, he could not, as a prophet, have failed to discover, even at an earlier period, the but too evident glory of the Messiah. On the other hand, the narrative of the-first three Gospels presupposes John’s personal acquaintance with him, since, although the herald of the Messiah, he could not otherwise have given that refusal (Mat 3:14) to the Messiah alone; for his own language necessarily implies that Jesus was not a stranger to him. SEE MESSIAH.

With regard to the object of Christ in undergoing baptism, we find, in the first instance, that he ranked this action among those of his Messianic calling. This object is still more defined by John the Baptist (Joh 1:31), which passage Lucke interprets in the following words: Only by entering into that community which was to be introductory to the Messianic, by attaching himself to the Baptist like any other man, was it possible for Christ to reveal himself to the Baptist, and through him to others. Christ himself never for a moment could doubt his own mission, or the right period when his character was to be made manifest by God; but John needed to receive that assurance, in order to be the herald of the Messiah who was actually come. For all others whom John baptized, either before or after Christ, this act was a mere preparatory consecration to the kingdom of the Messiah; while for Jesus it was a direct and immediate consecration, by means of which he manifested the commencement of his career as the founder of the new theocracy, which began at the very moment of his baptism, the initiatory character of which constituted its general principle and tendency. SEE JESUS.

Baptism of the Disciples of Christ. Whether our Lord ever baptized has been doubted. (See Schenk, De lotione a Christo administrata, Marb. 1745.) The only passage which may distinctly bear on the question is Joh 4:1-2, where it is said that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples. We necessarily infer from it that, as soon as our Lord began his ministry, and gathered to him a company of disciples, he, like John the Baptist, admitted into that company by the administration of baptism. Normally, however, to say the least of it, the administration of baptism was by the hands of his disciples. Some suppose that the first-called disciples had all received baptism at the hands of John the Baptist, as must have pretty certainly been the case with Andrew (see Joh 1:35; Joh 1:37; Joh 1:40), and that they were not again baptized with water after they joined the company of Christ. Others believe that Christ himself baptized some few of his earlier disciples, who were afterward authorized to baptize the rest. But in any case the words above cited seem to show that making disciples and baptizing them went together; and that baptism was, even during our Lord’s earthly ministry, the formal, mode of accepting his service and becoming attached to his company.

After the resurrection, when the church was to be spread and the Gospel preached, our Lord’s own commission conjoins the making of disciples with their baptism. The command, Make disciples of all nations by baptizing them (Mat 28:19), is merely the extension of his own practice, Jesus made disciples and baptized them (Joh 4:1). The conduct of the apostles is the plainest comment on both; for so soon as ever men, convinced by their preaching, asked for guidance and direction, their first exhortation was to repentance and baptism, that thus the convert should be at once publicly received into the fold of Christ (see Act 2:38; Act 8:12; Act 8:36; Act 9:18; Act 10:47; Act 16:15; Act 16:33, etc.). (See Zimmermann, De Baptismi origine et usu, Gott. 1816.) SEE DISCIPLE.

3. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM is a sacrament instituted by Christ himself. When he could no longer personally and immediately choose and receive members of his kingdom, when at the same time all had been accomplished which the founder thought necessary for its completion, he gave power to the spiritual community to receive, in his name, members by baptism. The authority and obligation of baptism as a universal ordinance of the Christian Church is derived from the commission of Christ, Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in (to, ) the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost (Mat 28:19). See II below.

1. Design and Benefits of Baptism. As to the design and benefits of baptism there are various views held. The principal are the following:

1. That it is a direct instrument of grace; the application of water to the person by a properly qualified functionary being regarded as the appointed vehicle by which God bestows regenerating grace upon men. This is the view of the Roman and Eastern churches, and of one (the High-Church) party in the Protestant Episcopal and the Lutheran churches. Nearly the same view is held by the Disciples of Christ (Campbellites), who regard baptism as the remitting ordinance of the Gospel, or the appointed means through which the penitent sinner obtains the assurance of that remission of sins procured by the death of Christ. SEE REGENERATION. 2. That it is neither an instrument nor a seal of grace, but simply a ceremony of initiation into church membership. This is the Socinian view of the ordinance.

3. That it is a token of regeneration, to be received only by those who give evidence of being really regenerated. This is the view adopted by the Baptists.

4. That it is a symbol of purification, the use of which simply announces that the religion of Christ is a purifying religion, and intimates that the party receiving the rite assumes the profession, and is to be instructed in the principles of that religion. This opinion is extensively entertained among the Congregationalists of England.

5. That it is the rite of initiation into the visible church, and that, though not an instrument, it is a seal of grace, divine blessings being thereby confirmed and obsignated to the individual.

This is the doctrine of the Confessions of the majority of the Reformed churches. The Augsburg Confession states,

Art. 9: Concerning baptism, our churches teach that it is a necessary ordinance; that it is a means of grace, and ought to be administered also to children, who are thereby dedicated to God, and received into his favor. They condemn the Anabaptists who reject the baptism of children, and who affirm that infants may be saved without baptism. The Westminster Confession,

Art. 28: Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church, but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life; which sacrament is, by Christ’s own appointment, to be continued in his church until the end of the world. The outward element to be used in this sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by a minister of the Gospel lawfully called thereunto. Dipping of the person into water is not necessary; but baptism is rightly administered by pouring or sprinkling water upon the person. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one or both believing parents, are to be baptized. Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it, or that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated. The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God’s own will, in his appointed time. The sacrament of baptism is but once to be administered to any person. In the 17th article of the Methodist Episcopal Church it is declared that Baptism is not only a sign of profession and mark of difference whereby Christians are distinguished from others that are not baptized, but it is also a sign of regeneration, or the new birth. The baptism of young children is to be retained in the church. The same formula appears in the Articles of the Church of England and of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States, with certain additions, as follows:

Art. 27. Baptism is not only a sign of profession and mark of difference whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but it is also a sign of regeneration, or new birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive baptism rightly are grafted into the church: the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed -and sealed: faith is confirmed, and grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God. The baptism of young children is in any wise to be retained in the church as most agreeable with the institution of Christ. The following excellent summary of the benefits of baptism is given by Watson (Institutes, 2:646): Baptism introduces the adult believer into the covenant of grace and the Church of Christ, and is the seal, the pledge to him on the part of God of the fulfillment of all its provisions in time and in eternity, while on his part he takes upon himself the obligations of steadfast faith and obedience. To the infant child it is a visible reception into the same covenant and church-a pledge of acceptance through Christ the bestowment of a title to all the grace of the covenant as circumstances may require, and as the mind of the child may be capable, or made capable of receiving it, and as it may be sought in future life by prayer, when the period of reason and moral choice shall arrive. It conveys, also, the present blessing’ of Christ, of which we are assured by his taking children in his arms and blessing them; which blessing cannot be merely nominal, but must be substantial and efficacious. It secures, too, the gift of the Holy Ghost in those secret spiritual influences by which the actual regeneration of those children who die in infancy is effected, and which are a seed of life in those who are spared, to prepare them for instruction in the Word of God, as they are taught it by parental care, to incline their will and affections to good, and to begin and maintain in them the war against inward and outward evil, so that they may be divinely assisted, as reason strengthens, to make their calling and election sure. In a word, it is, both as to infants and to adults, the sign and pledge of that inward grace which, though modified in its operations by the difference of their circumstances, has respect to, and flows from, a covenant relation to each of the three persons in whose one name they are baptized-acceptance by the Father, union with Christ as the head of his mystical body, the church, and the communion of the Holy Ghost. To these advantages must be added the respect which God bears to the believing act of the parents, and to their solemn prayers on the occasion, in both which the child is interested, as well as in that solemn engagement of the parents which the rite necessarily implies to bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.

Exaggerated ideas of the necessity and efficacy of baptism developed themselves as early as the second and third centuries (see references in Hagenbach, History of Doctrines, 72). It became the custom to defer baptism as long as possible (a practice recommended, e.g. by Tertullian, De Bapt. c. 18). Many would not be baptized until just before death; e.g. Constantine. They supposed that baptism removes all previous sins in a sort of magical way; but that sins after baptism are remitted with difficulty, or not at all. Hence the baptism of new converts was delayed, entirely contrary to the spirit and practice of the apostles, who baptized’ converts immediately (Act 2:41; Act 16:15). See Baumgarten, De Procrastinatione Baptismi ap. Veteres, Halle, 1747. After Augustine, through whom the doctrine of no salvation out of the church came to be received, it began to be held that infants dying without baptism were lost, and the baptism of very young infants became the common rule, while the baptism of adult converts was hastened (Knapp, Theology, 141).

The Church of Rome continues to teach that original sin is effaced by the sacrament of baptism. The Anglican Church holds that this infection of nature doth remain in them that are regenerated. The Russian Catechism declares that in holy baptism the believer dies to the carnal life of sin, and is born again of the Holy Ghost to a life spiritual and holy; which is the doctrine of the Greek Church generally. SEE GRACE; SEE REGENERATION; SEE SACRAMENTS.

II. Obligation and Perpetuity of Baptism. That baptism is obligatory is evident from the example of Christ, who by his disciples baptized many that, by his miracles and discourses, were brought to profess faith in him as the Messiah; from his command to his apostles after his resurrection (Mat 28:19); and from the practice of the apostles themselves (Act 2:38). But the Quakers assert that water baptism was never intended to continue in the Church of Christ any longer than while Jewish prejudices made such an external ceremony necessary. They argue from Eph 4:5, in which one baptism is spoken of as necessary to Christians, that this must be a baptism of the Spirit. But, from comparing the texts that relate to this institution, it will plainly appear that water baptism was instituted by Christ in more general terms than will agree with this explication. That it was administered to all the Gentile converts, and not confined to the Jews, appears from Mat 28:19-20, compared with Act 10:47; and that the baptism of the Spirit did not supersede water baptism appears to have been the judgment of Peter and of those that were with him; so that the one baptism spoken of seems to have been that of water, the communication of the Holy Spirit being only called baptism in a figurative sense. As for any objection which may be drawn from 1Co 1:17; it is sufficiently answered by the preceding verses, and all the numerous texts in which, in epistles written long after this, the apostle speaks of all Christians as baptized, and argues from the obligation of baptism in such a manner as we could never imagine he would have done if he had apprehended it to have been the will of God that it should be discontinued in the church (compare Rom 6:3, etc.; Col 2:12; Gal 3:27). Doddridge, Lectures on Divinity, Lect. 201. For a clear view of the obligation of baptism, see Hibbard on Christian Baptism, pt. 2, ch. 10. SEE ANTI-BAPTISTS; SEE QUAKERS.

III. Mode of Baptism. The ceremonies used in baptism have varied in different ages and countries; a brief account of them is given below (VIII). Among Protestants baptism is performed with great simplicity; all that is deemed essential to the ordinance being the application of water by sprinkling, pouring, or immersion, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

1. The Baptists (q.v.) maintain, however, that immersion is the only valid baptism, in this point separating themselves from all the rest of Christendom. They rely for their justification chiefly upon the following arguments:

(1.) That the word means, literally, to immerse, and nothing else; while its figurative uses always include the idea of burying or overwhelming;

(2.) that the terms washing, purifying, burying in baptism, so often mentioned in the Scriptures, allude to this mode;

(3.) that the places selected for baptism in the New Test. imply immersion;

(4.) that immersion only was the practice of the apostles, the first Christians, and the church in general for many ages, and that it was only laid aside from the love of novelty and the coldness of climate. These positions, they think, are so clear from Scripture and the history of the church that they stand in need of but little argument for their support.

(5.) Farther, they also insist that all positive institutions depend entirely upon the will and declaration of the institutor; and that, therefore, reasoning by analogy from previously abrogated rites is to be rejected, and the express command of Christ respecting baptism ought to be our rule. SEE IMMERSION.

2. The Christian Church generally, on the other hand, denies that immersion is essential to the ordinance of baptism, and admits any of the three modes, sprinkling, pouring, or immersion. The Greek Church requires trine immersion in its rubrics, but in Russia baptism by sprinkling or affusion is regarded as equally valid. The Roman ritual favors affusion thrice repeated, but admits also of immersion. In the Office for the Public Baptism of Infants in the Church of England it is directed that the priest shall dip the child in the water if the sponsors shall certify him that the child may well endure it; but if they certify that the child is weak, it shall suffice to pour water upon it. In the Office for the Private Baptism of Infants it is directed that the baptism shall be by affusion, the infant in such cases being always certified to be weak. In the Office for the Baptism of Adults, it is left altogether to the discretion of the minister to dip the person to be baptized in the water or to pour water upon him. The framers of the Office evidently, by the discretionary power left to the officiating minister, have decided that the mode in this respect is immaterial. The ritual of the Methodist Episcopal Church, in like manner, leaves the administrator free; and he is so, in fact, in most (but not all) Protestant Churches. The substantial question, therefore, between the Baptists and the Christian Church generally, is whether immersion is essential to baptism or not. The negative is maintained by the following arguments (besides others for which we have not space), viz.

(1.) As to the meaning of , it is allowed, on all hands, that it is (at least sometimes) applied to acts involving the process of immersion both by profane and sacred writers (see above). But the best lexicographers agree that this is not its exclusive meaning, and none but a daring controversialist would assert that it is. The word is derived from , the verbal adjective of , to wet thoroughly, and its etymological meaning is to put into a drenched or imbued condition

(Meth. Quar. Rev. 1850, p. 406). In the New Testament it generally means to purify by the application of water. (See Beecher on Baptism; Murdock, in Bib. Sac. Oct. 1850, on the Syriac words for baptism.) As the word is used to express the various ablutions among the Jews, such as sprinkling, pouring, etc. (Heb 9:10), for the custom of washing before meals, and the washing of household furniture, pots, etc., it is evident from hence that it does not express the manner of doing a thing, whether by immersion or affusion, but only the thing done that is, washing, or the application of water in some form or other. It nowhere signifies to dip, but in denoting a mode of, and in order to, washing or cleansing; and the mode or use is only the ceremonial part of a positive institute, just as in the Lord’s Supper the time of day, the number and posture of the communicants, the quantity and quality of bread and wine, are circumstances not accounted essential by any part of Christians. If in baptism there be an expressive emblem of the descending influence of the Spirit, pouring must be the mode of administration, for that is the scriptural term most commonly and properly used for the communication of divine influences (Mat 3:11; Mar 1:8; Mar 1:10; Luk 3:16-22; Joh 1:33; Act 1:5; Act 2:38-39; Act 8:12; Act 8:17; Act 11:15-16). The term sprinkling, also, is made use of in reference to the act of purification (Isa 52:15; Eze 36:25; Heb 9:13-14), and therefore cannot be inapplicable to baptismal purification (Watson). So far, then, as the word is concerned, there is no foundation for the exclusive theory of the Baptists.

(2.) As for the fact that John baptized in Jordan,’ it is enough to reply that to infer always a plunging of the whole body in water from this particle would, in many instances, be false and absurd. Indeed, if immersion were intended, the preposition should be and not . The same preposition, , is used when it is said they should be baptized with fire, but few will assert that they should be plunged into it. The apostle, speaking of Christ, says he came not, , by water only, but, , by water and blood. There the same word, , is translated by; and with justice and propriety, for we know no good sense in which we could say he came in water. Jesus, it is said, came up out of the water, but this is no proof that he was immersed, as the Greek term properly signifies from; for instance, Who hath warned you to flee from, not out of, the wrath to come?

with many others that might be mentioned. Again, it is urged that Philip and the eunuch went down both into the water. To this it is answered that here also is no proof of immersion; for if the expression of their going down into the water necessarily includes dipping, then Philip was dipped as well as the eunuch. The preposition , translated into, often signifies no more than to or unto, see Mat 15:24; Rom 10:10; Act 28:14; Mat 3:11; Mat 17:27; so that from none of these circumstances can it be proved that there was one person of all the baptized who went into the water ankle deep. As to the apostle’s expression, buried with him in baptism, that has no force in the argument for immersion, since it does not allude to a custom of dipping, any more than our baptismal crucifixion and death has any such reference. It is not the sign, but the thing signified, that is here alluded to. As Christ was buried and rose again to a heavenly life, so we by baptism signify that we are separated from sin, that we may live a new life of faith and love. (See above.)

(3). It is urged further against immersion that it carries with it too much, of the appearance of a burdensome rite for the Gospel dispensation; that it is unfit publicly for so solemn an ordinance; that it has a tendency to agitate the spirits, often rendering the subject unfit for the exercise of proper thoughts and affections, and, indeed, utterly incapable of them; that in many cases the immersion of the body would, in all probability, be instant death; that in other situations it would be impracticable for want of water: hence it cannot be considered as necessary to the ordinance of baptism, and there is the strongest improbability that it was universally practiced in the times of the New Testament, or in the earliest periods of the Christian Church; indeed, the allegation of the exclusiveness of this mode is far from being adequately supported by ancient testimony, while in many instances (e.g. that of the Philippine jailer, Act 17:33) this theory involves the most unlikely suppositions. See above (I-V).

IV. Subjects of Baptism. The Christian churches generally baptize infants as well as adult believers, and this is believed to have been the practice of the church from the apostolical age. The Roman and Lutheran: churches teach that baptism admits children into the church and makes them members of the body of Christ. The Reformed churches, generally, teach that the children of believers are included in the covenant, and are therefore entitled to baptism. The Methodist Church holds that all infants are redeemed by Christ, and are therefore entitled to baptism, wherever they can receive the instruction and care of a Christian church or family.

(I.) As to the antiquity of infant baptism, it is admitted by Baptist writers themselves that it was practiced in Tertullian’s time (A.D. 200); but they insist that beyond that date there is no proof of any other baptism than that of adult believers. The principal passages cited in the controversy are from Origen, Tertullian, Irenaeus, and Justin Martyr.

1. Origen (A.D. 185-253) speaks in the most un- equivocal terms of the baptism of infants, as the general practice of the church in his time, and as having been received from the apostles. His testimony is as follows: According to the usage of the church, baptism is given even to infants; when, if there were nothing in infants which needed forgiveness and mercy, the grace of baptism would seem to be superfluous (Homil. VIII in Levit. ch. 12). Again: Infants are baptized for the forgiveness of sins. Of what sins? Or, when have they sinned? Or, can there be any reason for the laver in their case, unless it be according to the sense which we have mentioned above, viz. that no one is free from pollution, though he has lived but one day upon earth? And because by baptism native pollution is taken away, therefore infants are baptized (Homil. in Luke 14). Again: For this cause it was that the church received a tradition from the apostles ( ) to give baptism even to infants (Comm. on Rom. lib. v, cap. 9). Neander (Ch. Hist. 1:514) depreciates this testimony, but without any real ground. On any ordinary subject it would be taken as decisive, at least as to the prevalence of infant baptism in Origen’s time, and long before.

2. Tertullian (A.D. 160-240), in his treatise De Baptismo (c. 18), opposes infant baptism on the ground (1) that it is too important; not even earthly goods are intrusted to infants; (2) that sponsors are imperilled by the responsibility they incur. Tertullian adopted the superstitious idea that baptism was accompanied with the remission of all past sins, and that sins committed after baptism were peculiarly dangerous. He therefore advised that not merely infants, but young men and young women, and even young widows and widowers, should postpone their baptism until the period of their youthful appetite and passion should have passed. In short, he advised that, in all cases in which death was not likely to intervene, baptism be postponed until the subjects of it should have arrived at a period of life when they would be no longer in danger of being led astray by youthful lusts. And thus, for more than a century after the age of Tertullian, we find some of the most conspicuous converts to the Christian faith postponing baptism till the close of life. Further, if he could have said that infant baptism was an innovation, he would; no argument was surer or weightier in that age; and he constantly appeals to it on other subjects. All attempts to invalidate this testimony have failed. If any fact in history is certain, it is that infant baptism was practiced in Tertullian’s time, and long before. For the Baptist view, however, on this point, see an able article in the Christian Review, 16:510. See also Bibliotheca Sacra, 3, 680; v. 307.

3. Irenaeus (circ. A.D. 125-190) has the following passage (lib. 2, cap. 39): Omnes venit per semetipsum salvare; omnes, inquam, qui per eum renascuntur in Deum, infantes et parvulos et pueros, etc.; i.e. He came to save all by himself; all, I say, who, by him, are born again unto God, infants, and little children, and youth, etc. All turns here on the meaning attached by Irenaeus to the word renasci; and this is clear from a passage (lib. 3, c. 19) in which he speaks of the Gospel commission. When, says he, [Christ] gave this commission of regenerating to God [renasci], he said, Go, teach all nations, baptizing them, etc.’ Neander (whose loose admissions as to the entire question are eagerly made use of by Baptists) remarks of this passage that it is difficult to conceive how the term regeneration can be employed in reference to this age (i.e. infancy), to denote any thing else than baptism (Ch. Hist. 1:314).

