Baptism

L Tkrminoloot. 00 In the LXZ. (h) In the NT. H. OT Types. (a) The Clond and the Sea (St. Faiil> (d) The Deluge (St. Peter). (c) Other Types (Patristic). m. Pabtial Akticipationb. (a) Proselyte Baptism. ({') John's Baptism. IT. Thk Histohv of CHRisnAS BAPnBM. ('i) The Institution. (h) The Recipicuta. (.) The Minister. (d) The Kite. T. The Doctrine or Cubistian Baptibm. I. Terminology.

— (a) In the LXX the sininle verb Bd-FTtiv is frequent in the sense of ' dip ' | Ex 12'^, Lv 4«-" 9» H"-'*-" etc.) or 'immerse' (Job 9^'). The intensive jiaTrrLiur occurs four times : twice literally, of Naaman dipping in the Jordan (2 K 5") and of Judith bathing (12'j; once metaphorically, T) avoiiia fie /Sajrr/fei (Is 21''); and once of cere- monial washing after pollution, paimioiuvot oV4 veKpov (Sir 31 [34]''"). The usual verb for cere- monial washing is XoieaOai (Lv 14'- » l5«-w. 13.

la-a l(j4. w-28 etc )^ tijg middle voice being used because the unclean person performed this cleansing for himself. The active is used of Moses washing Aaron and his sons before they exercised their ministry (Ex 29^ 40", Lv 8"), and of the Lord washing Jerus. (Ezk 16*). But pairrl^eiv is never used in the LXX of any initiatory rite. Of the two cognate substantives ^airrur/wt and /Sdirriff/ta, neither is found in the LXX ; while Xoirpoy occurs thrice (Ca 4» 6», Sir 31 [34]^).

(6) In the NT the use of piTrreiv \a the same as in the LXX (Lk 16^, Jn 13^, and perhaps Rev ig", where the reading is very uncertain); but the use of /SaTrifeti' undergoes a great change. As in Sir 31^, it is used of ceremonial purifi- cation (Lk 11, and perhaps Mk 7, where the reading is again uncertain) ; and, as in Is 21*, it is used metaphorically, viz. by Christ of His suffer- ings (Mk KF-SK, Lk 12»).

But, with these few exceptions, ^airrifu always refers to washing for a religious purpose, the administration of the sacred rite of ablution, * baptizing ' Ln the technical sense ; and in this sense \ovw is not used. It is plain from Lk 1 1^ that in itself Barrl^u) does not necessarily mean immersion, as Calvin (Inst. iv. 15. 19) and others assert. This is its usual meaning, however ; Polybius uses it of sinking ships (L 51. 6, xvi 6. 2).

We find /Sairrlffty used both absolutely (Mk 1, Jn l^'- • 3^- 2s- 28 4? et<!.) and with an ace. (Jn 4', Ac 8*, 1 Co 1"- "), and very often in the passive (Mt 3"- '•'», Mk 16", Lk S^i, Ac 2*' etc.) The verb is sometimes followed by a preposition, indi- cating either the element into which (eis rbv 'lopSaviiv, Mk 1") or in which (fi- rip 'lopSAvg, Mk 1° ; ev USari., Mt 3", Jn l'^'- ^) the immersion takes place ; or the end or issue of it (elt nerdtouiv, Mt 3'' ; e/s d^fcriv a.iJM.

pTiwv, Ac 2^ ; Hi rb ivoiui tivos, Mt 28", Ac 8>« 19'). Of the substantives, both paTTiaiws and pa-imaim are found ; and the distinction commonly drawn between them as to NT usajje is probably correct ; but there are not enough mstances for a secure induction. From Mk 7* and He 9'" we infer tliat jSairriir/io! usually meant lustration or cere- monial washing. Ro &, \nt\\ Eph 4' and 1 P 3-', would indicate that piimiTiui was reserved for baptism proper.

But in He 6' paTmapiCiv probably includes Christian baptism, and in Coi 2" the more difficult reading /Saimo-Mv claims attention. Jos. uses /Sa7n-(ir/u)s to designate John's baptism, and /SaTrricris of the performance of the rite (Ant. XVIII. V. 2). The Latin VSS and Fathers make no dis- tinction between baptismtis and bnvtisma. The Viilg.

has haptiimus pcenitentim (Mk l, Lk 3', Ac IS- 19''), bnptisma Joannis (Ac 1*), unum lifiptisma (Eph 4'), and even baptismata calicum lyik 7), and baptiwuitum doctrijue (He C^). A neut. nom. bapttsmum is found in the best MSS of the Vulg. , Mt 21, and in various other passages in representatives of the Old Latin, e.ff. Sik lu^ (a «'). In Lk 20* we have baptismmn if Vulg.), baptUmns (c d), bnptisma (e). See Ronsch, Itala und Vuiqata, p. 270.

Cyprian some- times uses both bnptisma and baptismus in the same passage without change of meaning, e.g. Ep. Ixxiv. 11 ; comp. Ep. Ixix. 2, Ixx. 2, etc. Twice in NT Xovrpov is used of baptism : \. roG CJotos (Eph 5^), X. iroXiryt^Waj (Tit .3=); and the word occurs in no other connexion. It and its enuivalunt Inmarum soon became technical tenns in this sense (Just. Mart. Apol. i. 61. 79; Cypr. De HaJb. Virg 2. 23 ; Z>e Lapsts, 24, etc.) BAPTISM BAPTISM 239 n. OT Types.

— We have apostolic authoritv for fimlin;; two types of Christian baptism in oT historj', but in neither ease are the details of the type quite certain. St. Paul takes the Israelites being under the cloud and pas-sing through the sea a-s an image of baptism (1 Co lu'-'^); where being under the cloud points to submen-ion, while passing through the sea may signify emersion; or (less well) the cloud may typify the spiritual element in baptism, and the sea tlie mat<;rial element. Still more e.

xpressly St. Peter makes the saving of a few persons tlirough water at the Flood a figure of the Christian rite (1 PS-'); where the water which purged the earth of its wicked inhabitants by lloating the Ark saved its inmates. Luther almost inverts this, when he remarks that ' baptism Ls a greater deluge than that described by ^I()se», since more are baptized than were drowned by the Deluge.' Heyond these two we need not go.