4. Justin Martyr, who wrote his Apology about A.D. 138, declares that there were among Christians, in his time, many persons of both sexes, some sixty and some seventy years old, who had been made disciples to Christ from their infancy ( , Apol. 2), and who must therefore have been baptized during the lifetime of some of the apostles. In his Trypho he says, We are circumcised by baptism, with Christ’s circumcision. If means from infancy, which is probable, but not absolutely certain, this passage is conclusive.

These citations seem clearly to carry back the practice of infant baptism to a date very near the apostles’ time. If it were then an innovation, we should have had some indication of so great a change; but there is none. Up to the rise of the Anabaptists in the 16th century, the practice of infant baptism existed in the church without opposition, or with only here and there an occasional word of question.

(II.) At the present day the Greek Church, the Roman Church, and all Protestant churches (except the Baptists) hold to infant baptism. The usage rests on the following grounds (among others), viz.

1. If the practice of infant baptism prevailed at the early period above mentioned, and all history is silent as to the time of its introduction, and gives no intimation of any excitement, controversy, or opposition to an innovation so remarkable as this must have been had it been obtruded on the churches without apostolical authority, we may fairly conclude, even were Scripture silent on the subject, that infant baptism has invariably prevailed in the church as a new Testament institution.

2. From the very nature of the case, the first subjects of the baptism of Christ and his apostles were adults converted from Judaism or heathenism. But although there are no express examples in the New Testament of Christ and his apostles baptizing infants, there is no proof that they were excluded. Jesus Christ actually blessed little children; and it is difficult to believe that such received his blessing, and yet were not to be members of the Gospel church. If Christ received them, and would have us receive

them, how can we keep them out of the visible church? Besides, if children were not to be baptized, it is reasonable to expect that they would have been expressly forbidden. As whole households were baptized, it is also probable there were children among them.

3. Infants are included in Christ’s act of redemption, and are entitled thereby to the benefits and blessings of his church. Moreover, they are specifically embraced in the Gospel covenant. The covenant with Abraham, of which circumcision was made the sign and seal, is not to be regarded wholly nor even chiefly, as a political and national covenant. The engagement was,

(1.) That God would bless Abraham. This included justification, and the imputation of his faith for righteousness, with all spiritual blessings.

(2.) That he should be the father of many nations. This refers quite as much to his spiritual seed as to his natural descendants.

(3.) The promise of Canaan; and this included the higher promise of the eternal inheritance (Heb 11:9-10).

(4.) God would be a God to Abraham and to his seed after him, a promise connected with the highest spiritual blessing, and which included the justification of all believers in all nations. See Gal 3:8-9.

Now of this spiritual covenant, circumcision was the sign and the seal, and, being enjoined on all Abraham’s posterity, was a constant publication of God’s covenant grace among the descendants of Abraham, and its repetition a continual confirmation of that covenant. Baptism is, in like manner, the initiatory sign and seal of the same covenant, in its new and perfect form in Christ Jesus; otherwise the new covenant has no initiatory rite or sacrament. The argument that baptism has precisely the same federal and initiatory character as circumcision, and that it was instituted for the same ends, and in its place, is clearly established in several important passages of the New Testament. To these we can only refer (Col 2:10-12; Gal 3:27; Gal 3:29; 1Pe 3:21).

The ultimate authority for infant baptism in the bosom of a regular Christian community and under a sufficient guarantee of pious education- for only on these terms do we advocate it lies in the universal import of Christ’s person and work, which extends as far as humanity itself. Christ is not only able, but willing to save mankind of all classes, in all circumstances, of both sexes, and at all stages of life, and consequently to provide for all these the necessary means of grace (comp. Gal 3:28). A Christ able and willing to save none but adults would be no such Christ as the Gospel presents. In the significant parallel, Rom 5:12 sq., the apostle earnestly presses the point that the reign of righteousness and life is, in its divine intent and intrinsic efficacy, fully as comprehensive as the reign of sin and doubt, to which children among the rest are subject

nay, far more comprehensive and availing; and that the blessing and gain by the second Adam far outweigh the curse and the loss by the first. When the Lord, after solemnly declaring that all power is given to him in heaven and earth, commands his apostles to make all nations disciples () by baptism and instruction, there is not the least reason for limiting this to those of maturer age. Or do nations consist only of men, and not of youth also, and children? According to Psa 117:1, all nations,’ and according to Psa 150:6, every thing that hath breath,’ should praise the Lord; and that these include babes and sucklings is explicitly told us in Psa 8:2, and Mat 21:16. With this is closely connected the beautiful idea, already clearly brought out by Irenaeus, the disciple of Polycarp, and the faithful medium of the apostolical tradition descending from John’s field of labor-the idea that Jesus Christ became for children a child, for youth a youth, for men a man; and by thus entering into the various conditions and stages of our earthly existence, sanctified every period of life, infancy as well as manhood. The Baptist view robs the Savior’s infancy of its profound and cheering significance. Schaff, Apost. Ch., 143.

(III.) The BAPTISTS reject infant baptism, and maintain that the ordinance is only to be administered to persons making a profession of faith in Christ. The arguments by which they seek to maintain this view are substantially as follows, viz.

1. The commission of Christ to the disciples (Mar 16:15-16) fixes instruction in the truths of the Gospel and belief in them as prerequisites to baptism.

2. The instances of baptism given in the N.T. are adduced as confirming this view. Those baptized by John confessed their sins (Mat 3:6). The Lord Jesus Christ gave the command to teach and baptize

(Mat 28:19; Mar 16:15-16. At the day of Pentecost, they who gladly received the word were baptized, and they afterward continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship (Act 2:41-42; Act 2:47). At Samaria, those who believed were baptized, both men and women (Act 8:12). The eunuch openly avowed his faith (in reply to Philip’s statement, If thou believest with all thine heart thou mayest), and went down into the water and was baptized (Act 8:35; Act 8:39). Saul of Tarsus, after his sight was restored, and he had received the Holy Ghost, arose and was baptized (Act 9:17-18). Cornelius and his friends heard Peter, received the Holy Ghost, and were baptized (Act 10:44-48). Lydia heard Paul and Silas; the Lord opened her heart, and she was baptized, and her household.

3. The Baptists farther assert that the N.T. affords no single example of infant baptism. They explain the baptisms of households by the assumption that none of their members were infants.

4. They argue that if infant baptism be a Christian ordinance, it must be expressly enjoined in Scripture, which is not the case.

5. They argue, finally, that as Christian faith is a personal matter, its profession ought to be a matter of free conviction and choice, which cannot be the case with infants. SEE PAEDOBAPTISM.

V. The Minister of Baptism. The administration by baptism is a function of the ministerial office (Mat 28:16-20). But it is the general opinion, both of the Roman and Protestant churches, that the presence of an ordained minister is not absolutely essential to the ordinance, and that, in extreme cases, it is lawful for lay persons to baptize. At the present day, not only lay baptism, but baptism administered by heretics, schismatics, and even women, is held to be valid by the Greek and Roman churches. The Lutherans also hold the same view. Baptism by midwives was admitted by the Church of England in extreme cases down to the Great Rebellion. Not that it was believed that laymen have the right to baptize, but that, the baptism having been once performed, it is valid to such an extent that rebaptism is improper. SEE BAPTISM (LAY).

VI. Repetition of Baptism. In the third century the question arose whether the baptism of heretics was to be accounted valid, or whether a heretic who returned to the Catholic Church was to be rebaptized. In opposition to the usage of the Eastern and African churches, which was defended by Cyprian, the principle was established in the Roman Church under Stephen, that the right of baptism, if duly performed, was always valid, and its repetition contrary to the tradition of the church. In the next age Basil and Gregory of Nazianzen followed Cyprian’s view, but by the influence of Augustine the Roman view became the prevalent one; but the Donatists maintained that heretics must be rebaptized. SEE DONATISTS (Hagenbach, Hist. of Doct. 72 and 137, and references there). After the Reformation, the Roman Church, compelled by its old usage and principle, continued to acknowledge the validity of Protestant baptisms, while Protestants, in turn, admit the validity of Roman Catholic baptism.

VII. Sponsors or Godfathers. Sponsors (called also godfathers and godmothers) are persons who, at the baptism of infants, answer for their future conduct, and solemnly promise that they will renounce the devil and all his works, and follow a life of purity and virtue; and by these means lay themselves under an indispensable obligation to instruct them and watch over their conduct. In the Roman Church the number of godfathers and godmothers is reduced to two; in the Church of England, to three; formerly the number was not limited. It is prohibited, in the Roman Church, to sponsors to marry their godchildren, or each other, or either parent of their godchild; nor may the baptizer marry the child baptized or its parent. The custom of having sponsors is not in use among the dissenting denominations in England, nor among the evangelical churches in America. The parents are held to be the proper persons to present their children for baptism, and to train them up afterward; indeed, while they live, no other persons can possibly take this duty from them. In the early church the parents were commonly the sponsors of infants. The duty of those who undertook the office of sponsor for adult persons was not to answer in their names, but to admonish and instruct them, both before and after baptism. In many churches this office was chiefly imposed upon the deacons and deaconesses. The only persons excluded from this office by the ancient Church were catechumens, energumens, heretics, and penitents; also persons not confirmed are excluded by some canons. Anciently one sponsor only was required for each person to be baptized, who was to be of the same sex as the latter in the case of adult persons; in the case of infants the sex was indifferent. The origin of the prohibition of sponsors marrying within the forbidden degrees of spiritual relationship appears to have been a law of Justinian, still extant in the Codex (lib. v, tit. 4, De Nuptiis, Leg. 26), which forbade a godfather to marry the woman for whom he had stood sponsor at baptism. The council in Trullo extended this prohibition to the marrying the mother of the baptized infant (can. 53); and it was subsequently carried to such an extent that the council of Trent (Sess. 24, De Reform. Matrimon. cap. 2) was compelled to relax it in some degree. Bingham, 11, 8. SEE SPONSORS.

VIII. Ceremonies, Places, and Times of Baptism.

1. In the earlier ages of the Church there were several peculiarities in the mode of baptism which have now fallen into disuse, except, perhaps, in the Roman Catholic and Greek churches. Among there usages were trine immersion (i.e. dipping three times, once at the naming of each person in the Trinity, Tertull. Cont. Prax. 26), anointing with oil, giving milk and honey to the baptized person, etc. After the council of Nice, Christians added to baptism the ceremonies of exorcism and adjuration, to make evil spirits depart from the persons to be baptized. They made several signings with the cross, they used lighted candles, they gave salt to the baptized person to taste, and the priest touched his mouth and ears with spittle, and also blew and spat upon his face. At that time also baptized persons wore white garments till the Sunday following.

Three things were required of the catechumens immediately before their baptism:

(1.) A solemn renunciation of the devil;

(2.) A profession of faith in the words of some received creed; and

(3.) An engagement to live a Christian life. The form of renunciation is given in the Const. Apost. lib. 7, cap. 41.

The time of administering the rite was subject to various changes; at first it was without limitation. Soon Easter and Whitsuntide were considered the most appropriate seasons, and Easter-eve deemed the most sacred; afterward, Epiphany and the festivals of the apostles and martyrs were selected in addition. From the tenth century the observance of the stated seasons fell into disuse, and children were required to be baptized within a month of their birth (Bingham, Orig. Eccles. bk. 11, ch. 6; Coleman, Ancient Christianity, ch. 19). SEE IMPOSITION OF HANDS.

Until the time of Justin Martyr there appears to have been no fixed place for baptism, which was administered wherever it best suited; but in after times baptisteries were built near the churches, in which alone baptism might be administered. Baptism was not permitted to be conferred in private houses without the bishop’s express license, and persons so baptized could never be received into priest’s orders (Council of Neocaesarea, Song of Solomon 2). Such private baptisms were called . Afterward the font appears to have been set up in the church porch, and thence was removed into the church itself. SEE BAPTISTERY.

2. The following are the baptismal ceremonies of the Church of Rome, though not all of universal obligation:

(1.) The child is held without the Church, to signify an actual exclusion from heaven, which is symbolized by the Church.

(2.) The priest blows three times in the face of the child, signifying thereby that the devil can be displaced only by the Spirit of God.

(3.) The sign of the cross is made on the forehead and bosom of the child.

(4.) The priest, having exorcised the salt (to show that the devil, until God prevents, avails himself of every creature in order to injure mankind), puts it into the mouth of the infant, signifying by it that wisdom which shall preserve him from corruption.

(5.) The child is exorcised.

(6.) The priest touches his mouth and ears with saliva, pronouncing the word Ephphatha.

(7.) The child is unclothed, signifying the laying aside the old man.

(8.) He is presented by the sponsors, who represent the Church. (9.) The renunciation of the devil and his works is made.

(10.) He is anointed with oil.

(11.) The profession of faith is made.

(12.) He is questioned whether he will be baptized.

(13.) The name of some saint is given to him, who shall be his example and protector.

(14.) He is dipped thrice, or water is poured thrice on his head.

(15.) He receives the kiss of peace.

(16.) He is anointed on the head, to show that by baptism he becomes a king and a priest.

(17.) He receives the lighted taper, to mark that he has become a child of light.

(18.) He is folded in the alb, to show his baptismal purity (Elliott, Delineation of Romanism, 1:241). The practice of exorcising water for baptism is kept up in the Roman Church to this day. It exhibits a thoroughly pagan spirit. The following formula, taken from the Rituale Romananum, is used at the ceremony of exercising the water: I exorcise thee, creature of water, by God + the living, by God + the true, by God + the holy; by God who, in the beginning, separated thee by a word from the dry land, whose Spirit over thee was borne, who from Paradise commanded thee to flow. Then follows the rubric: Let him with his hand divide the water, and then pour some of it over the edge of the font toward the four quarters of the globe, and then proceed thus: I exorcise thee also by Jesus Christ his only Son, our Lord, who, in Cana of Galilee, changed thee by his wonderful power into wine; who walked upon thee on foot, and who was baptized in thee by John in Judaea, etc.; . . . that thou mayest be made water holy, water blessed, water which washes away our filth, and cleanses our guilty stain. Thee therefore I command every foul spirit every phantasm every lie be thou eradicated, and put to flight from the creature of water; that, to those who are to be baptized in it, it may become a fountain of water springing up into life eternal, regenerating them to God the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, in the name of the same our Lord Jesus Christ, who shall come again to judge the living and the dead, and the whole world by fire, Amen. Then follows a prayer, in which the priest supplicates the Almighty to send down the ANGEL OF SANCTITY over the waters thus prepared for the purpose of purification. Afterward the rubric directs that he shall BLOW THREE TIMES upon the water, in three different directions, according to a prescribed figure . In the next place, he is to deposit the incense upon the censer, and to incense the font. Afterward, pouring of the Oil of the Catechumens into the water after the form of a CROSS, he says, with a laud voice, Let this font be sanctified, and made fruitful-by the Oil of salvation for those who are born again thereby unto life eternal in the name of the Father +, and of the Son +, and of the Holy Ghost +, Amen. Then follows another rubric: Next, he pours in of the CHRISM after the manner above mentioned, saying, Let this infusion of the Chrism of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Ghost the Comforter, be made in the name of the sacred Trinity, Amen. Again: Afterward he takes the two vessels of the before-mentioned holy Oil and Chrism, and in pouring from each in the form of a Cross, he says, Let this mixture of the Chrism of Sanctification, of the Oil of Unction, and of the Water of Baptism, be made together in the name of the Father +, and of the Son +, and of the Holy Ghost +, Amen. Finally, the rubric again directs as follows: Then the vessel being put aside, he mingles with his right hand the holy Oil and the infused Chrism with the water, and sprinkles it all over the font. Then he swipes his hand upon (what is termed) medulla panis; and if any one is to be baptized, he baptizes him as above. But if there is no one to be baptized, he is forthwith to wash his hands, and the water of ablution must be poured out into the sacrarium (see Rit. Romans p. 58. Elliott, Delineation of Romanism,, bk. 2, ch. 2).

3. The ceremonies of baptism in the Protestant churches are: generally very simple, consisting, as has been said, in the application of water, by sprinkling, pouring, or immersion, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Ritual services are fixed in the Church of England, and the same (or nearly the same) are used in the Protestant Episcopal Church in America (see Prayer-book, Ministration of Baptism). The same forms, omitting the sign of the cross, and those parts which imply baptismal regeneration (ex opere) and the use of sponsors, is used in the Methodist Episcopal Church (Discipline, pt. 4, ch. 1). The Presbyterian Church prescribes no complete ritual, but gives certain rules in the Directory for Worship, ch. 7. The Reformed Dutch Church prescribes a simple and scriptural form (Constitution of R. D. Church, ed. Mentz, p. 93). The German Reformed Church admits sponsors, but they must be in full communion with some Christian church (Constitution, pt. iv); and a form approaching to that of the Methodist Episcopal Church is given in the Provisional Liturgy of 1858, p. 204. The Lutheran Church prescribes forms of baptism (Liturgy, 4), and admits sponsors, who may be the parents of the child.

The sign of the cross is used in baptism in the Greek and Roman churches, and in the Church of England; it is optional in the Protestant Episcopal Church. SEE CROSS IN BAPTISM.

IX. Works on Baptism. The literature of the subject is very ample. Besides the works cited in the course of this article, and the writers on systematic theology, see Baxter, Plain Proof of Infants’ Church Membership (1656); Wall, History of Infant Baptism, with Gale’s Reflections and Wall’s Defence, edited by Cotton (Oxford, 1836 and 1844, 4 vols. 8vo); Matthies, Baptismatis Expositio Bibl. Hist. Dogmatica (Berlin, 1831, 8vo); Lange, Die Kisnerstaufe (Jena, 1834, 8vo); Walch, Historia Paedobaptismi (Jenae, 1739); Williams, Antipaedobaptism examined (1789, 2 vols. 12mo); Facts and Evidences on Baptism, by the editor of Calmet’s Dictionary (London, 1815, 2 vols. 8vo; condensed into one vol., entitled Apostolic Baptism, N. Y. 1850, 12mo); Towgood, Dissertations on Christian Baptism (Lond. 1815, 12mo); Ewing, Essay on Baptism (Glasgow, 1823); Bradbury, Duty and Doctrine of Baptism (Lond. 1749, 8vo); Woods, Lectures on Infant Baptism (Andover, 1829, 12mo); Slicer, On Baptism (N.Y. 1841, 12mo); Wardlaw, Dissertation on Infant Baptism (Lond. 12mo); Neander, History of Doctrines, 1:229 sq.; Beecher, Baptism, its Import and Modes (N. Y. 1849, 12mo); Coleridge, Works (N. Y. ed., v. 187); Hibbard, Christiano Baptism, its Subjects, Mode, and Obligation (N. Y. 1845, 12mo); Hofling, Sacrament der Taufe (Erlang. 1846, 2 vols.); Rosser, Baptism, its Nature, Obligation, etc. (Richmond, 1853, 12mo); Gibson, The Fathers on Nature and Effects of Baptism (Lond. 1854); Cunningham, Reformers and Theology of Reformation, Essay v; Summers, On Baptism (Richmond, 1853, 12mo); Hall, Law of Baptism (N. Y. 1846, 12mo); Studien u. Kritiken, 1861, p. 219; Litton, On the Church, 243 sq. One of the best tracts on infant baptism is Dr. Miller’s, No. VIII of the Tracts of the Presbyterian Board. On early history, doctrines, and usages, Coleman, Ancient Christianity, ch. 19; Schaff, Apostolical Church, 142; Palmer, Origines Liturgicae, 2:166 sq.; Procter On Common Prayer,’ 361 sq.; Mosheim, Commentaries; Dorner, Doctrine of the Person of Christ, 1:168 sq.