But patristic i»Titers lind baptism typified in a variety of things, some of which are remote enough, e.q. not only in the passage of the Jordan (Jos 3*') and the cleansing of Naanian (2 K 5"), but in the river of Paradise, the well revealed to Hagar, the water from the rock, the water poured upon Elijah's offering, etc etc.

Tertullian asserts that the primeval water ' brought forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life' (On 1"), in order that there should be no difficulty in believing that baptismal waters can give life (De Dapt. ilL). In a like spirit prophecies respecting Christian baptism were found with great freedom, not only in Zech- ariah's fountain . .

' for sin and for uncleanness ' (13'), in Isaiah's promise that sins red as scarlet shall be white as snow (1"), and in Ezekiel's, 'I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and ja sliall be clean. A new heart also will I pve you, and a new spirit will I put within you ' (Sli-^- ^), but even in the hart panting after tlie water brooks (Ps 42'), and in the waters breaking out in the desert ( Is 35").

Without presuming to determine anything re- specting intended types and prophecies, we may safely say that those washings which were required by the Mosaic Law as a means of entering or re- entering the congregation, especially in its closer relations with J", had considerable analogy with Christian baptism. But that is a very ditfcrent thing from Cyprian's sweeping assertion, Qiinti- esntn'jue aqua sola in script uris Sanctis nomin/itnr, ba}itumuipr<Eflii-atur(Ep. Ixiii.

8); and this he applies not only to OT (Is 43'»-'" 48"'), but to NT (Jn 4'»-" T"-*. m 5«). III. Partial Anticipations.— When we ap- proach the history of baptism as a rite of religious initiation, we are confronted with the question. Where does the history begin? We may set aside heathen baptisme as having no historic connexion with the Buoject, except so far as ceremonial ablu- tions may be common to the human race.

But a baptism which prevailed in Iceland and some parts of Norway is worth mentioning as a partial parallel. The father decided whether an infant was to be nurtured or exposed. If he wished to preserve it, water was poured over it and a name given to it ; ajid to kill it after this ceremony of admission to the community was murder. After the introduc- tion of Christianity (c. A.n. 1000) this baptism still continue<l for some time side by side with Christian baptism.

Omitting pagan lustrations, we have three conspicuous examples of the rite, all originat- ing in the same part of the world : proselyte baptism, John's baptism, and Christian baptism. Which of these three is chronologically the first, and therefore the possible suggester of one or both of the others? This question was very hotly debated in the first half of the 18th cent, on controversial grounds, to lind arguments for or against infant baptism and sacramental doctrine.

In the 19th cent, the question has been examined %vitli less heat, and of late has dropped out of notice. The monograph of Schneckenburger, Ueber das Alter der jiiilischcn Proselytentanfe, Berlin, 1829, is still quoted as the leading authority on the subject. Massecheth Gerim, the Talmudic authority on proselytes, or Septem Lihri Talmudici parvi Hierosolymitani, was published by Kirchheim, Frankfurt a/M. 1851. (a) Froseli/te Baptism.

— According to the teaching of later Judaism, a stranger who desired to become a Proselyte of the Covenant, or of Kighteousness, i.e. in the fullest sense an Isr., must he circumciseil and baptized, and then oiler a sacrifice; circum- cision alone was not enough. Three of those who had instructed the stranger in the Law became his 'fathers' or sponsors, and took him to a pool, in which he stood up to his neck in water, while the great commandments of the Law were recited to him.

These he promised to keep. Then a benedic- tion was pronounced, and he plunged beneath the water, taking care to be entirely submerged. In the case of women, baptism and sacrifice were the things required to admit them to the full privileges of Israel. But for both male and female proselytes sacrifice was abolished after the destruction of the temple. That this baptism of proselytes is not an original feature in Judaism is manifest.

The Rabljis indeed found a trace of it in Jacob's command to his house- hold, ' Put away the strange gods that are among you, and purify yourselves, and change your gar- ments' (On 35'^); and even in God's command to Moses, ' Go unto the people, and sanctify them to-iiay and to-morrow, and let them wa.sh their garments' (Ex 19'"), where the people to be sancti- fied are certainly all Jews. Wlien ' the daughter of Pharaoh came down to bathe at the river' (Ex 2"), this also, the Talm.

said, is to be regarded as the baptizing of a proselyte. But we may safely assert that there is no mention of proselyte baptism any^vhere in OT or in the A poor. NT is eipially silent. And this is by no means all. Josephus, Philo, and the older Targumists are silent also; and there is little more than a probable allusion to it in the Mishna.

None of the early Christian writers seem to know anything about it ; and this is specially notable in tlie case of those who have discussed Judaism, or l>ai)tism, or both, €.(/. Barnabas, Justin Martyr, and 'lertullian.

Let us admit that the Fourth IBook of the Sibylline Oracles is of Jewish origin, and that the line, h vorafioU Xovaaade fiXor i^^at itvioun (1G4), refers to proselyte baptism; and that Arrian refers to it also, when he says of one who is a heathen, Jtox ii dvaXtif^r} t6 irdOoi ^t^afi^vov Tore Kal (art ry 6vTt Kal KaXiirai 'lovSaUs {Diss. Epict. ii. 9) ; and that the reading of the Ethiopic VS of Mt 23" 'j'e compass sea an<l land to baptize one proselyte,' is beyond question.

Nevertheless, these tnreo authorities do not bring as much (if at all) earlier than the 2nd cent. ; and that at that time Sroselytes were baptized on their admission to udai.sm, is not in dispute. What is wanted is direct evidence that before John the Baptist made so remarkable a use of the rite, it wa-s the custom to make all proselytes submit to baptism ; and such evidence is not forthcoming. Nevertheless, the fact is not really doubtful.

It is not credible that the baptizing of proselytes was instituted and made essential for their admission to Judaism at a period subseouent to the institution of Christian baptism ; and tiie supposition that it was borrowed from the rite enjoinid hy Christ is monstrous.