On the Baptist side: Gale, Reply to Wall (bound in Cotton’s edition of Wall); Booth, Apology fu the Baptists (Works, vol. 51); Booth, Paedobaptism Examined (Lond. 1829, 3 vols. 8vo); Gill, Divine Right of Infant Baptism and other Essays (in Collection of Sermons and Tracts, Lond. 1773, 2 vols. 4to); Hinton, History of Baptism (Philippians 1849, 12mo); Robinson, History of Baptism (Lond. 1790, and later editions, 4to); Carson, Baptism in its Mode and Objects (Lond. 1844, 8vo; Phila. 5th ed. 1857, 8vo); Noel, Essay on Christian Baptism (N. Y. 1850, 12mo); Orchard, Concise History of Foreign Baptists, etc. (Lond. 1838); Curtis, Progress of Baptist Principles (Boston, 1856); Pengilly, Scripture Guide to Baptism (Phila. 1849, 12mo); J. T. Smitti, Arguments for Infant Baptism examined (Phila. 1850, 12mo); Haynes, The Baptist Denomination (N. Y. 1856, 12mo); Jewett On Baptism (Bapt. Pub. Soc.); Conant, Meaning and Use of Baptizein (N. Y. 1860, 4to). On sacramental grace and regeneration by baptism, SEE GRACE; SEE SACRAMENTS; SEE REGENERATION (BAPTISMAL.).

Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature

Baptism

Many are the controversies that have gathered around the rite of Baptism. Questions have been raised as to the mode of administration, as to the right age and condition of those to whom it is to be administered, as to the persons who may perform the ordinance, as to the privileges and responsibilities involved in it, as to the exact bearing of the symbol, and as to the nature of the nexus which exists between the sign and the thing signified. Only one of these questions need be discussed here. When our Lord gave orders to his followers to baptize, how would the word which He used be understood? Did it prescribe the exact mode in which the ordinance was to be administered? or had it already arrived at that secondary or technical sense in which undoubtedly it has been largely used in after-times?

Classical authors have been diligently searched by contending parties with the hope of finding some solution of the question. But the more they have been scrutinised, the more clearly has it appeared that the word has been used with very great latitude, and that it can neither be confined to its primary use of staining or dyeing, nor be restricted to the case of religious or ceremonial acts of cleansing.

The conclusion arrived at by a writer [Mr. R. Robinson, of Cambridge, quoted by Elibu (a Baptist) in his Vindication of the Bible Society.] who was himself a ‘Baptist,’ that is, one who holds to the practice of immersion, is as follows:–

‘The English translators did not translate the word “baptize,” and they acted wisely; for there is no one word in the English language which is an exact counterpart of the Greek word, as the New Testament uses it, containing the precise ideas of the Evangelist, neither less nor more. The difficulty, or rather the excellency, of the word is that it contains two ideas, inclusive of the whole doctrine of baptism. “Baptize” is a dyer’s word, and signifies to dip so as to colour. Suc has render the word dip give one true idea; but the word stood for two, and one is wanting in this rendering. this defect is in the German Testament, Mat 3:1 : ” in those days came John der Tufer”–John the Dipper; and the Dutch, ” in those days came John der Dooper”–John the Dipper. this is the truth, but it is not the whole truth. The Anglo-Sax on Testament adds another idea by naming John le fulluhtere–the fuller; and the Icelandic language translates Baptism, skirn, washing. These convey two ideas, cleansing by washing, but neither do these accurately express the two ideas of the Greek baptize.’ [An anonymous writer, quoted in the pamphlet from which this passage is extracted, says, ‘To scrape is the action employed when Paganini plays; but surely he would be offended if we were to use that homely word respecting his performance in like manner, I think it would be bad grammar, and bad taste, to say dip instead of baptize.’]

as the question under discussion concerns a rite the performance of which has been held essential in all ages of Christianity, it certainly might have been supposed that this is one of the cases in which an examination of the early versions would decide the matter, but the search has led to no definite result. The old Latin version, indeed, rendered by tingo, to moisten, bathe, dye, or stain; but Jerome adopted baptizo, a Latinised form of the Greek original, feeling, no doubt, that no Latin word could rightly convey its meaning; and from the Latin of Jerome the same word spread, through the influence of the church to which he belonged, into the Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, French, and English languages. The Syriac version has a very good word for dipping, but never uses it for baptism, preferring a word which originally signifies to stand, and which was adopted possibly from the position which the catechumen took; when the water was poured over him in the Sclavonic, modern Russ, and kindred languages, a term is used which is connected with ‘crossing,’ or possibly with ‘christening.’ in Arabic and Persian, as also in Icelandic, we find words which signify washing or cleansing; and in Anglo-Saxon, as we have seen above, the word is almost the same. Wycliffe used wash and baptize indifferently; thus in Mat 3:1-17. we read, ‘I waishe yhou in watir into pennance, but he that schal come after me is strenger than i, whos scho on y am not worthi to bere, he schal baptise you in the hooly Goost and fire.’ The German and kindred languages have been cited in favour of the rendering dip, but it has been shown by Dr. Henders on that there is a slight distinction between the words for dip and baptize in these languages; thus the German word for dip is generally tauchen, but the word for baptize taufen. Moreover, in these languages the preposition following the verb is usually not in, which would be expected if the verb answered to our English dip, but with, showing that the verb is used in a ceremonial rather than an etymological sense, for the administration of a cleansing rite.

It is evident that the versions of the Scriptures will not lead us to any definite conclusion, and we are thrown back once more up on the Bible itself. Although the English word baptize does not occur in the O.T., yet on examining the LXX we find the Greek used twice in the canonical scriptures, and twice in the Apocrypha in Jdt 12:7 we read, ‘She washed herself () at the fountain of water.’ Apparently this was for ceremonial cleansing in Sir 34:25 we are told of one who was , i.e. washed or bathed, in order to be cleansed from the ceremonial pollution which arises from contact with a dead body. this was done by sprinkling (Num 8:7) in Isa 21:4 the prophet says, ‘Fearfulness hath affrighted me,’ which the LXX renders . Here the word stands for the Hebrew Baath (), and seems to be used figuratively of one who was flooded, overwhelmed with evil.

The most important passage, however, where the word occurs is in the history of Naaman the Syrian, in 2Ki 5:14. Elisha had told the Syrian that if he would ‘wash’ seven times in the Jordan he should be cleansed from the leprosy. Accordingly, he went and ‘dipped’ () seven times in the river. The Hebrew verb in this passage is thaval (), to dip. It is the word used of Joseph’s coat which was dipped in goat’s blood (Gen 37:31; LXX, ); of the priest’s finger being dipped in blood (Lev 4:6; Lev 4:17; Lev 9:9); of the living bird which was dipped in the blood of the slain bird (Lev 14:6); of the finger being dipped in oil (Lev 14:16); of hyssop being dipped in water (Num 19:18); of the feet of the priests dipped in the brim of the water (Jos 3:15); of Ruth dipping her morsel in the vinegar (Rth 2:14); of Jonathan dipping the end of his rod in the honeycomb (1Sa 14:27); of Hazael dipping a cloth in water (2Ki 8:15). We also meet with it in Job 9:30-31, where we read, ‘If I wash myself with snow water, and make my hands never so clean, yet shalt thou plunge me in the ditch.’

The meaning of the word thaval in these passages is clear and indubitable; it does not, however, follow that signifies to dip when adopted by the LXX in 2Ki 5:14 in none of the passages above cited was the dipping effected for the purpose of washing the object dipped; in some quite the contrary; but in the case of Naaman the order was ‘Go, wash,’ where the word rachats is used to signify the cleansing of the body (see 3); hence in this passage the verb thaval was used to express a process identical with the act of washing. Moreover, in none of the other passages is the word adopted as a rendering of thaval; we always find either [The word , to dip or tinge, is used only four times in the N. T in Luk 16:24, it refers to the dipping the tip of the finger in water; in Joh 13:26, it is twice used of the dipping the tip; in Rev 19:13, we rend of ‘a vesture dipped in blood,’ but here it would be better to render the words, :stained with blood ( ). The Vulgate rendering in this passage is ‘vest is aspersa sanguine.’] or . It may be concluded from this fact that the special word w as used in the passage under consideration in order to show that Naaman’s washing in the river Jordan was to be regarded as partaking of the nature of a symbolical or ceremonial cleansing.

On the whole, the usage of the word in the LXX cannot be said to decide whether the washing indicated by it must needs take place by a process of dipping (though this process would certainly be most in accordance with the passages referred to), or whether its requirements would be satisfied by having water poured over the person. nor does the N.T. finally decide the matter. The word was used by the Jews in our Lord’s time of ceremonial washing, rather than of mere dipping, as will be clearly seen by reference to Mar 7:4 and Luk 11:38, where the baptizing of the person is regarded as a sort of ritual observance; whilst in Mar 7:4; Mar 7:8, the baptism of cups and other vessels is spoken of in the same way.

The ‘divers baptisms’ (A.V. ‘washings’) spoken of in Heb 9:10, may comprehend such observances as those just referred to, but they rather seem to indicate the various rites of purification which formed part of the Levitical system. These rites were of two kinds; there were those which a man had to perform for himself, and those which others were to administer to him. It would be the last class which would be probably referred to; they were performed by priests or other ‘clean’ persons, who poured or sprinkled oil, blood, water, or water impregnated with the ashes of a red heifer, up on the persons who were to be purified. The application of the word to these rites tends to confirm the view already indicated, that whatever the etymology and primary usage of the term baptize may have been, it had practically come to be used of ceremonial washing in our Lord’s time, and that it was not exclusively or necessarily applied to dipping. If the true rendering of the expression , in Heb 6:2, be not ‘the doctrine of baptisms,’ as the A. V. has it, but ‘cleansings of teaching,’ i.e. the purging from old prejudices and superstitions through the teaching of the truth, then we have further confirmatory evidence in the same direction.

The exact mode in which John the Baptist administered the rite is not described in the N.T. The writers seem to take it for granted that such a description was not called for. Those who submitted to it acknowledged there by their sorrow for their past sins, and their determination to live a changed life, and to prepare for the coming of Him who should fulfil the promise made by God to the fathers. A cleansing ordinance would suitably indicate the change of heart and life thus entered upon.

When our Lord was baptized, it was not because He needed cleansing, but in order that He might give a personal sanction to the ordinance, submitting to it with the same humility as He evinced when falling in with other Jewish rites. The descent of the Spirit up on Him immediately afterwards was intended not only to mark that He was ‘anointed to preach the gospel,’ but also to indicate that it was He who should ‘baptize’ with the Holy Ghost, which He did when He ‘shed forth’ the Spirit from on high like floods up on a dry ground. The usage of the word in this connection suggests the symbolical action of sprinkling or effusion rather than of dipping.

The second baptism which our Lord underwent (Mat 20:22-23; Luk 12:50) was no ceremony, but a solemn reality; He was to be perfected through sufferings, and the waves of trouble which poured up on his soul were signified outwardly by the sweat which was ‘ as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground’ (Luk 22:44).

The usage of the word baptize thus leads to the conclusion that the act of dipping cannot be held as essential to Christian baptism unless it is proved to be so by the additional use of , or some such word, as an adjunct or an alternative. This, however, is confessedly not the case. nor does the symbolical teaching connected with the rite suggest any other conclusion than that which we have now arrived at. Baptism is preeminently symbolical of cleansing, whether by the blood of Christ or by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost; and so the ceremonial act is regarded by St. Peter as analogous with ‘the putting away of the filth of the flesh’ (1Pe 3:21). When a believer, or the child of a believer, is baptized, we are to understand that, by profession at least, he has become a disciple of Christ, and is one with Him by faith; he dies to sin, in union with the Captain of Salvation; he is buried with Him; he puts on the Lord Jesus Christ, as one puts on armour or clothing; he walks in newness of life; and he is admitted into the society or body of those who are similarly cleansed.

If this, the death unto sin and the new birth unto righteousness by the quickening power of the Spirit through faith in Christ Jesus, be indeed what is set forth in the rite of baptism, and if the word has gradually passed into this technical or ceremonial sense, then the exact mode in which the rite is administered, whether by immersion or effusion, is not a point of primary importance, and may be left open to that discretion which has usually been permitted in non-essentials. Immersion ought not to be rigorously enforced; still less ought it to be rigorously denied. The ceremonial application of clean water to the person, as a symbol of the purifying efficacy of Christ’s blood and of the quickening power of the Holy Spirit, and the submission to the ordinance, as a mark of discipleship to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost–these are the gr and points to be observed; whilst the exact mode of administration is a matter of church order and discipline, concerning which there ought to be much forbearance and also considerable latitude for the carrying out of personal conviction; and this is the case, theoretically at least, in the Church of England, as well as in other Churches.

Fuente: Synonyms of the Old Testament

Baptism

Baptisms in the sense of purifications were common in the Old Testament The “divers washings” (Greek “baptisms”) are mentioned in Heb 9:10, and “the doctrine of baptisms,” Heb 6:2. The plural” baptisms” is used in the wider sense, all purifications by water; as of the priest’s hands and feet in the laver outside before entering the tabernacle, in the daily service (Exo 30:17-21); of the high priest’s flesh in the holy place on the day of atonement (Lev 16:23); of persons ceremonially unclean (Leviticus 14; 15; Lev 16:26-28; Lev 17:15; Lev 22:4-6), a leper, one with an issue, one who ate that which died of itself, one who touched a dead body, the one who let go the scape-goat or buried the ashes of the red heifer, of the people before a religious festival (Exo 19:10; Joh 11:55). The high priest’s consecration was threefold: by baptism, unction, and sacrifice (Exo 29:4; Exo 40:12-15; Leviticus 8).

“Baptism” in the singular is used specially of the Christian rite. Jewish believers passed naturally from the Old Testament baptismal purifications, through John’s transitional baptism, to Christian baptism and the subsequent laying on of hands, accompanied with the Holy Spirit (Act 8:12; Act 8:14-17). The spiritual sense of ceremonial baptisms was recognized in the Old Testament (Psa 26:6; Psa 51:2; Psa 51:7; Psa 73:13; Isa 1:16; Isa 4:4; Jer 4:14; Zec 13:1.)

Ceremonial washings had been multiplied by tradition, before the Lord’s coming (Mar 7:3-4). Even the Gentile Pilate washed his hands to symbolize his innocence of Jesus’ blood. The Targum of Jonathan on Exo 12:44 is the earliest authority for the common notion that the Jews baptized male (besides circumcising them) and female proselytes. No notice of such a custom occurs in Philo, Josephus, or the Targum of Onkelos; the commonness of such ceremonial purifications makes it a probable one. In the 4th century A.D. it certainly prevailed. In the case of Jewish proselytes from Ishmaelites and Egyptians, who were already circumcised, some such rite would be needed. Probably it was at first merely the customary purificatory washing before the sacrifice offered in admitting the proselyte, whence Philo and Josephus would omit mentioning it as being usual at all sacrifices. When sacrifices ceased, after the destruction of the temple, the washing would be retained as a baptism of initiation into Judaism.

John’s “baptism of repentance for the remission of sins” (Luk 3:3) was the pledge his followers took of their determination to separate themselves from the prevalent pollutions, as the needful preparation for receiving the coming Messiah, who remits the sins of His believing people. The “remission” was not present but prospective, looked for through Messiah, not through John (Act 10:43). John’s baptism was accompanied with confession (Mat 3:6), and was an act of obedience to the call to renounce all sin and believe in the coming Redeemer from sin. The universal expectation of the Messianic king “in the whole East” (says Suetonius, a pagan writer, Vespas. 4) made all ready to flock to the forerunner. The Jews hoped to be delivered from Rome’s supremacy (Mal 3:1; Mal 4:5-6).

The last of the prophets had foretold the coming of Elijah before the great day of the coming of the Lord, the Sun of righteousness, the messenger of the covenant. Elijah was to “turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers,” namely, the disobedient children to the faith and fellowship of their pious forefathers, Abraham, Jacob, Levi, Elijah (Luk 1:17), lest Messiah at His coming” should smite the earth with a curse.” The scribes accordingly declared, “Elias must first come.” Jesus declared that John was this foretold Elias (Mat 11:13-14; Mat 17:10-12). John’s preaching was “Repent, for the kingdom of the heavens is at hand,” the latter phrase referring to Dan 2:44; Dan 7:14. The Jews, as a nation, brought the “curse” on their land (“earth”) by not repenting, and by rejecting Messiah at His first advent.

Their sin delayed the kingdom’s manifestation, just as their unbelief in the wilderness caused the 40 years of delay in entering into their inheritance in Canaan. He brought blessing to those who accepted Him (John was the instrument in turning many to Him: Joh 1:11; Joh 1:36), and shall bring blessing to the nation at His second advent, when they shall turn to the Lord (Rom 11:5; Rom 11:26; Luk 13:35). John’s baptism began and ended with himself; he alone, too, administered it. But Christ’s baptism was performed by His disciples, not Himself, that He might mark His exclusive dignity as baptizer, with the Holy Spirit (Joh 4:2), and that the validity of baptism might not depend on the worth of the minister but on God’s appointment. It continues to the end of this dispensation (Mat 28:19-20). John’s was with water only; Christ’s with the Holy Spirit and with fire (Luk 3:16).

The Holy Spirit in full measure was not given until Jesus’ glorification at His ascension (Joh 7:39). Apollos’ and John’s disciples at Ephesus knew not of the Holy Spirit’s baptism, which is the distinctive feature of Christ’s (Act 18:25; Act 19:2-6; compare Act 1:5; Act 11:16). The outward sign of an inward sorrow for sin was in John’s baptism; but there was not the inward spiritual grace conferred as in Christian baptism. Those of the twelve who had. been baptized by John probably received no further baptism until the extraordinary one by the Holy Spirit on Pentecost. Christian baptism implies grafting into fellowship or union with the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; for the Greek expresses this (Mat 28:19): “Go ye, make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name (the revealed person) of the Father,” etc.

John, being among the Old Testament prophets, not in the kingdom of God or New Testament church, preached the law and baptism into legal repentance and reformation of morals, and Messiah’s immediate advent. Christian baptism is the seal of gospel doctrine and spiritual renewal. Jesus’ own baptism by John was, Christ saith, in order “to fulfill all righteousness” (Mat 3:15). Others in being baptized confessed their sins; Jesus professed” all righteousness.” He submitted, as part of the righteousness He undertook to fulfill, to be consecrated to His ministry in His 30th year, the age at which the Levites began their ministry (Luk 3:23), by the last of the Old Testament prophets and the harbinger of the New Testament, His own forerunner. At the same time that the outward minister set Him apart, the Holy Spirit from heaven gave Him inwardly the unction of His fullness without measure; and the Father declared His acceptance of Him as the sinners’ savior, the anointed prophet, priest, and king (Joh 3:34; Joh 1:16): “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”

Since God, against whom we have sinned, is satisfied with Him (and God cannot but be so, seeing it was the Father’s love and justice which provided Him), so also may we. As the high priest’s consecration was threefold, by baptism, unction, and sacrifice, so Jesus’ (compare Act 10:38) baptism began His consecration, the Holy Spirit’s unction was the complement of His baptism, and His sacrifice fully perfected His consecration as our priest forevermore (Heb 7:28, margin). This is the sense of 1Jo 5:6; “this is He that came by water and blood;” by water at His consecration by baptism to His mediatorial ministry for us, when He received the Father’s testimony to His Messiahship and His divine Sonship (Joh 1:33-34). Corresponding to His is our baptism of water and the Spirit, the seal of initiatory incorporation with Him (Joh 3:5).

Jesus came “by blood” also, namely, “the blood of His cross” (Heb 9:12). His coming “by water and blood,” as vividly set forth in the issue of water and blood from His pierced side, was seen and solemnly attested by John (Joh 19:34-35). John Baptist came only baptizing with water; therefore was not Messiah. Jesus came, undergoing Himself the double baptism of water and blood, then baptizing us with the Spirit cleansing, of which water is the sacramental seal, and with His atoning blood once for all shed and of perpetual efficacy; therefore He Messiah. It is His shed blood which gives water baptism its spiritual significancy. We are baptized into His death, the point of union between us and Him, and, through Him, between us and God, not into His birth or incarnation (Rom 6:3-4; Col 2:12).

“The Spirit, the water, and the blood agree in one” (Greek: “tend to the one result,” “testify to the one truth”), i.e., agree in testifying to Jesus’ Sonship and Messiaship by the sacramental grace in water baptism received by the penitent believer through His droning blood and His inwardly witnessing Spirit (1Jo 5:5-6; 1Jo 5:8; 1Jo 5:10), answering to the testimony to Jesus’ Sonship and Messiahship by His baptism, by His crucifixion, and by the Spirit’s manifestation in Him. By Christ’s baptism, by His blood shedding, and by the Spirit’s past and present working in Him, the Spirit, the water, and the blood are the threefold witness to His divine Messiahship. On and after the Pentecostal outpouring of the Holy Spirit, the apostles preached, Repent (including faith in Christ), and be baptized, as the sacramental seal to yourselves inwardly of your faith, and the open confession outwardly of it before the world. Compare Rom 10:9-10; Act 2:38; Act 8:12-36; Act 10:47; Act 16:15; Act 16:33.