From the infancy of Christianity the hostility of the synagogue to the Church waa such, 240 EAPTISxM BAPTISM tliat the mere fact that baptism was universally known as the lite by which Oeutiles were ailmilted to the Christian comniuuity, would have made it impossible for Jews to accept it as the rite for admittini^ Gentiles to the Jewish comniuuity.

A,;;ai7ist a consideration of this kind the silence of Scripture and of Josephus and I'hilo is of little weiiiht ; it Is one more instance of the danger of tlie arj^fiuuent from silence. No {)assage has been pointed out in either Josephus or Philo in which it would have been necessary, or even natural, to mention proselyte baptism ; and the same may be said of Scripture. The subject is not mentioned, because there was no need to mention it.

In the MUlina it is stated that the school of Shammai allowed a Gentile who was circumcised on the eve of the Passover to wcish and partake of the paschal lamb, while the school of Hillel did not ; and this points to the wasliing of proselytes as a customary accompaniment of circumcision.

But wliat may be regarded as conclusive is, that the baptizing of proselytes would follow of necessity from the regu- lations which retjuired a Jew to bathe in order to recover Levitical puritj (Lv 11-15, Nu 19). Judwtis quotidie larat, quia quotidie inquinatur, says TertuUian (De Bapt. xv. ) ; and again, Onmibus licet membris lavet quotidie Israel, nunquam tamen ■mundus est (De Orat. xiv. ).

If the mere possibility of contact with pollution requires such purification, how much more would one who had lived in heathen pollution require a complete purification before be was admitted to full membership in the House oi Israel. Moreover, it should be noted that the authorities quoted above — the Sib-ylline Oracles, Arrian, and tlie Ethiopic VS — all mention baptism as the sign of change, and say nothing about circumcision.

The reason for which possibly is, that, after the abolition of the sacrifices, baptism was the only rite which was applicable to both sexes ; and the large majority of proseljtep were women (Kraus, Eric. d. Christ. Alterth. li. p. 823). Every Gentile, whether man or woman, who became a Jew, was purified from heathen pollution by immersion. About the other hypothesis there is no difficulty. A.

ssume that baptism for proselytes was a well- established custom when Jolin began to preach, and we have an obWous reason why John adopted the rite. Not that this was his only reason ; but that, so far as the custom was of any influence, it was a recommendation and not an objection. And the same argument ajiplies to Christian baptism, which becomes more, and not less, intelligible when we consider that it was preceded by baptism for proselytes and the baptism of John. LlTERATORE.

— For the abundant literature on the subject, and for relcrence!^ to the Talni., see Edeislicim, Lif& ami Time^ of tlix Mf.-anah, ii. Ai»p. xii. ; .S'hurer, HJf II. ii. § SI, p. 819; Herzog, BE Hi. p. 250, 1st ed. ; lcs.s full in 2nd ed. p. SOO. (6) The Baptism of John. — Although there is no doubt that baptism was a Jewish rite of initiation before John began to preach, yet the history of baptism, so far as direct evidence is concerned, begins with Ixim.

That he who derived his title from it (6 /SaTrWfui-, Mk G"-'-''; 6 pairriffT-^s, Mt 3', Mk 8^. Lk 1^, Jos. Ant. xvill. v. 2) made use of the rite in preparing Israel for the kingdom of God, is an historical fact beyond dispute. And we need not doubt th.at in using it he was influenced by the lentical purifications enjoined by the Law and by the baptism of proselytes. But his baptism was different from both.

It is evident that, if it had not had special characteristics, he would not have received a special name, and his right to administer it would not have been challenged. His baptism differed from the washings prescribed by the Law in these three respects — (1) They were acts of lustration, restoring a man to Iiis normal condition; his was an act of preparation, leading a man to an entirely new condition.

(2) The man levitically unclean baptized himself, like Naaman in the Jordan ; the penitents who came to John were baptized by him. (3) The legal washings merely cleansed from leWtical uncleanness ; his was a symbol and seal of moral purification. The moral preparation required by John is pointed out in the TT7S •'pvx^iS dtKatoavi'Tj TrpoeKKeKddapfjJpTjs of Jos. {Ant. XVIII. v. 2) as plainly as in the ^ivTia im fieraiolas of Scripture (Mk V, Lk 3').

The soirit of repent- ance was assumed with a view to remission of sins. John's baptism differed from proselyte baptism in bein" administered to Jews. The meaning of the challenge, ' Why then baptizest thou ? ' (Jn 1^) seems to be, ' What right hast thou, who art neither the Messiah nor the Prophet, to treat Israelites as if they were proselytes? Jews are fit for the Messianic kingdom without any such purification.

' And while John's baptism differed from these Jewish rites on the one hand, so it differed from Christian baptism on the other. This difference was clearly pointed out by the Baptist himself. ' I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance ...

he shall baptize you with t/ie Holi/ Ghost ' (Mt 3") ; ' He that sent me to baptize with water, he said unto me, LTpon whomsoever thou shalt see the Spirit descending and abiding upon him, the same is he that baptizeth with tlie Holy Spirit ' (Jn 1^ ; conip. our Lord's words, Ac 1° 11").

And that this difference was regarded as essential, is shown bythe fact that Ephesian disciples who had received John's baptism were rebaptized into the name of the Lord Jesus, and then received the Holy Ghost through the laying on of hands by St. Paul (Ac 19^"*). Cyril of Jerus., in con- trasting John's baptism with Christian baptism, says, that the former ' bestowed only the remission of sins' (Catech. xx. 6; comp. iii. 7). But there ii> nothing in Scripture to show that it bestowed that.

TertuUian points out that ' baptism for the re- mission of sins' refers to a.futuic remission, which was to follow in Christ (De Bapt. x. ). And it may be doubted whether, if John's baptism had con- ferred remission of sins, Jesus would have sub- mitted to it. Its main aspect was preparation for the kingdom of God ; and in this aspect it fitted well into the opening of Christ's ministry. To everyone else this pr«>aratory act was a baptism of repentance.