As circumcision was the painful entrance into the yoke of bondage, the law of Sinai, so baptism is the easy entrance into the light yoke of Christ, the law of liberty and love. Circumcision was the badge of Jewish exclusiveness in one aspect; baptism is the badge of God’s world-wide mercy in Christ. As He was “the desire of all nations,” consciously or unconsciously, so all nations are invited to Him. Any spiritualizing that denies outward baptism with water, in the face of Christ’s command and the apostles’ practice, must logically lead to rationalistic evasions of Scripture in general. Preaching, no doubt, takes the precedency of baptism with the apostles, whose office was evangelistic rather than pastoral (1Co 1:14; 1Co 1:17). The teaching and acceptance of the truth stands first; the sealing of belief in it by baptism comes next not vice versa.

“Go ye, teach (or make disciples), baptizing,” etc. “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not (whether he be baptized or not) shall be damned.” There might be salvation without baptism, as the penitent thief on the cross was saved; but not salvation without believing, to those capable of it. As circumcision bound the circumcised to obedience to the law, and also admitted him to the spiritual privileges of Judaism, so baptism binds the baptized to Christ’s service, and gives him a share in all the privileges of the Christian covenant. But in stating these privileges Scripture presumes that the baptized person has come in penitence and faith. Thus 1Pe 3:21, literally “which water, being antitype (to the water of the flood) is now saving (puts in a state of salvation) us also (as well as Noah), to wit, baptism.”

It saves us also, not of itself (any more than the water saved Noah of itself; the water saved him only by sustaining the ark, built in faith), but the spiritual thing conjoined with it, repentance and faith, of which it is the seal: as Peter proceeds to explain, “not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God (the instrument whereby it so saves, being) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (Col 2:12; Eph 1:19-20); not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but of the soul. Water baptism can put away that filth, but the Spirit’s baptism alone can put away this (Eph 2:11). The ark (Christ) and His Spirit-filled true church saves, by living union with Him and it; not the water which only flowed round the ark and buoyed it up, and which so far from saving was the very instrument of destroying the ungodly.

The “good conscience’s” ability to give a satisfactory “answer” to the interrogation concerning faith and repentance ensures the really saving baptism of the Spirit into living fellowship with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The same union of the sign and the grace signified, repentance and faith being presupposed, occurs (Joh 3:5; Act 22:16): “Be baptized, washing away thy sins, calling upon the name of the Lord” (Eph 5:26; Tit 3:5; compare 1Co 10:1-2). The passage through the Red Sea delivered Israel completely from Egyptian bondage, and thenceforward they were, under God’s protecting cloud, on their way to the promised land. hence it is written, “they were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea” (the sea, according to some of the fathers, representing the water, the cloud the Spirit). In Col 2:11-12, baptism is represented as our Christian “circumcision made without hands,” implying that not the minister, but God Himself, confers it; spiritual circumcision (“putting off the body of the sins of the flesh”) is realized in union with Christ, whose “circumcision” implies His having undertaken for us to keep the whole law (Luk 2:21).

Baptism, coincident with this spiritual circumcision, is the burial of the old carnal life, to which immersion corresponds. “Buried with Him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with Him by faith IN the operation of God who hath raised Him from the dead” (Col 2:12; Eph 1:19-20). Here, and in Rom 6:3-4-5-6, baptism is viewed as identifying us with Christ, by our union to His once crucified and now risen body, and as entailing in us also a death unto sin and a new birth unto righteousness, and as involving as the final issue our bodily sharing in the likeness of His resurrection, at the coming first resurrection, that of the saints. Figuratively, death is called a “baptism” (Mat 20:22; Mar 10:38; Luk 12:50). The Greek word does not necessarily mean immersion of the whole body: compare Mar 7:3-4; Luk 11:38; Heb 9:10).

In some cases the palpable descent of the Spirit was before, in others after, the baptism, and. in connection with the laying on of hands (Act 2:38; Act 10:47; Act 19:5-6); proving that the water sign and the Spirit are not inseparably connected. At the same time, there being but one preposition to govern both nouns, “born of water and the Spirit” implies the designed close connection of the two in the case of penitent believers (Joh 3:5). In Eph 5:26 “Christ gave Himself for the church, that He might sanctify and cleanse it with the laver (Greek) of water by the word.” The bride, the church, must pass through her purifying bath before being presented to the Bridegroom, Christ. The gospel word of faith, confessed in baptism, carries with it the real, cleansing, regenerating power (Joh 15:3; Joh 17:17; 1Pe 1:23; 1Pe 3:21).

Baptism being regarded according to its high ideal, Scripture asserts of its efficacy all that is involved in a believing appropriation of the divine truths it symbolizes. In Tit 3:5, “He saved us by the laver (Greek) of regeneration, and (by) the (subsequent, gradually progressive) renewal of the Holy Spirit,” Paul in charity assumes that Christian professors are really penitent believers (though some were not so: 1Co 6:11), in which case baptism with water is the visible laver of regeneration by the Holy Spirit. “Faith then is confirmed, and grace increased, by virtue of prayer to God” (Church of England, Article 27). Infants are charitably presumed to have received a grace in connection with their Christian descent, in answer to the believing prayers of their parents or guardians presenting them for baptism (1Co 7:14), which grace is visibly sealed and increased by baptism. They are presumed to be regenerated, until years of developed consciousness prove whether they have been actually so or not.

The tests whether it has or has not taken place in the baptized are 1Jo 3:9; 1Jo 3:14; 1Jo 5:1; 1Jo 5:4. The infants of pagan parents are not admissible to baptism, because faith is not in the parents. The faith of the beads consecrated the households (1Co 7:14), as in the case of Lydia and the jailer of Philippi, so that even the young were fit recipients of baptism. Christ’s power and willingness to bless infants is proved by Mat 19:13-15. So that infant unconsciousness is no valid objection to infant baptism. Since the believer’s children are “holy” in the Lord’s view, why refuse them the seal of consecration? (1Co 7:14; Act 16:1; Act 16:15; Act 16:33.) Infant baptism tacitly superseded infant circumcision, just as the Lord’s day superseded the Jewish sabbath, without our having express command for the transference.

A child may be heir of an estate, though incapable of using or comprehending its advantage; he is not hereafter to acquire the title to it; he will hereafter understand his claim, take his wealth, and be responsible for the use. So the baptized infant. The words which follow Jesus’ command, “baptizing them,” etc., express the necessary complement of baptism for it to be availing, “teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.” “Illumination,” in subsequent writers used for “baptism,” is found connected with it in Heb 6:4; Heb 10:32. The “baptizing with fire” (Mat 3:11), symbolized by the “tongues of fire” at Pentecost (Act 2:3), expresses the purifying of the soul by the Spirit, as metal is by fire. In Gal 3:27, “as many of you as have been baptized into Christ (compare Rom 6:3; Mat 28:19, Greek: ‘into the name’) have put on Christ;” ye did, in that act of being baptized into Christ, clothe yourselves in Christ.

Christ is to you the man’s robe (the toga virilis assumed by every Roman on reaching manhood). Christ being the Son of God by generation, and ye being one with film, ye also become sons by adoption. Baptism, when it answers to its ideal, is a mean of spiritual transference from legal condemnation to living union with Christ, and sonship to God through Him (Rom 13:14). Christ alone, by baptizing with the Spirit, can make the inward grace correspond to the outward sign. As He promises the blessing in the faithful use of the means, the church rightly presumes in charity that it is so, nothing appearing to the contrary (compare on the other hand Act 8:13; Act 8:18-24). In 1Co 12:13, “by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, … and were all made to drink into one Spirit” (all the oldest manuscripts omit “into”), the two sacraments are alluded to. Where baptism answers to its ideal, by the Spirit the many members are baptized into the one body (Eph 4:4-5), and are all made to drink the one Spirit (symbolized by the drinking of the wine in the Lord’s Supper).

Jesus gives the Spirit to him only that is athirst (Joh 7:37). God (1Jo 3:9; 1Jo 5:1; 1Jo 5:4; 1Jo 5:18) gives us crucial tests of regeneration: whosoever lacks these, though, baptized, is not, in the Scripture view, “regenerate” or “born again.” “Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin (habitually); for his seed remaineth in him, and he cannot sin (be sinning), because he is born of God”; i.e., his higher nature doth not sin, his normal direction is against sin; the law of God after the inward man is the ruling principle of his true self (Rom 6:14; Rom 7:22), though the old nature, not yet fully deadened, rebels: “whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God”; “whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world”; “whosoever is born of God sinneth not, but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.”

The Nicene Creed has no authority but so far as it can be proved from Scripture; the clause, “one baptism for the remission of sins” was the decision arrived at by its members as to the question, Were those baptized by heretics, or those who having been baptized had lapsed into heresy, to be rebaptized? Basil on the contrary thought they ought to be rebaptized. A questioning at the time of baptism as to the candidate’s repentance and faith seems implied as customary in 1Pe 3:21. A profession of faith in a “form of sound words” is spoken of in 2Ti 1:13. Timothy “professed a good profession before many witnesses” (1Ti 6:12). Christians derived “sponsors” from the Jewish usage in baptizing proselytes; mention of them occurs first in Tertullian in the 3rd century.

The laying on of hands after baptism is spoken of as among the first principles of the Christian teaching in Heb 6:1-2. Though the miraculous gifts imparted thereby at first have long ceased, the permanent gifts and graces of the spirit are in all ages needed. The sevenfold gift is described Isa 11:2-3. Our dispensation is that of the Holy Spirit, who is Christ’s second Self, His only Vicar in His bodily absence (Joh 14:16-18). Besides the first sealing by the Spirit in baptism, a further confirmation, unction, or sealing by the Spirit is needed to establish us firmly in the faith, and to be an earnest, or installment, of future blessedness (Act 8:12-14 (See PETER); 2Co 1:21-22; Eph 1:13; Eph 4:30; 1Jo 2:20).

The laying on of hands; as a sign of spiritual blessing or strengthening, occurs in Jacob’s blessing on Ephraim and Manasseh (Gen 48:14); Joshua’s ordination in Moses’ room (Num 27:18; Deu 34:9); in Christ’s blessing of children (Mat 19:13) and healing the blind man (Mar 8:23); in the apostles’ healing of the sick (Mar 16:18); in Saul’s recovery of sight, and Publius’ father’s healing of fever (Act 9:17; Act 28:8). The laying on of hands, originally following close on baptism as a corollary to it (Act 19:5-6), became subsequently, and rightly in the case of infants, separated by a long time from it. The Latins made it then a sacrament, though wanting both the material element or sign and the institution of Christ.

Baptism for the dead. 1Co 15:29; “Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all?” What profit would they get who are baptized to take the place of the dead? (2Ti 2:2.) Of what use are fresh witnesses for Christianity, baptized to minister instead of those dead? “Why are they then baptized for” (literally, in behalf of) “the dead? Why then (too) stand we in jeopardy every hour?” “Why are they baptized, filling up the place of the martyred dead, at the risk of sharing the same fate?”

Possibly some symbolical rite of baptism or dedication of themselves to follow the martyred dead even to death, grounded on Mat 20:22-23, is alluded to. Or, without such rite, “baptized” may be figuratively used, as in 1Co 10:2 (where “baptized in the cloud,” which became FIRE by night, typifies the baptism with water and the Holy Spirit). As the ranks of the faithful are thinned by death (natural or violent), others step forward to be baptized to take their place. This is in behalf of the dead saints, seeing that the consummated glory will not be until the full number of saints shall have been completed.

Fuente: Fausset’s Bible Dictionary

BAPTISM

Christian baptism is a ceremony commanded by Jesus, by which Christians make a public confession that they have repented of their sins and committed themselves in faith to Jesus as their Saviour and Lord (Mat 28:19; Act 2:38; Act 2:41; Act 9:18; Act 10:47-48; Act 18:8; Rom 10:9). The Bible speaks of people going into the water to be baptized (Act 8:38; cf. Mat 3:16), but it gives no detailed description of the act of baptism. The original meaning of baptize was dip or immerse, suggesting that believers were immersed in water.

Pre-Christian baptism

Although it had great significance in the birth and growth of the church as recorded in Acts, baptism was practised before this. Jews, it seems, baptized Gentile converts as part of their introduction into the Jewish religion. John the Baptist also practised baptism, demanding it of those who responded to his preaching and repented of their sins (Luk 3:1-8; Joh 3:22-23; Act 13:24; Act 18:25).

John pointed out that the baptism he practised, though it may have pictured cleansing, could not in itself bring cleansing or give people the power to live pure lives. His baptism prepared the way for Jesus Christ, who would bring the blessings that Johns baptism symbolized. Those who accepted Jesus as the Saviour-Messiah would enter the kingdom of God and, through Jesus gift of the Holy Spirit, receive an inner power to live righteously (Mat 3:11; Joh 1:26-28; Joh 1:31; Joh 1:33; Act 1:5; see BAPTISM WITH THE SPIRIT).

The baptism of Jesus

Even Jesus was baptized, though he had no sins to repent of. For this reason, John at first did not want to baptize him, but Jesus insisted. He wanted to show his oneness with the faithful in Israel who, by their baptism, declared themselves on the side of God and his righteousness (Mat 3:13-15).

Jesus baptism was also his declaration, at the outset of his public ministry, that he knew what his work involved and he intended carrying it out fully. As the Messiah, he was the representative chosen by God for a people needing deliverance, which in this case meant the deliverance of people from the bondage of sin. Jesus baptism in water prefigured a far greater baptism that was yet to come; for he, as humanitys perfect representative, would suffer Gods judgment on human sin through his death on the cross (Luk 12:50; Mar 10:38).

Having shown his intentions openly, Jesus then received openly the Fathers gift of the Spirits unlimited power to enable him to carry out his messianic work (Mat 3:16; Joh 3:34; Act 10:37-38). The Fathers expression of full satisfaction with his Son consisted of combined quotations from the Old Testament relating to Gods messiah-king and Gods submissive servant (Mat 3:17; cf. Psa 2:7; Isa 42:1). In both cases the God-appointed tasks could be carried out only in the power of the Spirit (Isa 11:1-2; Isa 42:1-4).

Christian baptism

As Jesus preached the message of the kingdom, those who accepted his message and entered the kingdom showed the genuineness of their faith and repentance by being baptized. The disciples of Jesus, rather than Jesus himself, did the baptizing (Joh 3:22; Joh 4:1-2). Just before he returned to his heavenly Father, the risen Christ told his disciples to spread the good news of his kingdom worldwide and to baptize those who believed (Mat 28:19). The book of Acts shows how the early Christians carried out his command (Act 2:38; Act 2:41; Act 8:12; Act 8:35-39; Act 10:47-48; Act 16:13-15; Act 16:31-33; Act 18:8).

Baptism was so readily acknowledged as the natural and immediate consequences of faith that the New Testament links the two inseparably. The object of saving faith is Jesus Christ and what he has done through his death and resurrection. Paul, the great interpreter of Christian belief and practice, saw baptism as more than just a declaration of faith; he saw it as having meaning that is tied up with the unique union that believers have with Jesus Christ (Rom 6:3; Gal 3:27).

According to Pauls teaching, baptism is an expression of union with Christ in dying to sin and being raised with Christ to new life. When Christ died and rose again, believers died and rose again, so to speak. They demonstrate this in their baptism, but they must also make it true in practice. They must live as those who are no longer under sins power (Rom 6:1-11; Col 2:12). They are united with Christ in his baptism at Golgotha, as the Israelites were united with Moses in their redemption from Egypt (1Co 10:1-2).

Baptism is also a witness, or testimony. It declares that believers are cleansed from sin (Act 22:16; cf. 1Pe 3:21), given the Holy Spirit (Act 10:47; cf. 1Co 12:13) and introduced into the body of Christ, the church (Gal 3:26-28; cf. 1Co 12:13).

Peter, like Paul, interprets Christian baptism in relation to the death and resurrection of Christ. He sees judgment and salvation pictured in baptism, as they were pictured in the flood of Noahs time. Christ died to bear Gods judgment on sin, but he rose from death to new life. Through him believers are cleansed from sin and made sharers in a new and victorious life (1Pe 3:20-22; 1Pe 4:1).

The community that believers enter through their conversion is of divine, not human, origin. It is not a club, but the kingdom of God. Believers are therefore baptized not in the name of a human cult-figure, but in the name of God (Mat 28:19; 1Co 1:13). The early preachers constantly kept this in mind. Paul, for example, preferred someone else to baptize his converts, to avoid the appearance of building a personal following (1Co 1:14-16). Christians are disciples of Jesus Christ, and he alone is their Lord (Act 2:38; Act 8:12; Act 10:48; Act 19:5; Rom 10:9).

Baptism of infants

The well known practice of baptizing infants, usually by sprinkling, is not specifically taught in the Bible. Nor does the Bible deal specifically with the related subject of the salvation of infants. Although the Bible shows that God has a special concern for children, its teaching about salvation is mainly concerned with those who are old enough to be responsible for their own decisions (Mat 18:1-6; Mat 19:13-15; see CHILD).

Clearly, people are mistaken if they think that any sort of baptism, whether for adults or infants, guarantees personal salvation regardless of what people believe or do as morally responsible beings (Mat 3:7-10). Nevertheless, many Christians, while realizing that infant baptism does not guarantee salvation, see meaning in it, particularly for those in Christian families. They point out that in New Testament times whole households were baptized; though the narratives do not state whether those households included infants (Act 16:15; Act 16:33-34; 1Co 1:16).

The belief in the value of infant baptism among Christian families is related to the Old Testament idea of Gods covenant with his people. Gods covenant with Abraham, for example, included his household, and the males within that household were circumcised as the formal sign that they were part of that covenant (Gen 17:4; Gen 17:7; Gen 17:10-14; Gen 21:4; see CIRCUMCISION; COVENANT).

Believers who practise infant baptism, while seeing it as a parallel to the Old Testament rite of circumcision, realize that, like circumcision, it is no assurance of salvation (Gen 17:23; Rom 2:25-29). Each person is born with a sinful nature and needs to exercise personal faith to be saved (Rom 3:22-23). Even the blessing of being brought up in a Christian family does not remove the need for the individual to repent and accept Christ in order to become a child of God (Joh 1:12-13; Joh 3:5-6).

Fuente: Bridgeway Bible Dictionary

Baptism

BAPTISM ( = the rite of Baptism, always in NT distinguished from , a washing, Mar 7:4, Heb 6:2; Heb 9:10 [but see Lightfoot, Com. on Colossians, p. 184]; but this distinction is not maintained in Josephus [cf. Ant. xviii. v. 2]; and in the Latin versions and Fathers baptisma and baptismus and even baptismum are used indiscriminately, see Plummers art. Baptism in Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible ).A rite wherein by immersion in water the participant symbolizes and signalizes his transition from an impure to a pure life, his death to a past he abandons, and his new birth to a future he desires.

The points for consideration are (1) the Origin of Baptism, (2) its Mode, (3) Johns Baptism of the people, (4) Johns Baptism of Jesus, (5) Baptism by the disciples of Jesus.

1. The Origin of Baptism.Baptism, as we find it in the Gospels, may be traced to a threefold source, natural symbolism, the lustrations of the Mosaic Law, and the baptism of proselytes. In many of the appointments of non-Christian religions the cleansing of the soul from sin is symbolized by the washing of the body (see the Vendidad, Fargard, ix.; Williams, Religious Thought in India, 347; Vergil, aeneid, ii. 720; Ovid, Fasti, v. 680; and esp. MacCulloch, Compar. Theol.). As in other religions, so in Israel washings were the means appointed for restoring the person who had incurred ceremonial defilement to his place among the worshipping congregation. The Mosaic Law prescribed certain regulations for the removal of uncleanness by washing with water; Lev 15:5; Lev 15:8; Lev 15:13; Lev 15:16 ( ) Lev 16:26; Lev 16:28. etc. But if the Jew himself needed almost daily washing (Judaeus quotidie lavat, quia quotidie inquinatur, Tertull. de Baptismo, xv.), much more was the bath of purification necessary for the Gentile who desired to pass into Judaism. For the proselyte this baptism () seemed the appropriate initiation. Whensoever any heathen will betake himself and be joined to the covenant of Israel, and place himself under the wings of the Divine Majesty, and take the yoke of the Law upon him, voluntary circumcision, baptism, and oblation are required. (See this and other passages in Lightfoot, ae Heb. on Mat 3:6; Schrer, P [Note: JP History of the Jewish People.] 31; and Edersheims Life and Times of Jesus, Appendix xii. on Baptism of Proselytes. The question whether the baptism of proselytes was in vogue as early as the time of the Baptist has been laid to rest by Edersheim and Schrer). It may almost be said, then, that when John baptized the people, he meant to impress them with the idea that they must be re-born before they could enter the kingdom. He, as it were, excommunicated them, and by requiring them to submit to Baptism, declared that their natural birth as Jews was insufficient for participation in the Messianic blessings. No doubt also he believed himself to be fulfilling the predictions of Zec 13:1, Eze 36:25, as well as the craving expressed in Psa 51:7.

2. The Mode of Baptism.That the normal mode was by immersion of the whole body may be inferred (a) from the meaning of , which is the intensive or frequentative form of , I dip, and denotes to immerse or submerge. In Polybius, iii. 72, it is used of soldiers wading through a flooded river, immersed to their breast ( ). It is used also of sinking ships (in i. 51, the Carthaginians sank many of the Roman ships, ). [Many examples are given in Stephanus, and esp. in Classic Baptism: An enquiry into the meaning of the word , by James W. Dale, 4th ed. Philadelphia, 1872]. The point is that dip or immerse is the primary, wash the secondary meaning of and . (b) The same inference may be drawn from the law laid down regarding the baptism of proselytes: As soon as he grows whole of the wound of circumcision, they bring him to Baptism, and being placed in the water, they again instruct him in some weightier and in some lighter commands of the Law. Which being heard, he plunges himself and comes up, and behold, he is an Israelite in all things. (See Lightfoot, l.c.). To use Pauline language, his old man is dead and buried in the water, and he rises from this cleansing grave a new man. The full significance of the rite would have been lost had immersion not been practised. Again, it was required in proselyte baptism that every person baptized must dip his whole body, now stripped and made naked, at one dipping. And wheresoever in the Law washing of the body or garments is mentioned, it means nothing else than the washing of the whole body. (c) That immersion was the mode of Baptism adopted by John is the natural conclusion from his choosing the neighbourhood of the Jordan as the scene of his labours; and from the statement of Joh 3:23 that he was baptizing in aenon because there was much water there. (d) That this form was continued into the Christian Church appears from the expression (Tit 3:5), and from the use made by St. Paul in Romans 6 of the symbolism. This is well put by Bingham (Antiq. xi. 11): The ancients thought that immersion, or burying under water, did more likely represent the death and burial and resurrection of Christ as well as our own death unto sin and rising again unto righteousness: and the divesting or unclothing the person to be baptized did also represent the putting off the body of sin in order to put on the new man, which is created in righteousness and true holiness. For which reason they observed the way of baptizing all persons naked and divested, by a total immersion under water, except in some particular cases of great exigence, wherein they allow of sprinkling, as in the case of clinic Baptism, or where there is a scarcity of water. This statement exactly reflects the ideas of the Pauline Epistles and the Didache. This early document enjoins that Baptism be performed in running water; but if that is not to be had, then in other water: And if thou canst not in cold, then in warm; but if thou hast neither, pour water thrice upon the head. Here it is obvious that affusion is to be practised only where immersion is inconvenient or impossible. The Eastern Church has in the main adhered to the primitive form. But in the Western Church the exigencies of climate and the alteration of manners have favoured affusion and sprinkling. Judging from the representations of the performance of the rite collected by Mr. C. F. Rogers (Studia Bibl. et Eccles. vol. v. pt. iv.),whose collection is more valuable than his inferences,it would seem that at an early period a common form of administration required that the baptized person should stand in some kind of bath or tub, naked or nearly so, while the baptizer poured water three times over him. This restricted form gradually gave place to the still more meagre sprinkling of the head. But theoretically the form of Baptism by immersion was retained alike in the Roman, the Anglican, and the Presbyterian Churches. Thus Aquinas (Summa, iii. lxvi. 7) determines: si totum corpus aqua non possit perfundi propter aquae paucitatem, vel propter aliquam aliam causam, oportet caput perfundere, in quo manifestatur principium animalis vitae. The Anglican Church in her rubric for Baptism directs the ministrant to dip the child discreetly and warily, if the sponsors certify him that the child may well endure it; if not, it shall suffice to pour water upon it. And the Westminster Confession guardedly says: Dipping of the person into water is not necessary; but Baptism is rightly administered by pouring or sprinkling water upon the person (cf. Calvin, Inst. iv. 15, 19). This form of Baptism by sprinkling gives prominence to the pouring out of the Spirit (cf. Tit 3:6), but fails to indicate the dying to sin and rising to righteousness.

3. Johns Baptism of the people.The message of the Baptist as herald of the Messiah was, The kingdom of heaven is at hand. The imminence of the kingdom produced in the people a sense of their unpreparedness for its enjoyment. A new sense of sin was created within them, answering to the forerunners cry, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand (Mat 3:2). The hunger for cleanness of conscience thus awakened within them was responded to by Johns Baptism of repentance for () remission of sins (Mar 1:4). True repentance cleanses the soul, and Baptism represented and sealed this inward cleansing. The reality of the repentance, as John insisted, would be determined by its fruits. Many writers (cf. Reynolds, John the Baptist, pp. 288289; and Lambert, The Sacraments, p. 60) hold that the preposition denotes that the remission of sins was not actually bestowed, but only guaranteed in Johns Baptism. John proclaimed, with the voice of thunder, the need of repentance as a condition of the remission of sins; his Baptism was the external symbol of the frame of mind with which the penitent approached the great forerunner. This seems, both exegetically and psychologically, untenable. The whole expression, Baptism of repentance for forgiveness of sins, denotes a Baptism which the penitent submitted to that he might therein receive the pledge and assurance that he was forgiven. The Baptism meant the cleansing of the people from past sin that they might be fitted for entrance on the kingdom.

But Johns Baptism had a forward look also. It was the formal incorporation of the individual into the new community, his initiation into the kingdom. It was therefore in a very true sense Christian Baptism. That is, it pledged the recipient to the acceptance of Christ,a feature of it which perhaps accounts for the Baptist continuing to baptize after Jesus had been proclaimed the Christ. In the same act, then, John excommunicated the whole people, putting them in the position of Gentiles who required to be re-born in Baptism, and gave them entrance to the coming kingdom.

The propriety of Baptism as the symbol of such initiation is obvious, and finds illustration in the forms of initiation commonly used in various races. The ceremonies which mark, among rude tribes, the transition from boyhood to manhood, frequently take the form of a pretended death and resurrection (Frazer, The Golden Bough2 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred] , iii. 422 ff.). Among ourselves we have titles which preserve a memory of the old customs, though the customs themselves have died out. We still have Knights of the Bath. Originally, the bath to purify from the past was first taken, and the novice then passed the night in a church with his armour beside him, as if he were dead, until in the morning he was raised to life by the touch of his sovereign, Rise, Sir M. or N.

4. Johns Baptism of Jesus.When John began to baptize, Jesus was still an unknown artisan in Nazareth. But in this new movement He hears a call He cannot resist. He is conscious that He must attach Himself to it; possibly already conscious that He can guide, utilize, and prosper it. He appears, therefore, as a candidate for Baptism. But to the Baptist this presented a difficulty he had not foreseen: I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? (Mat 3:14). Evidently what was in Johns mind was not the initiatory, but the cleansing aspect of the rite. To this, therefore, the answer of Jesus must apply when He said, Thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. It would seem, therefore, that Jesus felt so keen a sympathy with His fellow-men that, as one with an unclean race, He judged Baptism to be appropriate. It is idle to tell the wife that she need not be ashamed though her husband is committed for fraud; idle to tell Jesus that He need not be baptized because He has no personal guilt. And it is to be noted that it is precisely at this point of truest union with men and of deepest humiliation that Jesus is recognized as King. It seems to have Mashed upon John, Why, this is the very spirit of the Messiah. Here is the fulness of the Divine Spirit.

The account given in the Fourth Gospel is different. The Baptist is there (Joh 1:33) represented as saying, I knew him not (which, as the context shows, means, I did not know that he was the Messiah), but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and abiding on him, the same is he that baptizeth with the Holy Spirit. In this Gospel there is no mention of an actual dove being seen. John merely affirms that he saw the Spirit descending like a dove ( ). He wishes to emphasize two things, that he saw the Spirit so clearly that it almost seemed a sensible presence, and that it was a Spirit of gentleness. Naturally, the Messianic Spirit might have been more appropriately symbolized by an eagle, but at the moment it was the overcoming humility and meekness of Jesus that convinced John that He was the Messiah.

The Baptism of Jesus thus became His anointing as King. Jesus becomes the Christ, the Anointed of God, not only nominated to the Messianic throne, but actually equipped with the fulness of the Divine Spirit. Here two points are to be noted: (1) Although Son of God, Jesus yet lived in human form and under human conditions, and therefore needed the indwelling of the Spirit. As His body was sustained by bread, as all human bodies are, so did His soul require the aids of the Divine Spirit, as all human souls do. (Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God, Mar 10:18). His human nature, by which He manifested God to men, was now endowed with the fulness of Gods Spirit. (2) It was not a new thing that was conferred upon Jesus at His Baptism. From the first the Divine Spirit was His. But now, having reached the flower of manhood and being called to the greatest work, His human nature expands and girds itself to the most strenuous endeavour, and so gives scope to the fullest energy of the indwelling God.

5. Baptism by the disciples of Jesus.Of Christian Baptism very little mention is made in the Gospels. That it was in use during the life of Jesus is apparent from the references to it in John 3, 4. These references are interesting as showing that Baptism by the disciples of Jesus existed alongside of Baptism by John. The Baptist himself apparently never renounced his position as forerunner nor merged himself in the kingdom. The re-baptism of those mentioned in Act 19:1-6, who had been baptized with Johns Baptism, suggests the question whether all who had originally been baptized as disciples of John were re-baptized when they professed allegiance to Jesus. And although this can scarcely be considered likely, this case has been used as sanctioning re-baptism in certain circumstances. Calvins answer is rather an evasion. He denies that the persons spoken of in Acts 19 were re-baptized. They only had the Apostles hands laid upon them. The text no doubt says, They were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus; and when Paul bad laid his hands upon them, etc. But hac posteriori locutione describitur, qualis ille fuerit Baptismus. That is possible, but barely. It is more likely that those concerned, troubled by no questions as to the legitimacy of the renewal of Baptism, and accustomed to the many lustrations then in use, were re-baptized and were conscious of no inconsistency. Apparently they had only seen one half, and that the less important half, of the significance of Johns Baptism, its relation to repentance, and not its efficacy as the ordinance of initiation into the kingdom of Jesus. This defect was now supplied.

Baptism could scarcely have gained so universal a currency as the initiatory rite of the Christian Church had it not been instituted by Christ Himself. No other initial ordinance seems ever to have been suggested. Yet it is expressly said (Joh 4:2) that He Himself did not baptize; and it is doubted whether the explicit injunction of Mat 28:19 can be accepted as uttered by Jesus. Thus Harnack (Hist. of Dogma, i. 79 note) says: It cannot be directly proved that Jesus instituted Baptism, for Mat 28:19 is not a saying of the Lord. The reasons for this assertion are: (1) It is only a later stage of the tradition that represents the risen Christ as delivering speeches and giving commandments. Paul knows nothing of it. (2) The Trinitarian formula is foreign to the mouth of Jesus, and has not the authority in the Apostolic age which it must have had if it had descended from Jesus Himself. (See the literature in Holtzmanns NT Theol. i. 379). That our Lord appeared to His disciples after the Resurrection and said nothing is inconceivable. Better deny the Resurrection altogether than think of a dumb, unsociable ghost floating before the eves of the disciples. But the Trinitarian formula in the month of Jesus is certainly unexpected. For what may be said in its favour Lambert (The Sacraments, pp. 4951) may be consulted. In any case the essential feature of, Baptism was its marking the union of the soul to Christ, and therefore it sufficed to call it Baptism into the name of the Lord Jesus. Further discussion of the genuineness of the ascription of these words to our Lord belongs rather to the Trinitarian than to the Baptismal problems.

Literature.MacCulloch, Comparative Theology, 235; Anrich, Das antike Mysterienwesen; Lightfoot, Harae Hebraic; Schrer, HJP [Note: JP History of the Jewish People.] 31; Suicer, Lexicon, s.v.; Calvin, Institutio, iv. 15, de Baptismo; Reynolds, John the Baptist; Feather, John the Baptist; Lambert, The Sacraments in the New Testament; Holtzmanns NT Theol. and the literature mentioned there, as above; Edersheims Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah; C. F. Rogers, Studia Bibl. et Eccles. vol. v. pt. iv. Baptism and Christian Archaeology; Didaskaliae fragmenta Veronensia Latina (Lips. 1900); A. C. McGiffert, The Apostles Creed, 1902, p. 175; J. F. Bethune-Baker, Early Hist. of Christian Doctrine, 1905, p. 376.

Marcus Dods.

Fuente: A Dictionary Of Christ And The Gospels

Baptism

BAPTISM.This term, which designates a NT rite, is confined to the vocabulary of the NT. It does not occur in the LXX [Note: Septuagint.] , neither is the verb with which it is connected ever used of an initiatory ceremony. This verb is a derivative from one which means to dip (Joh 13:26, Rev 19:13), but itself has a wider meaning, = to wash whether the whole or part of the body, whether by immersion or by the pouring of water (Mar 7:4, Luk 11:38). The substantive is used (a) of Jewish ceremonial washings (Mar 7:4, Heb 9:10); (b) in a metaphorical sense (Mar 10:38, Luk 12:50; cf. plunged in calamity); and (c) most commonly in the technical sense of a religious ceremony of initiation.

1. The earliest use of the word baptism to describe a religious and not merely ceremonial observance is in connexion with the preaching of John the Baptist, and the title which is given to him is probably an indication of the novelty of his procedure (Mat 3:1, Mar 8:28, Luk 7:20; cf. Mar 6:14; Mar 6:24). He preached the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins (Mar 1:4), i.e. the result of his preaching was to induce men to seek baptism as an outward sign and pledge of inward repentance on their part, and of their forgiveness on the part of God. Baptism is related to repentance as the outward act in which the inward change finds expression. It has been disputed whether the practice of baptizing proselytes on their reception into the Jewish community was already established in the 1st cent.; probably it was. But in any case the significance of their baptism was that of ceremonial cleansing; John employed it as a symbol and a seal of moral purification. But, according to the Gospel record, John recognized the incomplete and provisional character of the baptism administered by him: I indeed have baptized you with water; but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost (Mar 1:8).

2. Jesus Himself accepted baptism at the hands of John (Mar 1:9), overcoming the reluctance of the Baptist with a word of authority. That Jesus Himself baptized is nowhere suggested in the Synoptic Gospels, and is expressly denied in the Fourth Gospel (Joh 4:2); but His disciples baptized, and it must have been with His authority, equivalent to baptism by Himself, and involving admission to the society of His disciples. On the other hand, His Instructions to the Twelve and to the Seventy contain no command to baptize. Christian baptism was to be baptism with the Spirit, and the Spirit was not yet given (Joh 7:39). It is recorded in Acts (Act 1:5) that the Risen Lord foretold that this promised baptism would be received after His departure, not many days hence.

3. Christian baptism, although it finds a formal analogy in the baptism of John, which in its turn represents a spiritualizing of ancient Jewish ideas of lustration, appears as in its essential character a new thing after the descent of the Holy Spirit. It is a phenomenon entirely unique, and in its inmost nature without any analogy, because it rises as an original fact from the soil of the Christian religion of revelation (von Dobschtz). It has been customary to trace the institution of the practice to the words of Christ recorded in Mat 28:19. But the authenticity of this passage has been challenged on historical as well as on textual grounds. It must be acknowledged that the formula of the threefold name, which is here enjoined, does not appear to have been employed by the primitive Church, which, so far as our information goes, baptized in or into the name of Jesus (or Jesus Christ or the Lord Jesus: Act 2:38; Act 8:16; Act 10:48; Act 19:5; cf, 1Co 1:13; 1Co 1:15), without reference to the Father or the Spirit. The difficulty hence arising may be met by assuming (a) that Baptism in the name of Jesus was equivalent to Baptism in the name of the Trinity, or (b) that the shorter phrase does not represent the formula used by the baptizer (which may have been the fuller one), but the profession made by the baptized, and the essential fact that he became a Christianone of Christs acknowledged followers. But it is better to infer the authority of Christ for the practice from the prompt and universal adoption of it by the Apostles and the infant Church, to which the opening chapters of Acts bear witness; and from the significance attached to the rite in the Epistles, and especially in those of St. Paul.

4. That baptism was the normal, and probably the indispensable, condition of being recognized as a member of the Christian community appears from allusions in the Epistles (1Co 12:13, Gal 3:27), and abundantly from the evidence in Acts. The first preaching of the Spirit-filled Apostles on the day of Pentecost led to many being pricked in their heart; and in answer to their inquiry addressed to Peter and the rest of the apostles, Peter said unto them: Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ (Act 2:37-38). They then that received his word were baptized to the number of about three thousand souls. At Samaria, when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women (Act 8:12),the earliest express statement that women were admitted to the rite. In this case the gift of the Spirit did not follow until Peter and John had come down from Jerusalem, and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Ghost. Then they laid their hands upon them, and they received the Holy Ghost (Act 8:17). Saul was baptized by Ananias (Act 9:17) in accordance with instructions recorded by himself (Act 22:16), and that he might be filled with the Holy Ghost. In these cases the gift followed upon baptism, with or without the laying-on of hands. In the case of Cornelius and his friends, the gift followed immediately upon the preaching of the word by Peter, and presumably its reception in the heart of those who heard; and it was after that that the Apostle commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord (Act 10:48). It was on the ground of this previous communication of the Holy Spirit that Peter subsequently justified his action in admitting these persons to baptism (Act 11:15-18).

5. The preaching of St. Paul, no less than that of St. Peter, led to the profession of faith through baptism, though the Apostle seems as a rule to have left the actual administration to others (1Co 1:14-17): for Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel. At Philippi Lydia was baptized and her household; there also the jailor, and all that were his (Act 16:15; Act 16:33); at Corinth, Crispus and Gaius, and the household of Stephanas (1Co 1:14; 1Co 1:16).

6. The conditions antecedent to baptism are plainly set forth in Acts, viz. repentance and profession of faith in Jesus as Messiah or as the Lord, following on the preaching of the word. The method of administration was baptizing with water in or into the name of Jesus. Immersion may have been employed when the presence of sufficient water made it convenient; but there is nothing to show that affusion or sprinkling was not regarded as equally valid. That baptism was in the name of Jesus signifies that it took place for the purpose of sealing the new relationship of belonging to, being committed to, His Personality. The blessing attached to the rite is commonly exhibited as the gift of the Holy Spirit; the due fulfilment of the condition of baptism involved ipso facto the due fulfilment of the condition of receiving the Spirit. In the Epistles, this, the normal consequence of Christian baptism, is analyzed into its various elements. These are in the main three: (a) the remission of sins (Act 2:38, 1Co 6:11; cf. Heb 10:22, 1Pe 3:21). (b) In baptism the believer was to realize most vividly the total breach with his old life involved in his new attitude to God through Christ, a breach comparable only with that effected by death (Rom 6:2-7, Col 2:12); he was to realize also that the consequences of this fellowship with Christ were not only death to sin, but a new life in righteousness as real as that which followed on resurrection (Rom 6:4). (c) Baptism conferred incorporation in the one body of Christ (1Co 12:13), and was thus adapted to serve as a symbol of the true unity of Christians (Eph 4:5). The body with which the believer is thus incorporated is conceived of sometimes as the corporate community of Christians, sometimes as the Personality of Christ; for as many of you as were baptized into Christ, did put on Christ (Gal 3:27).

Conversely, as with the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, all the elements both of qualification and of experience are sometimes summed up in a pregnant phrase and without regard to the order in which they emerge. Eph 5:26 may find its best interpretation through comparison with Joh 15:3 (cf. Joh 17:17), i.e. as referring to the continuous cleansing of the Church by the word; but if the reference is to baptism, then the phrase by the word probably alludes to the profession of faith by the baptized, whether it took the form of Jesus is Lord (Rom 4:10; cf. 1Co 12:3), or whether it expressed the content of the faith more fully. In Tit 3:5, while baptism is the instrument by which salvation is realized, regeneration and renewal are both displayed as the work of the Holy Spirit. And here the Apostolic interpretation of the rite touches the anticipation of it in our Lords words recorded in Joh 3:5. Faith wrought by the Spirit and faith professed by the believer are alike necessary to entrance into the Kingdom of salvation (cf. Rom 10:9-10).