The Messiah, who needed no re- pentance, could yet accept the preparation. By means of this rite the people were consecrated to receive salvation, and He was consecrated to bestow it. We are told by St. John that the disciples of Jesus baptized many, and that this led to an inaccurate statement that Jesus Himself baptized (322 41. 2). /^s to the nature of this baptism we are told nothing; but if not identical with the baptism of John, it v, ould be more akin to that than to Christian liaptism.

It was preparatory and not perfecting, symbolical and not sacramental. The arguments of Tertullian on this point are weighty (De Baiit. x.-xii. ). Was Christian baptism possible until Christ had died and risen again ?

The theory that this early baptism by Christ's disciples was the baptism of the gospel, but that its full effects remained latent until after the resur- rection, is not lielpful ; and to suppose with Peter Lombard that it was In nomine Irinitatis, scilicet in cA furmA in qud baptizavcrunt postea (Sent. iv. Dist. iii. 7), is utterly unreasonable. \\'hen John was put into prison, Jesus Himself continued .John's preaching. ' He came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, and sapng.

The time is fulfilled and the kingdom of God is at hand • repent ye BAPTISM JiAPTIS.M L'41 (Mk 1'*-"). Is it improbable that, while Christ continued the preachinj; of John, His disciples continued the baptism of John? lu that case there is no need to raise the question whether tiiey baptized 'into the name of tlie Lord Jesus'; for John certainly did not do so.

In any case it is improbable tiat, at a time when the dis- ciples had such inadeijuate \-iew9 of the oliice of Jesus, they would baptize into His name. This baptism was certainly not accompanied by the gift of the Spirit : ' for tlie Spirit was not jyet given ; because Jesus was not yet glorilied ( Jn 7^). And it is to be noted that neither in the mission of the Twelve nor in that of the Seventy is there any command to baptize (Lk 9'-» 10''').

That omission is intelligible, if this early baptism, like that of John, was merely preparatory, a symbolical act conferring no grace. But the omission would be strange if there was already in use a rite equal in ellicacy to the baptism of the gospel. Until Christ had died and risen again, and sent the Holy Spirit upon His disciples, no such baptism by them was possible. IV. The History of Christian Baptism.

— This subject, as treated in NT, may be discussed under four heads — (a) the Institution, (6) tho Recipients, (c) the Minister, {d) the Rite. (0) The Institution of Christian baptism is to be dated from Christ's farewell coramanil, ' Go ye and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost' (Mt28'»). This command the Twelve do not attempt to carry out until they are free from the earlier charge (Lk 24**).

But directly they have ' been clothed with power from on high,' l^eter begins to exhort the people to ' rejjent, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of their sins' (Ac 2^), and with very great success. But here we are at once struck by the fact that, in spite of Christ's command to baptize into the name of the Trinity, no mention is made of the Trinity, but only of ' the name of Jesus Christ.'

And this iirst and important record of Christian baptisms does not stand alone. The Samaritans who were converted by Philip were ' bactized into the name of the Lord Jesus' (Ac 8"). Peter at Ca.'sarea commanded that Cornelius and those with him should be ' baj)tized in the name of Jesus Christ' (10**). And the Ephesian disciples, when they were convinced of the in- sufficiency of John's baptism, were ' baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus ' (19').

Moreover, there is no mention in NT of any one being baptized into the name of the Trinity ; anil the expression 'baptized into Christ' (Ro 6', Gal 3"; comp. 1 Co 1" 6") Ls more in hannony with the passages in the Acts than with the dinne command as re- corded Mt SS'".* Various explanations of these statements in the Acts have been suggested. (1) This baptism into or in the name of Jesns Christ is that which was practised by Christ's disciples during His ministrj' (Jn 4'-').

HaWng been accustomed to this form, they continued lo u»e it ' probably through life,' although Christ had expressly ordered tlie Trinitarian fonn, and althouuii the Holy Spirit was not always imparted when this imperfect form was employed, wliereas the gift of the Spirit alwaj's accompanied ba]>ti.-<m • It 1« worth n^tinR tlmt In all th« Instances of Inptlsm ' In * or ' Into Ihu iiatiie " the verb is in tlie jiassive. Exctipt in Die or'tdnal rtinrK''.

the phraee 'to haptizi' inu> the nanie*<loea n<<t occur; It Is always tn be baplizrd int^» tho nanic'or'in tiio name.' This hold's fi'Hxl of 1 Co li^ aiso, wliero ii< ri i^, «,«u« ^"«cri#« is a fiilse reading, and ifiawrirthtri (MAHC" /Kfrj-ptt. Viilg. Ann.) is rlRht. In the Eastern Churches the formula Is not ' I tmptizo tlR'e,' but ^airW^irccj i itixit Tou 6itv ; and this Is probably more ancient ttian tlie Westeru furuiula familiar to us. vou 1.— 16 in the name of the Trinity {Dirt, of Chr.

Biog. i. p. '241). This is scarcely credible. The Ephesian disciples were rebaptized because their original baptism was inadequate. Can we suppose that they then received a baptism that was also de- fective ? And would the disciples have adhered to a form which experience proved to be less uniformly efficacious, even if we allow that they would ignore the express command of Christ?

It is admitted that this inferior form of baptism went out of use at an early date^perhaps soon after the First Gospel became current. (2) Baptism in the name of one Person of the Trinity is virtually baptism in the name of the Trinity, and is valid. 1 his seems to be the view of Ambrose. Quod verba taciturn fuerat, expressu-m est fide. Cum enim, dicitur : In nomine Domini nostri Jesu Christi, per unitatem norninis impletum mysterium est: nee a Christi baptismate bpirit-as sejiaratur, . .

Qui unum dixerit, Trinitatem sujnavit. Si Christum dicas, et Deum Patrem a quo unctus est Filius, et ipsum qui unctus eat Filium, et Spiriium Sanctum quo unctus est desig- nasti (be Spiritu S. L 4. 43, 44; Migne, xvL 714, 715, where see note a). Ambrose is here comment- ing on Ac 19'; and it is ra.sh to say that 'he is probably speaking of the confession of the recipient, not of the formula.' Bede understands Anibro.

se to be writing of the baptismal formula, and accepts the solution that baptism in the name of Jesus Christ is really in the name of the Trinity (Super Acta Exp. X. 48 ; Mimie, xcii. 970). See also Peter Lombard (Sent. iv. Dist. iii. 4), Hugo Victor (De Sacram. i. 13), and Aquinas (Su?nma, iii. 66. 6). This Wew was conlirmed by the Council of Erejus (A.D. 792), and apparently by Pope Nicholas L (858-867) in his Responsa ad liulijaros. (3) Wlien St.