In 1Co 15:29 Paul refers to the practice of persons allowing themselves to be baptized on behalf of the dead. Such a practice appears to have had analogies in the Greek mysteries, from which it may have crept into the Christian Church. As such it may be regarded as a purely magical, and wholly superstitious, vicarious reception of the sacrament. Of such a practice the Apostle expresses no approval, but simply meets his opponents with their own weapons without putting their validity to the proof (Rentdorff).

7. The NT contains no explicit reference to the baptism of infants or young children; but it does not follow that the Church of the 2nd cent. adopted an unauthorized innovation when it carried out the practice of infant baptism. There are good reasons for the silence of Scripture on the subject. The governing principle of St. Luke as the historian of the primitive Church is to narrate the advance of the Kingdom through the missionary preaching of the Apostles, and the conversion of adult men and women. The letters of the Apostles were similarly governed by the immediate occasion and purpose of their writing. We have neither a complete history, nor a complete account of the organization, of the primitive Church. But of one thing we may be sure: had the acceptance of Christianity involved anything so startling to the Jewish or the Gentile mind as a distinction between the religious standing of the father of a family and his children, the historian would have recorded it, or the Apostles would have found themselves called to explain and defend it. For such a distinction would have been in direct contradiction to the most deeply rooted convictions of Jew and of Gentile alike. From the time of Abraham onwards the Jew had felt it a solemn religious obligation to claim for his sons from their earliest infancy the same covenant relation with God as he himself stood in. There was sufficient parallelism between baptism and circumcision (cf. Col 2:11) for the Jewish-Christian father to expect the baptism of his children to follow his own as a matter of course. The Apostle assumes as a fact beyond dispute that the children of believers are holy (1Co 7:14), i.e. under the covenant with God, on the ground of their fathers faith. And among Gentile converts a somewhat different but equally authoritative principle, that of patria potestas, would have the same result. In a home organized on this principle, which prevailed throughout the Roman Empire, it would be a thing inconceivable that the children could be severed from the father in their religious rights and duties, in the standing conferred by baptism. Thus it is because, to the mind of Jew and Gentile alike, the baptism of infants and children yet unable to supply the conditions for themselves was so natural, that St. Luke records so simply that when Lydia believed, she was baptized with her household; when the Philippian jailor believed, he was baptized, and all those belonging to him. If there were children in these households, these children were baptized on the ground of the faith of their parents; if there were no children, then the principle took a still wider extension, which includes children; for it was the servants or slaves of the household who were added to the Church by baptism on the ground of their masters faith.

8. Baptism was a ceremony of initiation by which the baptized not only were admitted members of the visible society of the disciples of Christ, but also received the solemn attestation of the consequences of their faith. Hence there are three parties to it. The part of the baptized is mainly his profession of faith in Christ, his confession with his heart that he is the Lords. The second is the Christian community or Church (rather than the person who administers baptism, and who studiously keeps in the background). Their part is to hear the profession and to grant the human attestation. The third is the Head of the Church Himself, by whose authority the rite is practised, and who gives the inward attestation, as the experience of being baptized opens in the believing soul new avenues for the arrival of the Holy Spirit.

C. A. Scott.

Fuente: Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible

Baptism

One of the ordinances which the Lord Jesus hath appointed in his church. An outward token, or sign, of an inward and spiritual grace. A dedication to the glorious, holy, undivided Three in One Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; in whose joint name baptism is performed, and from whose united blessings in Christ, it can alone be rendered effectual. (Mat 28:19) Beside this ordinance, which Christ hath appointed as the introduction to his church, we are taught to be always on the watch, in prayer and supplication, for the continual baptisms of the Holy Ghost. Concerning the personal baptisms of the Lord Jesus Christ, we hear Jesus speaking of them during his ministry. (See Luk 12:50) Hence, to the sons of Zebedee, the Lord said, “Can ye drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?” And Jesus added, “Ye shall drink of the cup that I drink of, and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptised.” (Mar 10:38-39)

Some have thought, that these expressions are figurative of sufferings. But there doth not seem sufficient authority in the word of God to prove this. And, indeed, the subject is too much obscured by those expressions, to determine that sufferings were the baptisms to which the Lord had respect. Besides, had sufferings been meant by Christ, could he mean that the sons of Zebedee were to sustain agonies like himself in the garden and on the cross? This were impossible.

Others, by baptism, have taken the expression of John the Baptist literally, where he saith, “I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance; but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear, he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire.” (Mat 3:11) Others, with more probability of truth, have considered the baptisms of the Holy Ghost, and with fire, to mean his manifold gifts and graces. The Old Testament spake of “the Spirit of judgment and the Spirit of burning.” (Isa 4:4) And the New Testament gives the record of the first descent of the Holy Ghost, after Christ’s return to glory, in the shape of cloven tongues, like as of fire, which sat upon each of them. (Act 2:4) It were devoutly to be prayed for, and sought for by faith, that all true believers in Christ were earnest for the continual influences of the Holy Ghost, as the only read and sure testimony of being baptized unto Christ, in having put on Christ. For if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his? (Gal 3:27; Rom 8:9)

Fuente: The Poor Mans Concordance and Dictionary to the Sacred Scriptures

Baptism

A conviction of the holiness of God excites in man the notion that he cannot possibly come into any amicable relation with him before he is cleansed of sin, which separates him from God. This sentiment found a very widely extended symbolic expression in the lustrations which formed an essential part of the ceremonial creeds of the ancient nations. In the language of the prophets, cleansing with water is used as an emblem of the purification of the heart, which in the Messianic age is to glorify the soul in her innermost recesses, and to embrace the whole of the theocratic nation (Eze 36:25, sq.; Zec 13:1). Such declarations gave rise to or nourished the expectation that the advent of the Messiah would manifest itself by a preparatory lustration, by which Elijah or some other great prophet would pave the way for him. This supposition lies evidently at the bottom of the questions which the Jews put to John the Baptist (Joh 1:25, comp. Mat 3:7 and Luk 3:7), whether he was the Messiah, or Elijah, or some other prophet? and if not, why he undertook to baptize? Thus we can completely clear up the historical derivation of the rite, as used by John and Christ, from the general and natural symbol of baptism, from the Jewish custom in particular, and from the expectation of a Messianic consecration. Dans, Ziegler, and others have, nevertheless, supposed it to be derived from the Jewish ceremonial of baptizing proselytes; and Wetstein has traced that rite up to a date earlier than Christianity. But this opinion is not at all tenable: for, as an act which strictly gives validity to the admission of a proselyte, and is no mere accompaniment to his admission, baptism certainly is not alluded to in the New Testament; while, as to the passages quoted in proof from the classical (profane) writers of that period, they are all open to the most fundamental objections. Nor is the utter silence of Josephus and Philo on the subject, notwithstanding their various opportunities of touching on it, a less weighty argument against this view. It is true that mention is made in the Talmud of that regulation as already existing in the first century A.D.; but such statements belong only to the traditions of the Gemara, and require careful investigation before they can serve as proper authority. This Jewish rite was probably originally only a purifying ceremony; and it was raised to the character of an initiating and indispensable rite coordinate with that of sacrifice and circumcision, only after the destruction of the Temple, when sacrifices had ceased, and the circumcision of proselytes had, by reason of public edicts, become more and more impracticable.

Baptism of John

It was the principal object of John the Baptist to combat the prevailing opinion, that the performance of external ceremonies was sufficient to secure participation in the kingdom of God and his promises; he required repentance, therefore, as a preparation for the approaching kingdom of the Messiah. That he may possibly have baptized heathens also, seems to follow from his censuring the Pharisees for confiding in their descent from Abraham, while they had no share in his spirit: yet it should not be overlooked that this remark was drawn from him by the course of the argument (Mat 3:8-9; Luk 3:7-8). We must, on the whole, assume that John considered the existing Judaism as a stepping-stone by which the Gentiles were to arrive at the kingdom of God in its Messianic form. The general point of view from which John contemplated the Messiah and his kingdom was that of the Old Testament, though closely bordering on Christianity. He regards, it is true, an alteration in the mind and spirit as an indispensable condition for partaking in the kingdom of the Messiah; still he looked for its establishment by means of conflict and external force, with which the Messiah was to be endowed; and he expected in him a Judge and Avenger, who was to set up outward and visible distinctions. It is, therefore, by no means a matter of indifference whether baptism be administered, in the name of that Christ who floated before the mind of John, or of the suffering and glorified One, such as the apostles knew him; and whether it was considered a preparation for a political, or a consecration into a spiritual theocracy. John was so far from this latter view, so far from contemplating a purely spiritual development of the kingdom of God, that he even began subsequently to entertain doubts concerning Christ (Mat 11:2). John’s baptism had not the character of an immediate, but merely of a preparatory, consecration for the glorified theocracy (Joh 1:31). The Apostles, therefore, found it necessary to re-baptize the disciples of John, who had still adhered to the notions of their master on that head (Acts 19). To this apostolic judgment Tertullian appeals, and in his opinion coincide the most eminent teachers of the ancient church, both of the East and the West.

Baptism of Jesus

The Baptism of Jesus by John (Mat 3:13, sq.; Mar 1:9, sq.; Luk 3:21, sq.; comp. Joh 1:19, sq.; the latter passage refers to a time after the baptism, and describes, Joh 1:32, the incidental facts attending it).The baptism of Jesus, as the first act of his public career, is one of the most important events recorded in evangelical history: great difficulty is also involved in reconciling the various accounts given by the Evangelists of that transaction, and the several points connected with it. To question the fact itself, not even the negative criticism of Dr. Strauss has dared. This is, however, all that has been conceded by that criticism, viz., the mere and bare fact ‘that Christ was baptized by John,’ while all the circumstances of the event are placed in the region of mythology or fiction. Critical inquiry suggests the following questions:

1.In what relation did Jesus stand to John before the baptism?

2.What object did Jesus intend to obtain by that baptism?

3.In what sense are we to take the miraculous incidents attending that act?

With regard to the first point, we might be apt to infer, from Luke and Matthew, that there had been an acquaintance between Christ and John even prior to the baptism; and that hence John declines (Mat 3:14) to baptize Jesus, arguing that he needed to be baptized by Him. This, however, seems to be at variance with Joh 1:31; Joh 1:33. Lcke (Comment, i. p. 416, sq. 3rd edit.) takes the words ‘I knew him not’ in their strict and exclusive sense. John, he says, could not have spoken in this manner if he had at all known Jesus; and had he known Him, he could not, as a prophet, have failed to discover, even at an earlier period, the but too evident ‘glory’ of the Messiah. In fact, the narrative of the first three Gospels presupposes the same, since, as the herald of the Messiah, he could give that refusal (Mat 3:14) to the Messiah alone.

With regard to the second point at issue, as to the object of Christ in undergoing baptism, we find, in the first instance, that he ranked this action among those of his Messianic calling. This object is still more defined by John the Baptist (Joh 1:31), which Lcke interprets in the following words: ‘Only by entering into that community which was to be introductory to the Messianic, by attaching Himself to the Baptist like any other man, was it possible for Christ to reveal Himself to the Baptist, and through Him to others.’ Christ, with His never-failing reliance on God, never for a moment could doubt of His own mission, or of the right period when His character was to be made manifest by God; but John needed to receive that assurance, in order to be the herald of the Messiah who was actually come. For all others whom John baptized, either before or after Christ, this act was a mere preparatory consecration to the kingdom of the Messiah; while for Jesus it was a direct and immediate consecration, by means of which He manifested the commencement of His career as the founder of the new theocracy, which began at the very moment of His baptism, the initiatory character of which constituted its general principle and tendency.

With respect to the miraculous incidents which accompanied the baptism of Jesus, if we take for our starting-point the narration of the three first Gospels, that the Holy Spirit really and visibly descended in the form of a dove, and proclaimed Jesus, in an audible voice, to be the Son of God, there can be no difficulty in bringing it to harmonize with the statement in the Gospel of John. This literal sense of the text has, indeed, for a long time been the prevailing interpretation, though many doubts respecting it had very early forced themselves on the minds of sober inquirers, traces of which are to be found in Origen, and which Strauss has more elaborately renewed. To the natural explanations belong that of Paulus, that the dove was a real one, which had by chance flown near the spot at that moment; that of Meyer, that it was the figure of a meteor which was just then visible in the sky; and that of Kuinoel (ad Matthew 3), who considers the dove as a figure for lightning, and the voice for that of thunder, which the eyewitnesses, in their ecstatic feelings, considered as a divine voice, such as the Jews called a Bath-kol(Meyer). Such interpretations are not only irreconcilable with the evangelical text, but even presuppose a violation of the common order of nature, in favor of adherence to which these interpretations are advanced.

A more close investigation of the subject, however, induces us to take as a starting-point the account of the Apostle St. John. It is John the Baptist himself who speaks. He was an eyewitness, nay, to judge from Matthew and John, the only one present with Jesus, and is consequently the only sourcewith or without Christof information. Indeed, if there were more people present, as we are almost inclined to infer from Luke, they cannot have perceived the miracles attending the baptism of Jesus, or John and Christ would no doubt have appealed to their testimony in verification of them.

In thus taking the statement in St. John for the authentic basis of the whole history, a few slight hints in it may afford us the means of solving the difficulties attending the literal conception of the text. John the Baptist knows nothing of an external and audible voice, and when he assures us (Joh 1:33) that he had in the Spirit received the promise, that the Messiah would be made manifest by the Spirit descending upon Him, and remainingbe it upon or in Himthere; this very remaining assuredly precludes any material appearance in the shape of a bird. The internal probability of the text, therefore, speaks in favor of a spiritual vision in the mind of the Baptist; this view is still more strengthened by the fact, that Luke supposes there were many more present, who notwithstanding perceived nothing at all of the miraculous incidents. The reason that the Spirit in the vision assumed the figure of a dove, we would rather seek in the peculiar flight and movement of that bird, than in its form and shape. This interpretation moreover has the advantage of exhibiting the philosophic connection of the incidents, since the Baptist appears more conspicuously as the immediate end of the divine dispensation. Christ had thus the intention of being introduced by him into the Messianic sphere of operation, while the Baptist recognizes this to be his own peculiar calling: the signs by which he was to know the Messiah had been intimated to him, and now that they had come to pass, the prophecy and his mission were fulfilled.

None of the Evangelists give any authority for the common tradition that the descent of the Spirit upon Christ was sensibly witnessed by the multitude. Matthew simply states that the vision appeared to Christ; Mark adds that the Spirit appeared to him ‘as a dove descending upon Him;’ Luke, more generally, states only the fact of the Spirit’s descent in a sensible form; and John informs us that besides Christ this vision was witnessed also by the Baptist.

Christian Baptism

Jesus, having undergone baptism as the founder of the new kingdom, ordained it as a legal act by which individuals were to obtain the rights of citizens therein. Though He caused many to be baptized by His disciples (Joh 4:1-2), yet all were not baptized who were converted to Him; neither was it even necessary after they had obtained participation in Him by his personal choice and forgiving of sin. But when He could no longer personally and immediately choose and receive members of His kingdom, when at the same time all had been accomplished which the founder thought necessary for its completion, He gave power to the spiritual community to receive, in His stead, members by baptism (Mat 28:19; Mar 16:16). Baptism essentially denotes the regenerating of him who receives it, his participation both in the divine life of Christ and the promises rested on it, as well as his reception as a member of the Christian community.

Each of these momentous points implies all the rest; and the germ of all is contained in the words of Christ (Mat 28:19). The details are variously digested by the Apostles according to their peculiar modes of thinking. John dwellsin like manner as he does on the holy communionalmost exclusively on the internal nature of baptism, the immediate mystical union of the Spirit with Christ; baptism is with him equivalent to ‘being born again’ (Joh 3:5; Joh 3:7). Paul gives more explicitly and completely the other points also. He understands by it not only the union of the individual with the Head, by the giving one’s self up to the Redeemer and the receiving of His life (Gal 3:27), but also the union with the other members (Gal 3:28; 1Co 12:13; Eph 4:5; Eph 5:26). He expresses a spiritual purport by saying that it intimates on the part of those who have received it, their being joined with Christ in His death and raised with Him in His resurrection.

As regards the design of Christian Baptism, different views have been adopted by different parties. The principal are the following:

1.That it is a direct instrument of grace; the application of water to the person by a properly qualified functionary being regarded as the appointed vehicle by which God bestows regenerating grace upon men. This is the Romanist and Anglo-Catholic view.

2.That though not an instrument it is a seal of grace; divine blessings being thereby confirmed and obsignated to the individual. This is the doctrine of the Confessions of the majority of the Reformed Churches.

3.That it is neither an instrument nor a seal of grace, but simply a ceremony of initiation into Church membership. This is the Socinian view of the ordinance.

4.That it is a token of regeneration; to be received only by those who give evidence of being really regenerated. This is the view adopted by the Baptists.

5.That it is a symbol of purification; the use of which simply announces that the religion of Christ is a purifying religion, and intimates that the party receiving the rite assumes the profession, and is to be instructed in the principles, of that religion. This opinion is extensively entertained amongst the Congregationalists of England.

Differences of opinion have also been introduced respecting the proper mode of baptism. Some contend that it should be by immersion alone; others, that it should be only by affusion or sprinkling; and others, that it matters not in which way it is done, the only thing required being the ritual application of water to the person. The first class appeal to the use of baptizo by the classical authors, with whom they affirm it is always used in the sense of dipping or immersing; and to such expressions as ‘being buried with Christ in baptism,’ etc. where they understand an allusion to a typical burial, by submersion in water. The second class rely upon the usage of baptizo by the sacred writers, who, they allege, employ it frequently where immersion is not to be supposed, as when they speak of ‘baptism with fire,’ and ‘baptism with the Spirit;’ upon the alleged impossibility of immersing such multitudes as we learn were baptized at once in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost; upon the supposed improbability of an Eastern female like Lydia allowing herself to be publicly immersed by a man whom she had never seen before; upon the language used by Paul at Philippi, when he commanded water to be brought into the room, that he might baptize the jailor and his family, language which, it is said, cannot be understood of such a quantity of water as would be required to immerse in succession a whole household; and upon the use of the term baptism, to designate what is elsewhere spoken of as the outpouring of the Spirit. The third class maintain, that according to universal usage baptizo signifies simply to wet, and that the following preposition determines whether it is to be taken in the sense of wetting by immersion or not; they urge especially that the word as used in the New Testament possesses so much of a technical character, that it is not possible from it to deduce any correct inference as to the mode of baptizing; and they adduce historical evidence to show that baptism was performed indifferently by immersion or affusion as convenience dictated.

In fine, differences of opinion have arisen respecting the proper subjects of baptism. Here also we have three classes.

1. Those who maintain that baptism is to be administered only to those who believe and give evidence of being regenerated. This opinion is grounded chiefly upon the positions that, Repentance and Faith are distinctly prescribed in the New Testament as conditions of baptism, and the alleged fact that the Apostles did not baptize any, until satisfied that they sincerely believed. It is urged also by the advocates of this opinion, against the practice of infant baptism, that not only are infants excluded from baptism by their inability to comply with the required terms, but that they are virtually excluded by their baptism not being expressly enjoined in the New Testament. It is also alleged that infant baptism was unknown to the Early Church, and was a corrupt invention of the patristic age.

2. Those who contend that baptism is to be administered not only to believers who have not been before baptized, but to the infant offspring of believers. This opinion is chiefly based on the covenant established by God with Abraham. This covenant it is maintained was the everlasting covenant, the covenant of grace; under it a connection of a spiritual kind was recognized as existing between parents and their children; in virtue of this the latter received the sign of the covenanted blessings; no evidence can be adduced that this divinely-appointed connection has been abrogated, though the sign of the covenant has been changed; on the contrary, there is abundant evidence to show that the Apostles administered to the children of converts to Christianity the same rite, that of baptism, which they administered to the converts themselves. It is also affirmed by this party that the requiring of faith and repentance as a condition of baptism in the case of adults cannot be fairly held as including children, inasmuch as by the same reasoning children dying in infancy would be excluded from salvation. It is denied that the absence of any express injunction to baptize children virtually prohibits their baptism; and the assertion that infant baptism was unknown in the primitive age is rebutted by historical evidence.

3. Those who assert that baptism is to be administered to all who either will place themselves under Christian instruction, such as adults who have grownup as heathens, Jews, or infidels; or who may be thus placed by their parents or guardians, such as infants. In support of this view, stress is laid upon our Lord’s words when He commanded His Apostles to go and teach and baptize all nations; the ‘baptizing’ being regarded as associated with the ‘teaching’ and commensurate with it, while what is said about ‘believing’ is regarded as relating to something which may or may not follow the teaching and baptizing, but which is declared to be essential to salvation. It is argued that the Apostolic practice was altogether in accordance with this view of our Lord’s commission, inasmuch as the multitudes frequently baptized by the Apostles were such, that to obtain satisfactory evidence of the knowledge and piety of each individual was impossible in the time which elapsed between the Apostles’ preaching and the baptizing to which it led; while such cases as those of Simon Magus and the Philippian Jailor show that even very ignorant men, and men who could not possibly give what any person would receive as credible evidence of piety, were at once baptized. The practice of the Apostles also in baptizing whole households, including children and servants, without asking any questions as to their knowledge and belief, is urged in favor of this opinion, as well as the corresponding practice of the Church.

Baptism for the Dead

Paul (1Co 15:29) uses this phrase. Few passages have undergone more numerous and arbitrary emendations than this text. We shall examine first

A. Those interpretations which take it to be some particular application of baptism.

1. Some imagine that Paul speaks of a baptism which a living man receives in the place of a dead one.

Various passages have been quoted from the fathers in support of this opinion; but all we can infer from their statements is, that baptism by substitution had taken place among the Marcionites, and perhaps also among the Cerinthians and other smaller sects towards the end of the fourth century; but that it existed between that period and the time when Paul wrote the above passage is wholly unsubstantiated. The idea, then, that such a superstitious custom existed in the Corinthian community is devoid of all historical evidence.

The difficulties will still more increase, if we were to admit, with Olhausen, Rckert, and De Wette, that the Apostle approved of the absurd practice in question, since he would thus be brought into contradiction with his own principles on the importance of faith and external works, which he develops in his Epistle to the Galatians. In the words of Paul we discover no opinion of his own concerning the justice or injustice of the rite; it is merely brought in as an argumentum ex concesso in favor of the object which he pursues through the whole chapter (comp. 1Co 2:5). However much may be objected against this interpretation, it is by far more reasonable than the explanations given by other critics. The Corinthian community was certainly of a mixed character, consisting of individuals of various views, ways of thinking, and different stages of education: so that there might still have existed a small number among them capable of such absurdities. We are not sufficiently acquainted with all the particulars of the case to maintain the contrary, while the simple grammatical sense of the passage is decidedly in favor of the proposed interpretation.

2. Origen, Luther, Chemnitz, and Joh. Gerhard, interpret the words as relating to baptism over the graves of the members of the community, a favorite rendezvous of the early Christians. Luther says that in order to strengthen their faith in the resurrection, the Christians baptized over the tombs of the dead. But the custom alluded to dates from a much later period.

3. Epiphanius mentions also a view, according to which the word rendered ‘dead’ is to be translated mortally ill persons whose baptism was expedited by sprinkling water upon them on their death-bed, instead of immersing them in the usual way; the rite is known under the name of baptismus clinicus, lectualis. But few of the modern theologians (among whom, however, are Calvin and Estius) advocate this view, which transgresses not less against the words of the text than against all historical knowledge of the subject.

B. The interpretations which suppose that the text speaks of general church baptism. To these belongs the oldest opinion we know of, given in Tertullian, according to which the Greek word rendered ‘for’ is here taken in the sense of on account of, and the word rendered ‘the dead’ in that of dead bodies, they themselves, the baptized, as dead persons. The notion which lies at the bottom of this version is, that the body possesses a guarantee for resurrection in the act of baptism, in which it also shares. The sinking under and rising up is with them a symbol of burying and resurrection.

2. A later view, expressed by Chrysostom, adopts the same meaning as regards ‘the dead,’ but construes the whole clause ‘in behalf of the dead,’ to signify ‘in the belief of the resurrection of the dead.’ This ungrammatical version is adopted by Theophylact: ‘Why are men baptized at all in behalf of resurrection, that is, in expectation of resurrection, if the dead rise not?’

3. Pelagius, Olearius, Fabricius, are of opinion that the phrase ‘on account of the dead,’ or ‘of those who are dead,’ although strictly plural, here alludes to an individual, namely, to Christ, ‘on account of whom’ we are baptized, alluding to Rom 6:3.

4. Among the best interpretations is that of Spanheim and Joh. Christ. Wolf. They consider ‘the dead’ to be martyrs and other believers, who, by firmness and cheerful hope of resurrection, have given in death a worthy example, by which others were also animated to receive baptism. Still this meaning would be almost too briefly and enigmatically expressed, when no particular reason for it is known, while also the allusion to the exemplary death of many Christians could chiefly apply to the martyrs alone, of whom there were as yet none at Corinth.

5. Olhausen’s interpretation is of a rather doubtful character. The meaning of the passage he takes to be, that ‘all who are converted to the church are baptizedfor the good of the dead, as it requires a certain number (Rom 11:12-25), a fullness of believers, before the resurrection can take place. Every one therefore who is baptized is so for the good of believers collectively, and of those who have already died in the Lord.’ Olhausen is himself aware that the Apostle could not have expected that such a difficult and remote idea, which he himself calls ‘a mystery,’ would be understood by his readers without a further explanation and development of his doctrine. He therefore proposes an explanation, in which it is argued that the miseries and hardships Christians have to struggle against in this life can only be compensated by resurrection. Death causes, as it were, vacancies in the full ranks of the believers, which are again filled up by other individuals. ‘What would it profit those who are baptized in the place of the dead (to fill up their place in the community) if there be no resurrection?’

Fuente: Popular Cyclopedia Biblical Literature

Baptism

Used figuratively to express the overwhelming sufferings which the Lord Jesus endured in order to accomplish the purpose for which He came to the earth; He was ‘straitened’ until that work was accomplished. Luk 12:50; Joh 12:27. When the sons of Zebedee asked to sit on the right and on the left of the Lord in His glory, He at once referred to the cup He had to drink, and asked if they could drink of that cup, and be baptised with the baptism He was to be baptised with. They, ignorant of the depths of suffering involved in the question, said they could. In one sense they should share in His sufferings – the non-atoning sufferings, from the hand of man; but the places they sought were not His to give. Mar 10:38-40.

The Greek is , from , to dip, plunge, wash, etc. The ordinance of Baptism:

1. JEWISH. In Heb 6:2 () the Hebrew believers were exhorted to leave ‘the doctrine of baptisms;’ and in Heb 9:10 we read of ‘divers baptisms or washings,’ but which is followed by the words “imposed until the time of reformation,” which ‘time’ is referred to as ‘Christ being come.’ This shows that the baptisms referred to were some part of the Jewish ritual, in which there were many washings and bathings; but none of these washings signified fully the baptism of the N.T., which as an initiatory ordinance places the baptised in a new position: the Red Sea (1Co 10:2) was a figure of this. It was the Jewish washings that the Hebrew believers were exhorted to leave, or not to be laying again as a foundation.

Further, it has often been said that the Jews received their proselytes by baptism. Of this we have no record in the O.T., and Josephus, who details the rites necessary for the reception of a proselyte, makes no mention of baptism. It is true that Maimonides says that proselytes were thus received; but he was not born till A.D. 1135, and was thus far too late to know what took place so long before when contemporary writers are silent on the subject.

2. BAPTISM BY JOHN. This was specially in the Jordan, to which the multitudes went out, and which is spoken of again and again as the baptism ‘of repentance.’ Mar 1:4; Luk 3:3; Act 13:24; Act 19:4. He challenged the multitudes who came to be baptised that they should bring forth ‘fruits worthy of repentance.’ Mat 3:8; Luk 3:8. He baptised those who came ‘confessing their sins,’ Mat 3:6; and he exhorted the people to believe on Him who would come after him,” that is, on Christ Jesus.” Act 19:4: cf. Joh 1:29; Joh 1:36. The godly remnant by John’s baptism took separate ground from the national body, in expectancy of Messiah’s coming: they judged themselves, and cleared themselves of the sinful condition of the nation. The Lord was baptised by John, thus taking His place among the repentant in Israel, not as confessing sins, but as fulfilling righteousness, as He said, “Thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness” Mat 3:15.

3. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. We have seen that John the Baptist preached the baptism of repentance. During the Lord’s ministry before the cross, some were baptised to Him as Messiah. Joh 4:1. After His death and resurrection Peter preached, not repentance, but the rejected Jesus as exalted, and made Lord and Christ. When they were pricked in heart, he said to them, ‘Repent,’ etc., but the baptism was to the remission of sins because the work was now done which gave it fully: they were baptised to the remission of sins – administratively and governmentally. Act 2:38.

Rom 6:3-4 gives the meaning of Christian baptism to saints who had been baptised long before. It treats of the death of Christ (the sinless One,) as death to sin and to the state man was in, and draws conclusions from it for us inasmuch as He is risen. They were baptised to His death, that is, they have a part in it – they are alive to God in Him risen (and consequently also alive to Him risen – not to law), and hence sin was not to reign any longer; but there is no resurrection with Him in these verses. Baptism is prefigured by Israel’s passage through the Red Sea, not by their crossing Jordan, though resurrection is added in Col 2:12, as leaving sins behind: “Having forgiven you all trespasses.” It is individual, and reception into the profession of Christianity: “one Lord, one faith, one baptism.” The signification of baptism goes further in Colossians than in Romans, but is always connected with a status upon earth, and not with heavenly privileges. It saves, 1Pe 3:21; we wash away our sins in it, Act 22:16; we go into death in it; and in Col 2:12, it is added, we ‘are risen:’ hence also it is individual. The church as such has never to be brought into death, its very origin is in the resurrection of Christ, Col 1:18: it is first-born in the new creation.

It is clear that Baptism, though in a certain aspect it places the recipient in a resurrection status, giving Christ for our life, never takes us out of the earth; but puts us in the position of christian responsibility in it, according to newness of life, as it is said, “so we also should walk in newness of life.” There is a warning in 1Co 10:1-6. They were baptised, etc., “but with many of them God was not well pleased.” A mere sacramental position is not enough: we have to “continue in the faith, grounded and settled.” Col 1:23. We are called, as baptised, to walk in this world as dead and risen again, as in a wilderness. It is the expression of the outward visible church in its profession: “one Lord, one faith, one baptism.” In baptism we have a good conscience by the resurrection. 1Pe 3:21. We wash away our sins in it, calling on the name of the Lord, Act 22:16; we are received by it into the responsible place of God’s people in this world.

With Peter, Christian Baptism seems more connected with the kingdom of heaven: cf. Mat 16:19; Act 2:38; Act 10:48: with Paul it was connected rather with the house of God when he did use it. Paul had a new commission. He is not found, like Peter, ministering in the midst of a known people who had promises, calling souls out of it to repentance, that they should receive remission and be separated from the untoward generation. Paul takes up man as man (though owning the Jews) and brings him into God’s presence in light. For the Gentiles it was, even in testimony, a wholly new resurrection state , not merely a good conscience through the resurrection; and baptism, which gives a status on earth founded on resurrection, forms no part of Paul’s testimony, any more than of the mission in Joh 20:21-23; and Paul tells us himself, that he was not sent to baptise.

Faith sees that when God brings a man into privileges on earth, he does not separate his household from him, for example, Gen 7:1, etc. Under Christianity this surely holds good: see 1Co 7:14: and we see households were baptised by Paul.

At the end of Matthew’s gospel we have a commandment connected with baptism and apostolic mission to the Gentiles exclusively, but then there is nothing of repentance or remission. It is simply discipling all the nations, baptizing and then teaching them. Mat 28:19-20. (This passage contemplates in its full sense a work to be done at the end of the age by the Jewish remnant toward the Gentiles. Christian Baptism now is for Jews and Gentiles alike, that by it they should lose their standing as such, and being committed to the death of Christ be brought into Christian profession, leaving those distinctions behind them.) The direction in Luk 24:47 is repentance and remission of sins. In Mar 16:15-16 salvation belonged to him who believed and was baptised; for if he was not, he refused to be a Christian.

Scripture gives no definite teaching as to the mode of baptism, the great point being what the recipients of the ordinance were baptised to : cf. Act 19:3. The idea conveyed by the word is ‘washing,’ as with the priests of old (Exo 29:4), rather than ‘sprinkling,’ as with the Levites. Num 8:7.

As to the formula used, some have supposed that because we read in the Acts that persons were baptised ‘to the name of the Lord Jesus,’ the instruction given in Mat 28:19 to baptise “to the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,” was superseded. But this does not follow: baptism is always to some person or thing. The disciples found at Ephesus had been baptised to the baptism of John, Act 19:3; the Israelites had been baptised to Moses; and those baptised in the Acts were to the name of the Lord Jesus as Saviour and Lord; and there is no reason why this should not be combined with the words found in Matthew, and a person be baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus unto the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. In Act 2:38 the preposition is ( in MSS B,C,D); in Act 10:48 it is ; and elsewhere it is .

4. BAPTISED FOR THE DEAD. This occurs in 1Co 15:29. Some maintain that the Corinthian saints had fallen into the error of holding that if some of their number had fallen asleep without being baptised, others could be baptised for them, and that Paul was condemning this. But in the language he uses there is no condemnation. If 1Co 15:20-28 inclusive be read as a parenthesis, 1Co 15:18 explains 1Co 15:29; and 1Co 15:19 explains 30-32. Thus, if there be no resurrection, those “fallen asleep in Christ are perished . . . . else what shall they do who are baptised for the dead?” Why step into their place in the ranks, and be in jeopardy every hour, like soldiers in a war, if the dead rise not? What advantage was it for Paul to have fought with beasts at Ephesus if the dead rise not? The allusion in the ‘jeopardy every hour’ and in the ‘fighting’ is to those in danger, as soldiers in a war.

Fuente: Concise Bible Dictionary

Baptism

John’s

Mat 3:5-8; Mat 3:11; Mat 3:13-16; Mar 1:8-10; Luk 3:7-8; Joh 10:40; Mat 21:25; Mar 11:30; Luk 20:4; Mar 1:4-5; Luk 3:12; Luk 3:21; Luk 7:29-30; Joh 1:25-26; Joh 1:28; Joh 1:31; Joh 1:33; Joh 3:23; Act 1:5; Act 1:22; Act 10:37; Act 11:16; Act 19:3-4

Christian

Mat 28:19; Mar 16:16; Joh 3:5; Joh 3:22; Joh 4:1-2; Act 1:5; Act 1:22; Act 2:38; Act 2:41; Act 8:12-13; Act 8:16; Act 8:36-38; Act 9:18; Act 10:46-48; Act 16:14-15; Act 16:33; Act 18:8; Act 18:25; Act 19:4-5; Act 22:16; Rom 6:3-4; 1Co 1:13-17; 1Co 10:1-2; 1Co 12:13; 1Co 15:29; Gal 3:27; Eph 4:5; Eph 5:26; Col 2:12; Heb 6:2; 1Pe 3:18; 1Pe 3:21

Of the Holy Ghost

– General references

Isa 44:3; Joe 2:28-29; Zec 12:10; Mat 3:11; Mar 1:8; Luk 3:16; Mat 3:16; Luk 3:22; Joh 1:32-33; Luk 24:49; Joh 3:5; Act 1:5; Act 2:1-4; Act 2:38; Act 2:41; Act 8:15-17; Act 10:38; Act 10:44-45; Act 10:47; Act 11:15-16; Act 19:2; 1Co 12:13; Tit 3:5-6; 1Pe 3:20-21 Holy Spirit

Fuente: Nave’s Topical Bible

Baptism

Baptism. The Scriptures speak of baptism “in” or “with” water, “with the Holy Ghost, and with fire,” Mat 3:11; Act 1:5; and Jesus compared his sufferings to “a baptism,” Luk 12:50. John (called “the Baptist,” Mat 11:11;) preached “the baptism of repentance,” and baptized in the river Jordan those confessing their sins, Mar 1:4-5. Jesus was baptized by John “to fulfill all righteousness,” Mat 3:15. His disciples were baptizing more than John. Joh 3:22; Joh 4:1-2. Jesus at his ascension appointed baptism for all disciples, “Teach all nations, baptizing them.” etc., Mat 28:19. Paul says the baptized “put on Christ,” Gal 3:27; and “by one Spirit are baptized into one body,” 1Co 12:13. Baptism with water is associated with remission of sins, Act 2:38; Act 22:16; and birth by the Spirit, Joh 3:5; Act 11:27. Paul speaks also of being “buried with him [Christ] in baptism unto death; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead… even so we,” Rom 6:4. Baptism of the Holy Spirit was bestowed at Jerusalem, Samaria, Cesarea and Ephesus, Act 2:1-4; Act 10:44; Act 19:6. This gift sometimes followed and sometimes preceded baptism by water. Many instances of baptism are noted; the terms “baptism,” “baptized,” and “baptizing,” occurring about 100 times in the New Testament. They are not found in the Old Testament, although “wash,” Psa 51:2; Psa 51:7; Jer 2:22, and “sprinkling,” Lev 7:14; Num 8:7; Eze 36:25, are there sometimes used as figurative of cleansing. Among the instances of baptism mentioned in apostolic times are: 3000 at Pentecost, Act 2:41, men and women, including Simon the Sorcerer at Samaria; the Ethiopian Eunuch, 8:12, 13, 38; Saul; Cornelius and his Gentile company, 10:47; Lydia and “her household,” 16:15; the Philippian jailer “and all his,” 16:33; and “the household of Stephanas,” 1Co 1:16. At Ephesus twelve who had received John’s baptism only were again baptized “in the name of the Lord Jesus,” Act 19:2-5. Some, it is said, were “baptized for the dead,” 1Co 15:29. And the Israelites were “baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea,” 1Co 10:2. Peter compares baptism to the saving of Noah from the flood in the ark, 1Pe 3:21. Paul urges the Ephesians to Christian unity on the plea that there is “one Lord, one faith, one baptism.” Eph 4:5. See also 1Co 12:13. The consideration of the mode, subjects, effects, and administration of baptism belongs to theological and denominational works.

Fuente: People’s Dictionary of the Bible

Baptism

A rite of dedication and induction of an individual into a circle of social and religious privilege. The rite is usually of a ceremonious nature with pledges given (by proxy in the case of infants), prayers and accompanied by some visible sign (such as water, symbol of purification, or wine, honey, oil or blood) sealing the bond of fellowship. In its earliest form the rite probably symbolized not only an initiation but the magical removal of some tabu or demon possession (exorcism — see Demonology), the legitimacy of birth, the inheritance of privilege, the assumption of a name and the expectancy of responsibility. In Christian circles the rite has assumed the status of a sacrament, the supernatural rebirth into the Divine Kingdom. Various forms include sprinkling with water, immersion, or the laying on of hands. In some Christian circles it is considered less a mystical rite and more a sign of a covenant of salvation and consecration to the higher life. — V.F.

Fuente: The Dictionary of Philosophy

Baptism

Baptism. It is well known that ablution or bathing was common in most ancient nations as a preparation for prayers and sacrifice or as expiatory of sin. In warm countries, this connection is probably even closer than in colder climates; and hence the frequency of ablution in the religious rites throughout the East. Baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost is the rite or ordinance by which persons are admitted into the Church of Christ. It is the public profession of faith and discipleship.

Baptism signifies —

1. A confession of faith in Christ;

2. A cleansing or washing of the soul from sin;

3. A death to sin and a new life in righteousness.

The mode and subjects of baptism being much-controverted subjects, each one can best study them in the works devoted to those questions. The command to baptize was co-extensive with the command to preach the gospel. All nations were to be evangelized; and they were to be made disciples, admitted into the fellowship of Christ’s religion, by baptism. Mat 28:19.

It appears to have been a kind of transition from the Jewish baptism to the Christian. The distinction between John’s baptism and Christian baptism appears in the case of Apollos, Act 18:26-27, and of the disciples at Ephesus mentioned Act 19:1-6. We cannot but draw from this history, the inference that in Christian baptism, there was a deeper spiritual significance.