Luke says that people were 'iKiptized in (or into) the name of the Lord Jesus,' he is not indicating the formula which was used in baptizing, but is merely stating that such persons were baptized as acknowledged Jesus to oe the Lord and the Christ ; in short, he is simply telling us that the baptism w.as Christian. Wiien Peter heals the crijiple at the Beautiful Gate of the temple, the form of the words used is quoted : ' In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, walk.'

No such form of words is quoted in any of the passages in which persons are said to be baptized in {)r into the name of Je.sus Christ. There is no evidence against the .suppo.sition that in these and in all other cases the formula u.sed was that which Christ enjoined. This is perhaps what Cyprian means when he .says on Ac 2*' Jesu Christi vicnlionem facit Petrus, non quasi Pater omitteretur, sed ut Patri Filius quoque adjungeretur (Ep. Ixxiii. 17).

In 1 Co 10'^, where the Israelites are said to have been 'b.aptized into Moses' (ds t6v Moiuo-^i'), the meaning is that they were baptized int« obedience to him and acknowledgment of his authority, not that his name was called over them in some formula. See Lightfoot on 1 Co 1". (4) The original form of words was 'into the name of Jesus Christ ' or ' the Lord Jesus.' Baptism into the name of the Trinity was a later develop- ment.

After the one mention of it, Mt 28'°, we do not find it a^ain until Justin Martyr, and his formula is not identical with that in tne Gospel : (V dvofiarot yiip rov varphi tCiv SXitiif Kal SfffwoTov Otov Kal Tou aujTTjpos ii/j.u)v *Ii;ffoC Xpiarov Kal irvevuaTos dyiou rb iv Ti^i f'Sari rdre \ovTpbv voiorvrai (ApoL i. (>1 ). It is probable that, when the Trinitarian formula had become usual, it was regarded as of divine authority, and was hy some attributed to Christ Himself.

This tnulition is represented in Mt '28", and is perhaps an in<lication that the Firsi Gospel in its extant form is later than the destruction of Jerusalem. That in the apostoUo J4'2 BAPTISM BAPTISM age there was no fixed formula ia sho^vn, not only by the diflerence between Matt, and the Acts, but by the dirt'erence between one passage in the Acts and another, and also by traces of other differences in the Epistles.

Baptism ' into the name of the Lord Jesus ' (Ac 8'" 19'), or ' in the name of Jesus Christ' (2^ 10"), or 'into Christ Jesus' (Ro 6'), or 'into Christ' (Gal 3-''), had sufficed. Comp. Trplv yap, iprjai, (popiaat Tbv S.v6pw7roy t6 6vo/Mi Tov vlou Tov $€0Uf vcKptts iffTiv (Hcmias, SItii. ix. 16. 3); where, however, toC i/IoC ia possibly an insertion (A omits). Of these four explanations the second and third are far more satisfactory than the other two, and tlie third seems to be the best.

It is a violent hypothesis to suppose that words of such importance as Mt 28" were never spoken by Christ, and yet were authoritatively attributed to Him in the First Go.'ipel. The insertion of the doxology after the Lords Prayer (Mt G") is not parallel.

Not only is the insertion of less importance, being covered by genuine utterances of Clirist as well as by 1 Ch 29", but it is absent from all the most ancient authorities, including all Greek and Latin commentators; whereas the baptismal formula in Mt 28"' is in all authorities without exception. It is as well attested as any saying of Clirist which is recorded in one Gospel only. Nor does the variation of the Trinitarian formula given by Justin Martyr {Ajwl. i. 61) cause any difficulty.

He is not giving the exact words used in baptism, but is paraphrasing them, so as to make them a, little more intelligible to the heathen whom he is addressing. It is reasonable to believe that Christ prescribed the Trinitarian formula, and that His command was obeyed. (6) The Recipients of Christian baptism were required to repent and believe. This is set forth, both in the Lord's commands and also in the first instance of baptism on the Day of Pentecost. ' Peter said unto them.

Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins ' (Ac 2^). Here repent- ance is expressed and liAth in Jesus Christ ia Implied, as in the farewell charge to the apostles recorded by St. Luke : ' that repentance and re- mission of sins should be preached in His name unto all the nations ' (24").

More often it is faith that is expressed and repentance that is implied, as in the charge recorded in the appendix to Mk : ' Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved ; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned' (16"-'). So also in the case of the jailer at Philippi (Ac le'i-"), of the Samaritans (8"), of Cornelius and his company (I0"-«), and of the Corinthians (18»). Compare the Western insertion Ac 8".

Of the two requisites, faith is the one which more needs express state- ment. Repentance without faith in Christ was possible, as in the case of John's baptism. Faith m Christ without repentance was not possible. Comp. He 10«. 411 the instances just quoted (especially those of tiie converts on the Day of Pentecost, of Cornelius and his friends, and of the Pliilippian jailer and his household) tend to show that no great amount of instruction or preparation was at first required.

But somewhat later, after the apostles, who had been a protection against tne admission of un- worthy candidates, had died out, and after the Churcn had had larger experience of unreal con- verts, much more care was taken to secure definite knowledge and hearty acceptance of tlie truths of the gospel. This primitive freeilom in admitting converts to baptism is in itself an argument in favour of in/nnt havtism, although no huptism of an infant is ex- pressly mentioned.

Whole households were some- times baptized, as those of Lydia, Crispu§, the jailer, and Stephanas ; and it is probable that there were children in at least some of these. There may also have been children among the three thousand baptized at Pentecost. According to the ideas then prevalent, the head of the family repre- sented and summed up the family. In some respects the paterfamilias had absolute control of the members of his household (Maine, Ancient Law, ch. v.)

And it would have seemed an unnatural thing that the father should make a complete change in his religious condition and that his children should be excluded from it. Moreover, the analogy of circumcision would lead Jewish converts to have their children baptized.