Fuente: Smith’s Bible Dictionary

Baptism

from the Greek word , is a rite or ceremony by which persons are initiated into the profession of the Christian religion; or, it is the appointed mode by which a person assumes the profession of Christianity, or is admitted to a participation of the privileges belonging to the disciples of Christ. It was by this mode that those who believed the Gospel were to be separated from unbelievers, and joined to the visible Christian church; and the rite accompanying it, or washing with water, was probably intended to represent the washing away, or renouncing, the impurities of some former state, viz. the sins that had been committed, and the vicious habits that had been contracted; and to this purpose it may be observed, that the profession of repentance always accompanied, or was understood to accompany, the profession of faith in Christ. That our Lord instituted such an ordinance as baptism, is plain from the commission given to the Apostles after his resurrection, and recorded in Mat 28:19-20. To this rite there is also an allusion in Mar 16:16; Joh 3:5; Act 2:41; Act 8:12; Act 8:36-38; Act 22:16. The design of this institution, which was to express faith in Christ on the part of those who were baptized, and to declare their resolution of openly professing his religion, and cultivating real and universal holiness, appears from Rom 6:3-4; 1Pe 3:21; Eph 5:26; and Tit 3:5. We find no account of baptism as a distinct religious rite, before the mission of John, the forerunner of Christ, who was called the Baptist, on account of his being commanded by God to baptize with water all who should hearken to his invitation to repent. Washing, however, accompanied many of the Jewish rites, and, indeed, was required after contracting any kind of uncleanness. Also, soon after the time of our Saviour, we find it to have been the custom of the Jews solemnly to baptize, as well as to circumcise, all their proselytes. As their writers treat largely of the reasons for this rite, and give no hint of its being a novel institution, it is probable that this had always been the custom antecedent to the time of Moses, whose account of the rite of circumcision, and of the manner of performing it, is by no means circumstantial. Or, baptism, after circumcision, might have come into use gradually from the natural propriety of the thing, and its easy conformity to other Jewish customs. For if no Jew could approach the tabernacle, or temple, after the most trifling uncleanness, without washing, much less would it be thought proper to admit a proselyte from a state so impure and unclean as Heathenism was conceived to be, without the same mode of purification. The antiquity of this practice of proselyte baptism among the Jews, has been a subject of considerable debate among divines. It is strenuously maintained by Lightfoot. Dr. John Owen considers the opinion, that Christian baptism came from the Jews, as destitute of all probability. On the other hand, Mr. Wall has made it highly probable, to say the least, from many testimonies of the Jewish writers, who without one dissenting voice allow the fact, that the practice of Jewish baptism obtained before and, at, as well as after, our Saviour’s time. There is also a strong intimation, even in the Gospel itself, of such a known practice among the Jews in the time of John the Baptist, Joh 1:25. The testimonies of the Jewish writers are of the greater weight, because the practice, reported by them to have been of so ancient a date, did still remain among them; for if it had not been of that antiquity to which it pretends, viz. before the time of Christ, it is not likely that it would ever have become a custom among the Jews afterward. Would they begin to proselyte persons to their religion by baptism in imitation of the disciples of Jesus of Nazareth, whom they held accursed? And yet if this proselyte baptism were adopted by the Jews since the time of Christ, it must have been a mere innovation in imitation of Christians, which is not very likely. This ceremony is performed by immersion in the oriental churches. The practice of the western churches is, to sprinkle the water on the head or face of the person to be baptized, except in the church of Milan, in whose ritual it is ordered, that the head of the infant be plunged three times into the water; the minister at the same time pronouncing the words, I baptize thee in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; importing that by this ceremony the person baptized is received among the professors of that religion which God, the Father of all, revealed to mankind by the ministry of his Son, and confirmed by the miracles of his Spirit.

2. It is observable that the baptismal form, above cited from St. Matthew, never occurs in the same words, either in the book of the Acts, or in any of the Epistles. But though the form in St. Matthew never appears elsewhere, the thing intended thereby is always implied. There are many ceremonies delivered by ecclesiastical writers, as used in baptism, which were introduced after the age of Justin Martyr, but which are now disused; as the giving milk and honey to the baptized, in the east; wine and milk, in the west, &c. They also added unction and the imposition of hands. Tertullian is the first who mentions the signing with the sign of the cross, but only as used in private, and not in public worship; and he particularly describes the custom of baptizing without it. Indeed, it does not appear to have been used in baptism till the latter end of the fourth or fifth century; at which time great virtue was ascribed to it. Lactantius, who lived in the beginning of the fourth century, says the devil cannot approach those who have the heavenly mark of the cross upon them as an impregnable fortress to defend them; but he does not say it was used in baptism. After the council of Nice, Christians added to baptism the ceremonies of exorcism and adjuration, to make evil spirits depart from the persons to be baptized. They made several signings with the cross, they used lighted candles, they gave salt to the baptized person to taste, and the priest touched his mouth and ears with spittle, and also blew and spat upon his face. At that time also baptized persons wore white garments till the Sunday following. They had also various other ceremonies; some of which are now abolished, though others of them remain in the church of Rome to this day.

3. The Quakers assert, that water baptism was never intended to continue in the church of Christ any longer than while Jewish prejudices made such an external ceremony necessary. They argue from Eph 4:5, in which one baptism is spoken of as necessary to Christians, that this must be a baptism of the Spirit. But from comparing the texts that relate to this institution, it will plainly appear that water baptism was instituted by Christ in more general terms than will agree with this explication. That it was administered to all the Gentile converts, and not confined to the Jews appears from Mat 28:19-20, compared with Act 10:47; and that the baptism of the Spirit did not supersede water baptism appears to have been the judgment of Peter and of those that were with him; so that the one baptism spoken of seems to have been that of water; the communication of the Holy Spirit being only called baptism in a figurative sense. As for any objection which, may be drawn from 1Co 1:17, it is sufficiently answered by the preceding verses, and all the numerous texts, in which, in epistles written long after this, the Apostle speaks of

all Christians as baptized and argues from the obligation of baptism, in such a manner as we can never imagine he would have done, if he had apprehended it to have been the will of God that it should be discontinued in the church. Compare Rom 6:3, &c; Col 2:12; Gal 3:27.

4. Baptism, in early times, was only administered at Easter and Whitsuntide, except in cases of necessity. Adult persons were prepared for baptism by abstinence, prayer, and other pious exercises. It was to answer for them, says Mosheim, that sponsors, or godfathers, were first instituted in the second century, though they were afterward admitted also in the baptism of infants. This, according to M. Daille, was not done till the fourth century. Wall refers the origin of sponsors, or godfathers, on the authority of Tertullian, to the commencement of the second century; who were used in the baptism of infants that could not answer for themselves.

The catechumens were not forward in coming to baptism. St. Ambrose was not baptized before he was elected bishop of Milan; and some of the fathers not till the time of their death. Some deferred it out of a tender conscience; and others out of too much attachment to the world; it being the prevailing opinion of the primitive times, that baptism, whenever conferred, washed away all antecedent stains and sins. Accordingly they deferred this sanctifying rite as long as possible, even till they apprehended they were at the point of death. Cases of this kind occur at the beginning of the third century. Constantine the Great was not baptized till he was at the last gasp, and in this he was followed by his son Constantius; and two of his other sons, Constantine and Constans, were killed before they were baptized. As to the necessity of baptism, we may observe, however, that, though some seem to have laid too great stress upon it, as if it were indispensably necessary in order to salvation; it must be allowed, that for any person to omit baptism, when he acknowledges it to be an institution of Christ, and that it is the will of Christ that he should submit to it, is an act of disobedience to his authority, which is inconsistent with true faith.

5. The word baptism is frequently taken for sufferings, Mar 10:38; Luk 12:50; Mat 20:22-23. Of expressions like these we find some traces in the Old Testament also, where waters often denote tribulations, Psa 69:1; Psa 69:15; Psa 124:4-5; and where to be swallowed up by the waters, and to pass through the great waters, signify to be overwhelmed with miseries and calamities.

6. St. Paul, endeavouring to prove the resurrection of the dead, among several other reasons in support of the doctrine, says, If the dead rise not at all, what shall they do who are baptized for the dead? 1Co 15:29. Of this phrase various interpretations have been given; three of which only shall be here mentioned. It means, say some, baptized in the room of the dead just fallen in the cause of Christ, and who are thus supported by a succession of new converts, immediately offering themselves to fill up their places, as ranks of soldiers who advance to combat in the room of their companions, who have just been slain in their sight. Others think it signifies, In hope of blessings to be received after they are numbered with the dead. Dr. Macknight supplies the words,

, and reads the clause, Who are baptized for the resurrection of the dead; or in consequence of their believing in the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead; on account of which faith, and their profession of it, they are exposed to great sufferings, for which they can have no recompense, if there be no resurrection of the dead, nor any future life at all.

7. As to the subjects of baptism, the anti-paedobaptists hold that believing adults only are proper subjects, because the commission of Christ to baptize appears to them to restrict this ordinance to such only as are taught, or made disciples; and that, consequently, infants, who cannot be thus taught, ought to be excluded. It does not appear, say they, that the Apostles, in executing the commission of Christ, ever baptized any but those who were first instructed in the Christian faith, and professed their belief of it. They contend that infants can receive no benefit from baptism, and are not capable of faith and repentance, which are to be considered as prerequisites.

8. As to the mode, they observe that the meaning of the word signifies to immerse or dip, and that only; that John baptized in Jordan; that he chose a place where there was much water; that Jesus came up out of the water; that Philip and the eunuch went down both into the water; that the terms, washing, purifying, burying in baptism, so often mentioned in the Scriptures, allude to this mode; that immersion only was the practice of the Apostles and the first Christians; and that it was only laid aside from the love of novelty, and the coldness of climate. These positions, they think, are so clear from Scripture, and the history of the church, that they stand in need of but little argument for their support. Farther, they also insist that all positive institutions depend entirely upon the will and declaration of the institutor; and that, therefore, reasoning by analogy from previously abrogated rites is to be rejected, and the express command of Christ respecting baptism ought to be our rule.

9. The Paedobaptists, however, are of a different opinion. As to the subjects of baptism, they believe that qualified adults, who have not been baptized before, are certainly proper subjects; but then they think, also, that infants ought not to be excluded. They believe that, as the Abrahamic and Christian covenants are the same, Gen 17:7; Heb 8:12; that as children were admitted under the former; and that as baptism is now a sign, seal, or confirmation of this covenant, infants have as great a right to it as the children of the Israelites had to the seal of circumcision under the law, Act 2:39; Rom 4:11. Farther, if children are not to be baptized because there is no positive command for it, for the same reason they say that women should not come to the Lord’s Supper; nor ought we to keep holy the first day of the week; neither of these being expressly commanded. If baptizing infants had been a human invention, they also ask, how such a practice could have been so universal in the first three hundred years of the church, and yet no record have remained when it was introduced, nor any dispute or controversy about it have taken place? Some reduce the matter to a narrower compass; urging, (1.) That God constituted in his church the membership of infants, and admitted them to that privilege by a religious ordinance, Genesis 17; Gal 3:14; Gal 3:17.

(2.) That this right of infants to church membership was never taken away: and this being the case, they argue, that infants must be received, because God has appointed it; and, since they must be received, it must be either with baptism or without it; but none must be received without baptism; therefore, infants must of necessity be baptized. Hence it is clear that, under the Gospel, infants are still continued exactly in the same relation to God and his church in which they were originally placed under former dispensations. That infants are to be received into the church, and as such baptized, is also inferred from the following passages of Scripture: Genesis 17; Isa 44:3; Mat 19:13; Luk 9:47-48; Act 2:38-39; Rom 11:17; Rom 11:21; 1Co 7:14.

10. Though there are no express examples in the New Testament of Christ and his Apostles baptizing infants, yet there is no proof that they were excluded. Jesus Christ actually blessed little children; and it is difficult to believe that such received his blessing, and yet were not to be members of the Gospel church. If Christ received them, and would have us receive them, how can we keep them out of the visible church? Beside, if children were not to be baptized, it is reasonable to expect that they would have been expressly forbidden. As whole households were baptized, it is also probable there were children among them. From the year 400 to 1150, no society of men, in all that period of seven hundred and fifty years, ever pretended to say it was unlawful to baptize infants: and still nearer the time of our Saviour there appears to have been scarcely any one who advised the delay of infant baptism. Irenaeus, who lived in the second century, and was well acquainted with Polycarp, who was John’s disciple, declares expressly, that the church learned from the Apostles to baptize children. Origen, in the third century, affirms, that the custom of baptizing infants was received from Christ and his Apostles. Cyprian, and a council of ministers, held about the year 254, no less than sixty-six in number, unanimously agreed that children might be baptized as soon as they were born. Ambrose, who wrote about 274 years from the Apostles, declares that the baptism of infants had been practised by the Apostles themselves, and by the church down to that time. The catholic church every where declares, says Chrysostom, in the fifth century, that infants should be baptized; and Augustine affirmed, that he never heard or read of any Christian, catholic or sectarian, but who always held that infants were to be baptized. They farther believe that there needed no mention in the New Testament of receiving infants into the church, as it had been once appointed and never repealed. So far from confining baptism to adults, it must be remembered that there is not a single instance recorded in the New Testament, in which the descendants of Christian parents were baptized in adult years. The objection that infants are not proper subjects for baptism, because they cannot profess faith and repentance, falls with as much weight upon the institution of circumcision as infant baptism; since they are as capable or are as fit subjects for the one as the other. Finally, it is generally acknowledged, that if infants die, (and a great part of the human race die in their infancy,) they are saved: if this be the case then why refuse them the sign of union with Christ, if they be capable of enjoying the thing signified?

11. As to the mode, the Paedobaptists deny that the term , which is a derivative of , and, consequently, must be something less in its signification, is invariably used in the New Testament to express plunging. It is denied, therefore, that dipping is its only meaning; that Christ absolutely enjoined immersion; and that it is his positive will that no other mode should be used. As the word is used to express the various ablutions among the Jews, such as sprinkling, pouring, &c, Heb 9:10, for the custom of washing before meals, and the washing of household furniture, pots, &c, it is evident from hence that it does not express the manner of doing a thing, whether by immersion or effusion, but only the thing done; that is, washing; or the application of water in some form or other. It nowhere signifies to dip, but in denoting a mode of, and in order to, washing or cleansing; and the mode or use is only the ceremonial part of a positive institute; just as in the Lord’s Supper, the time of day, the number and posture of the communicants, the quantity and quality of bread and wine, are circumstances not accounted essential by any part of Christians. If in baptism there be an expressive emblem of the descending influence of the Spirit, pouring must be the mode of administration; for that is the Scriptural term most commonly and properly used for the communication of divine influences, Mat 3:11; Mar 1:8; Mar 1:10; Luk 3:16-22; Joh 1:33; Act 1:5; Act 2:38-39; Act 8:19; Act 8:17; Act 11:15-16. The term sprinkling, also, is made use of in reference to the act of purification, Isa 52:15; Eze 36:25; Heb 9:13-14; and therefore cannot be inapplicable to baptismal purification. But, it is observed, that John baptized in Jordan: to this it is replied, To infer always a plunging of the whole body in water from this particle, would, in many instances, be false and absurd. The same Greek preposition, , is used when it is said they should be baptized with fire; but few will assert that they should be plunged into it. The Apostle, speaking of Christ, says, he came not, , by water only; but, , by water and blood. There the same word, , is translated by; and with justice and propriety; for we know no good sense in which we could say he came in water. It has been remarked that is, more than a hundred times, in the New Testament, rendered at; and in a hundred and fifty others it is translated with. If it be rendered so here, John baptized at Jordan, or with the water of Jordan, there is no proof that he plunged his disciples in it.

Jesus, it is said, came up out of the water; but this is no proof that he was immersed, as the Greek term, , often signifies from: for instance, Who hath warned you to flee from, not out of, the wrath to come? with many others that might be mentioned. Again: it is urged that Philip and the eunuch went down both into the water. To this it is answered, that here also is no proof of immersion: for, if the expression of their going down into the water necessarily includes dipping, then Philip was dipped, as well as the eunuch. The preposition , translated into, often signifies no more than to, or unto: see Mat 15:24; Rom 10:10; Act 28:14; Mat 3:11; Mat 17:27 : so that from none of these circumstances can it be proved that there was one person of all the baptized, who went into the water ankle deep. As to the Apostle’s expression, buried with him in baptism, that has no force in the argument for immersion, since it does not allude to a custom of dipping, any more than our baptismal crucifixion and death has any such reference. It is not the sign, but the thing signified, that is here alluded to. As Christ was buried, and rose again to a heavenly life, so we by baptism signify that we are separated from sin, that we may live a new life of faith and love.

To conclude: it is urged, against the mode of immersion, that, as it carries with it too much of the appearance of a burdensome rite for the Gospel dispensation; as it is too indecent for so solemn an ordinance; as it has a tendency to agitate the spirits, often rendering the subject unfit for the exercise of proper thoughts and affections, and indeed utterly incapable of them; as in many cases the immersion of the body would, in all probability, be instant death; as in other situations it would be impracticable, for want of water; it cannot be considered as necessary to the ordinance of baptism, and there is the strongest improbability that it was ever practised in the times of the New Testament, or in the earliest periods of the Christian church.

Fuente: Biblical and Theological Dictionary

Baptism

Mat 3:11 (b) Two baptisms seem to be included in this passage.

– the first is the baptism of the believer in the Holy Spirit.

– the second one seems to be the baptism of the sinner in the lake of fire from which there is no resurrection.

The Lord JESUS gives us over to the Holy Spirit when He saves us, and this seems to be called a baptism as in Act 1:5. We should note that it is never the element that is moved, but always the person. The water is not put on the person, but contrariwise the person is always put in the water. It is the person who is put in the Spirit, or in the body of CHRIST, which is the church. It is always the person who is moved and placed in baptism.

Luk 3:21 (c) The baptism of JESUS certainly had nothing whatever to do with salvation, nor the new birth, nor forgiveness. He said that He did it “to fulfill all righteousness.” He took His place publicly by this rite with those who were to walk in newness of life and be known as Christians, believers or saints of GOD.

Luk 7:29-30 (b) A type of burial wherein the believer accepts GOD’s condemnation of himself, admits that he had to die at Calvary, and therefore should be buried out of sight in a watery grave. Thus he justifies GOD’s diagnosis of his case, and proves it by going through this symbolical burial. Those who refuse to be baptized thereby reject GOD’s testimony about their wickedness and sinfulness. They refuse to admit that they are so bad that they should be put to death and buried.

Luk 12:50 (a) This is the baptism of our Lord JESUS which He endured on the Cross when GOD poured out His wrath upon Him and engulfed Him as it were in the burning billows of His anger. He had already been baptized by John in the water. Now He is baptized in the mystic fire of GOD’s wrath. It was said by Him in prophecy “all thy waves and thy billows rolled over me.” That is the baptism that saves us. He went down under the flood instead of us. He was baptized there at Calvary in our place. He is the ark of safety into which we enter for protection from the deluge of GOD’s anger against sin.

Rom 6:3 (b) This baptism seems to represent that mysterious and rich experience which any person enjoys in the Lord JESUS. Immediately upon trusting CHRIST the believer is reckoned as having been baptized in or buried with the Lord JESUS in contrast with his former position of being buried in the world. The believer is said to be “in Christ,” whereas, before, he was “in the world.”

1Co 10:2 (b) This is the baptism accomplished in the Red Sea when the walls of water on each side, and the cloud above hid Israel from the sight of the Egyptians. They went through what was apparently a tunnel, and this is called a baptism. They were set free from the damnation of Pharaoh into the leadership of Moses. They were released from the bondage of Egypt and brought into the liberty of the children of GOD.

1Co 12:13 (b) In this place the believer is in a mysterious way put into the body of CHRIST, the church, by the Holy Spirit as soon as he trusts his soul to JESUS CHRIST. In every case the word “baptism” is used to indicate that the change or the transfer is a complete transaction which involves the entire person and personality.

Col 2:12 (b) Here again baptism is a symbol of burial in order that the world may know that the Christian is dead and buried so far as the world is concerned. The Christian emerges from the watery grave to bear witness and testimony that he is “alive unto God” and is walking with Him.

1Pe 3:21 (a) We should note in this case that Noah and his family were not in the water at all. They were “in the ark,” which is a type of the Lord JESUS. CHRIST was baptized under the waves and billows of GOD’s wrath, and it is His baptism that saves, not our own baptism. The passage says “in like figure.” Those who stayed out of the water were saved by the ark which was in the water. Those who are “in Christ” are saved by the baptism of CHRIST on Calvary. He endured the wrath of GOD and we who belong to Him go free.

Fuente: Wilson’s Dictionary of Bible Types