Had there been this marked difference between the two rites, — that infants were admitted to the Jewish covenant, but not to the Christian, — the difference would probably have been pointed out ; all the more so, because Christianity was the more com- prehensive religion of the two. There is therefore primd facie ground for believin" that from the first infants were baptized.

And this position is strengthened by "eneral declarations of Christ Himself : ' Suffer uie little children to come unto Me ; forbid them not : for of such ia the kingdom of God ' (Mk 10"). ' Except a man (tis) be bom of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the king- dom of God ' ( Jn 3°) ; where there is no intimation that children are exempted. On the contrary, the condition of children is given as the ideal for entrance into the kingdom (ftlt 18').

But there is primd facie evidence on the other side. Not only is there no mention of the baptism of infants, but there is no text from which such baptism can be securely inferred. ' Make disciples of all the nations' (Mt 28"), implies those who are old enough to receive instruction. That little children may be brought to Christ, and are a type of Christian innocence, does not prove that tney are fit to receive baptism.

And we cannot be sure that Jn 3° is meant to include infants, because Jesus often states general principles, and leaves His Church to find out the necessary limitations. An ordinance may be generally necessary to salvation, and yet not be suited to infants ; which is the Western view of the Lord's Supper. Scripture tells us that repentance and faith are requisite for baptism. Assuming that infants have no need of repentance, can we assume that faith also may be dispensed with ?

Cyprian slurs this (Ep. Ixiv. 5). He points out that adults must have faith, which includes repentance, and that infants have no sins of their own to repent of ; but he is silent about infants' lack of faith. Those who maintain that the infantine state is a substitute for faith and repent- ance, must remember that faith and repentance are the conditions given in Scripture, and that the infantine state is not mentioned as an equivalent.

It is probable that all that is said in Scripture about baptism refers to the baptism of adults. L'ntil there were many Christian parents to whom children were bom, the questiim of baptizing infants would be exccption.ol ; and perhaps evan- gelists used their own discretion ; for infant baptism is, at any rate, nowhere forbidden in Scripture. (c) The Minister in baptism is not determined ; and lay baptism is in much the same position as infant baptism.

It can be neither proved nor disproved from Scripture. The commission to baptize was given in the first instance to the Eleven (Mt 28""*), but we are not sure that no others were present. Moreover, it is in virtue of Christ's presence ('Lo, I am with you alwav') that they have the right to baptize ; and tliis presence cannot be confined to the apostles.

We are not told who baptized the three thousand at BAPTISM BAPTISM 243 Pnntecost ; and the apostles, if tliey baptized any, can hardly have baptized them all. Apparently, Ananias baptized St. Paul, but this is not clear (Ac 22"). He was 'a certain disciple' (9'"), and ' a devout man according' to the law ' (22"), and presumably a layman. I'eter commanded Cornelius and his company to be baptized (lU"); and we a,s.

sume that it was done by the brethren from Joppa, who ar<; not said to be presbyters or deacons. Troiii the silence of Scripture respecting' the minister on these and other occasions, we may infer that an ordained minister is not essential. (</) The liite is nowhere described in detail ; but the element was always water, and the mode of usin;; it wa-s commonly immersion. The sjT.ibolism of the ordinance required this. It was an act of purilication ; and hence the need of water.

A death to sin was expressed bj' the plunge beneath the water, and a rising ajjain to a life of ri<,'bteous- ness by the return to li^'ht and air; and hence the appropriateness of immersion. Water is mentioned in \c 8-» lu", Eph 5-«, He 10'-; and there is no mention of any other element. Immersion is im- plied in Ro ti' and Col 2'-. l>at immersion was a desirable symbol rather than an e.s.sential. In the pri.

son at I'hilippi it can hardly have been possible ; and it is not very probable in the house of Cornelius. Wherever larj;e nuiiibersof both sexes were baptized, the dilliculty of total immersion in each case must have been frreat. And if immersion better ex- presses the cleansin;; of the whole man, pouring; better expresses the outpourini; of the Spirit, whose operation Ls not (lej)en<lent upon the amount of water, nor upon the manner of its application. Comp. Cyprian, Ep. Ixi.x. 12.

As to the form of words used in baptizing, what has been said above may almost sutlice. If from the first there was only one form, that form was Trinitarian ; from the 2nd century it was certainly the only form. Justin's evidence (Apol. i. 61) has been quoted, and Tertullian describes the practice in his day : ncc semel, sed tcr, ad singula nomina in personas singulas tinguimur {Adv. Prax. xxW. ). Wherever St.

Matthew's Gospel was received the Trinitarian formula would become oblii,'atorj' ; and that carries us back Ion;; before Justin Martyr. Hut it is po.s-sible that for a time the form of words varied. The 'anointing' (2 Co P', 1 Jn 2^) probably refers to baptism ; but to anointing with the Spirit, not with oil. Yet unction at baptLsm is as old as Tertullian {De linpt. vii. ).

The 'sealing' (2 Co 1^, Eph 1"4*') also may refer to baptism, but not to signing with tlie cross : t) a<ppayU oiV tA P5wp ^(rTii/ (Hennas, Sim. ix. 16. 4). \\ hether ' the good confe.s.Hion in the sight of many witnesses' (I Ti IJ") refers to a profession of faith at Timothy's baptism (Ewald, Hausratb, I'lleiderer), is uncertain; the many witnesses point rather to ordination (Iloltz- mann).

That the diliicult passage 1 P H^' refers to the answers or pledges maile by the candidates at baptism, is very doubtful. V. TlIK UOCTKINK OF ClIUISTIAN HaPTISM. — Scripture teaches that baptism, rightlj- adminis- tered to those who are quatilied by repentance and faith to receive it, has variims benelicial results. The.se are closelj' connected, either as cause and elfect, or as joint effects, or a.s dill'erent aspects of the same fact.

Hut they are capable of analysis and of separate treatment. They are mainly (1) Itegeneration or New Birth, (2) Divine .^Hilialion, (.') Cleansing from Sin, (4) Admis.sion to the Churcli, (."i) Union with Christ, (6) Gift of the S] irit, (7) Salvation.

• In th« Ba^item Ohuivheii trine Immoniion s regarded as tho only vRltil fiimi of bnptlHiri ; and Iho CntechlHin expliilnii tliat ' this trine immersion iH n ttu'nr« of tlic tliri'e d;iys' l>'irlal of our Bavlour, and of UU resurrection ' (Mos< liake, p. 4'J).

(1) Christ Himself said, 'Except a man be born anew [titivr^drj &vw$(i'), he cannot see the kingdom of God ' ; and He explained this as meaning, ' Except a man be born of water and the Spirit ' (Jn 3^-'), which until Calvin's day had universally been interpreted as referring to baptism. The metaphor was not new. Jews spoke ol the admis- sion of proselytes to Israel as a ' new birth.' ' Art thou the teacher of Israel, and understandest not these things?'

(Jn 3'"), perhaps refers to this com- mon use of the phrase. But in any case ' water and Spirit ' refer to the outward si-'n and inward gift at baptism as effecting a new birth. This is confirmed by St. Paul's 'laver o/ regeneration [Xovrpoi' vaXiyyiyealas) and renewing of the Holy Spirit' (Tit 3'), which also was universally understood as meaning baptism.

And baptism is called ' washing of regeneration,' not merely becavise it symbolizes it, or pledges a man to it, but also, and chiefly, because it etlects it (Holtzmann, Huther, Ptleiderer, Weiss). (2) This new birth brings us into a new relation- ship to God : the baptized are ni.ado His children or sons. ' For ye are all sons of God, through faith in Christ Jesu.s. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ' (Gal S-"-'^).

'lo them gave he the right to become children of God' (Jn 1"; comp. 1 Jn 4'). That being ' begotten of God' (1 Jn 3" 4' 5<-'S), or becoming a 'chUd of God' (1 Jn S'-'-'o 5"), or a 'son of God' (Ro 8"-", Gal 3*"), is synonymous with being ' born anew,' need not be doubted. The first birtli i« of man ; the second or new birtli is of God. So that it makes little matter whether we translate tvuiBtv (Jn 3^) 'anew' with Justin {Apol. i. 61) and the Lat. and Eth.

VSS, or ' from above ' with Origen and most of the Greek Fathers. A new birth is a birtli from above, and mce versd. And the passages in which these expressions occur show that regeneration or being begotten by God does not mean merely a new capacity/ for change in the direction of goodness, but an actual change. The legal washings were actual external purifica- tions. Baptism is actual internal purification.

(3) Johns baptism was 'unto remission of sins,' (Is i<f>e<rty aiMnpriur (Mk 1, Lk 3'). Cliristian baptism is not only this (Ac 2', Lk 24", where tls and not xal is the better reading), but it confers remission of sins. Ananias says to Saul: 'Ari.se, ami be baptized, and wash away thy sins' (Ac 22"; comp. 10« \3^, Ho 10, ). St. "Paul, after glancing at the sinful past of the Corinthians in the days of their heathenism, continues : ' But ye were washed, but ye were sanctified,' etc. (1 Co 6").

Anil the same is said of all Christians ; for ' Christ loved the Church, and "ave himself up for it ; that he might sanctify it, having cleansed it by the washing of water with the word ' (Eph 5^-^). (4) That baptism involved admission to the Church hardly needs to be more than stated. It was an instrument for this very purpose, analogous to circumcision.

The recipient of baptism, like the recipient of circumciHion, is admitted to a new external covenant and new spiritual privileges, and is thereby pledged to new duties. To say that a person is bai)tized, is to say that he has been admitted to the Christian communion. ' They then that received his word were baptized : and there were added imto them in that day about three thousand .souls' (Ac 2" ; comp. 1 Co"l2"). (.

I) As tho Church is the body of Christ (Col 1"), to be admitted to the Church is to be united with Christ, and to become one of His members (I Co 12-''). ' For as many of you as were bajitizcd into Christ did put on Christ'^ (Gal 3") ; and Christians' 'bodies are members of Christ' (I Co O'" ; comp Eph 4'°"). This is not only true in general, but in a special way ba|>tism makes us partakers in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ.

' \Ve 2H BAPTISM BAPTISM who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into liis death. We were buried therefore with him througli baptism into death : tliat like as Clirist was raised from the dead ... so we also nii'dit walk in newness of life' (Ro 6''-; comp. Col 2"-' 3'). This great chani;e is always spidcen of as past, not as continuin}; (Ko G"-'*-" 8, " etc.) Tlie reference is to some delinite occasion when it took place.

(6) Tliat Christian baptism confers the gift of the Spint, whereas John's baptism did not, was one of the most marked points of difference between them (Mt 3", Mk 18, Lk 3'«, Jn l-«, Ac W'"). 'In one Spirit were we all baptized Into one body . . and were all made to drink of one Spirit' (1 Co 12"). And hence not only is the whole Church ' a habita- tion of God in the Spirit' {Eph 2'^; comp. 2 Co 6^', 1 P 2'), but each individual Christian is a temple of the Holy Ghost (1 Co 6'» 3").

And ' the Spirit himself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are children of God : and if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint heirs \nt\\ Christ ' (Ko S'"- "). (7) This involves one more result. Those who are 'joint heirs with Christ' have a pledge that they will one day enter into that inheritance which He now enjoys. It has various names. It is salvation. 'He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved' ([Mk] 16"^).

Those who were added to the Church were ' those that were being saved' (Ac 2'; comp. IB, 1 P 1»- 3^1). It is the kingdom of God. ' Except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (Jn 3°). It is eternal life. After speaking to Nicodemus of the neces.sity of being bom anew of the .Spirit, Christ says that God has sent Him into the world, ' that whosoever be- lieveth on him should not perish, but have eternal life ' (3'°"").

By baptism we are grafted into Him who is the life (14), and he that hath the Son hath the life ( 1 Jn 5"). Those Jews who refused to be admitted into the Church 'judged themselves unworthy of eternal life' (Ac 13). In writing to Titus, St. Paul sums up several of these aspects of baptism (3»-'). These are the chief effects when valid baptism has been administered to those who are duly qualified by repentance and faith to receive it.

But what is the result when these two sets of con- ditions are separateil ? There is the case of those who are qualified, but are not baptized. And there is the case of those who are baptizeil, but are not qualified. Simon Magus is an example of the latter. In Scripture there is no certa,in instance of the former, nor any express statement respecting such. But the solution afterwards reached throws light on scriptural language, and may be briefly mentioned here.

It was universallj' held that a catechumen who was mart\Ted before baptism was a meiiiber of Christ. His 'baptism of blood' supplied the de- li ioncy. But a catechumen who was willing to sutler for the faith, and yet died without martyrdom or hnptism,. seemed to be equallyamember of Christ; as Ambrose contends (/)e vhitii Valcnt. Consul. ,52; Migne, xvi. 137.5).

This led to a general concession that the faithful unbaptized may possess the sub- stance of regeneration before baptism ; and this involved a modification of the doctrine as to the actual effect of baptism upon the faithful recipient. As early as TertulHan we find the admission : Laimcrum illud est obngnatio fdei ; mta: Jidci a pcenitentim fide incipitur et commendatur. Non idco ahlitimur ut dc/inmiere dcsinmjius, (pioniainjam torde liiti tunms (De Pan. vx.) I?

aptism is a seal (ff^pa^/s, signanilum). The metaphor was used of circumcision (Ro 4"), and was very early trans- ferred to baptism (?2 Co Y^, ? Rev 9*): see reff. in Suicer, s.v. and in Lightfoot, Clem. Rom. ii. 226. A seal makes a document formally com- plete ; but the document may be binding without It. And if before baptism jaj» corde loti sumus, what is this but regeneration ?

Nevertheless, to regard baptism as a mere form which may be neglecteil with impunity would be arrogant dis- obedience, like the first attitude of Naaman towards Elislia ; and such disobedience would be evidence that the inward justification had not taken place. An unbaptized believer is like a t«stator who has made a will but has not signed it. He may die without signing it.

If it is clear that he had full intention of signing, and was merely waiting for suitable witnesses, the will may be accepted as a valid expression of his wishes. But if he has post- poned the signature indefinitely, the presumption IS thai he was not decided as to his intentions. It is the contempt of baptism when it may be had, not the lack of it when it may not, that is perilous. The case of Simon Magus is very different. He was baptized without repentance and faith.

Was that a mere empty form ? By no means. He was admitted to the Christian body, and received the baptismal character. The technical name for such a person was Fictus, i.e. one who received baptism unworthily. And it was held from the first that God always does His part in the baptismal contract, whether the baptized can avail himself of it or no.

The grace which the Fictics, through unworthiness, could not receive at the time of baptism, was always ready for him when repentance and faith made him worthy. He had ceased to be a heatlien, and had received a Christian title, which could be made good by change of heart. This doctrine follows of necessity from the doctrine that baptism is ";enerally necessary, and yet may not be repeated. Otlierwise, the case of the unworthy recipient would be hopeless.

His first baptism would be without effect ; and he may not have a second. But it is because liis baptism has done all that is required, if only he makes himself capable of profiting by it, that lie may not have it repeated. Simon is ex- horted to repent, not witli a view to a second baptism, but to the forgiveness which would have been his had his baptism been worthily received, and which may still be won (Ac 8~).

When whole tribes were baptized at once, baptism with- out the necessary repentance and faith must have been common. But this defect was not irreparable ; and meanwhile the baptized had a title to spiritual blessings which could be appropriated by change of heart. Mutatis mutandis the same principle may hold respecting the baptism of infants.

At baptism the infant receives remission of the guilt of original sin, admission to the Christian community, and a title to heavenly gifts to be appropriated afterwards. Scriptural doctrine refers to the baptism of adults who are qualified by repentance and faith. The application of that doctrine to infants is an un- certain inference ; and we must be cautious in drawing it.

Caution is also required in estimating the statements of Christian writers of the first three centuries respecting baptismal regeneration. We must consider two points especially. (1) Is the writer speaking of the baptism of adults or of that of infants ? With us, if nothing is said to the con- trary, Iiaptism commonly means infant baptism. Early Christian writers would almost always have the baptism of adults in their minds. (2) Ifn what sense does he use the word ' regeneration ' ?

Some- times it is a mere sj-nonjTu for the fact of baptism. In Scripture every Christian is hj-pothetically a saint : anil so every baptized person is hypothetic- ally regenerate. It is assumed that the baptism has been in all respects complete. In this sen>e, to call an infant ' regenerate ' may mean no more than BAPTISM FOR THE DEAD BARABBAS 245 that it has been baptized, and may be no evidence of the writer's convictions as to the immediate effect of baptism on infants. LiTlRATrRE.

— For tlie abundant litt-ratiire on baptism. Bee Smith. /»^ I, :(,►«. and Oicl.o/ thr. AnI.i. 17i; Schairilcraj^'. t'nci/cl.' 1. li"^, •JoS ; llerzofT. /<:£'' XV. 'JSl. Tbe foUowinj; iiiiiy bo selected. For the subject in general, the articles on baptism In Smith. DBund Did. of Clir. Ant. For patristic comuients on Scripture, Suicer. ft.t,, and Pnsev, Scripitiral Vietcsof Bap- tiKni. beitiK TracU for the Time's, CI, (iS, Oil; for Cyprian in particular, the lnde.x in llartel, ii. ST&-:!"

7 ; and for Augustine, the Index In Ml?nc. xlri. 1112-111. For the philosophical argument, Mozlev, Iteviitco/the Baptismal Controctrst/. Forthearchie- ology," Marleue, be Ant. Eectes. Jiitihutt: Goar, Etichologion Oritcorttm ; Aupusti, DenktcUrdiiikeiten aits, il . Christ. ArcflthftOilie. vii. ; Kraus. Jteal-Kncykl. d. Christ. AUerth. Ii. ; Ilutling, Das Sticrament d. 'Jatife. Binpbflin is somewhat dis- appointing, but later editions supply certain defects.

For pictu- resque description, Slaulev, Christian Institutions. A. PLUMMEli.