Baptism (Gr. baptismos, from baptizo, frequentative of baptō, 'I dip or dye'), one of the Sacraments (q.v.) of the Christian church, deriving its name from the rite of washing with water, which forms an essential part of it. Baptism is almost universally acknowledged among Christians as a sacrament, and is referred to the authority of Christ himself, whose express command to administer it is recorded in the gospels (Matt. xxviii. 19; Mark, xvi. 16).
The name and the rite were not altogether new, however, when the ordinance was instituted by Christ. Religious meanings were early attached to washings with water, both by heathens and Jews; they were among the ordinances of the Jewish law; and it is not necessary to go beyond that law to find the origin of the custom of washing or baptising proselytes upon their admission into the Jewish church. Washing with water was requisite for the removal of ceremonial uncleanness, and every proselyte must have been regarded as ceremonially unclean prior to his admission into the Jewish church. John the Baptist baptised not proselytes upon their renouncing heathenism and entering the Jewish church, but those who, by birth and descent, were members of it, to indicate the necessity of a purification of the soul from sin—a spiritual, and not a mere outward change.
One of the most important of the controversies which have agitated the Christian church as to baptism, is that concerning the proper subjects of baptism : whether adults only who profess faith in Christ are to be baptised, or if this ordinance is to be administered to their infants also. The baptism of adults was certainly more frequent in the apostolic age than it has ordinarily been since, for which an obvious cause presents itself in the fact that the first members of churches were converts from Judaism or from heathenism. It is generally held, however, by those who advocate the baptism of infants, that it was the practice of the apostles and of the church of the apostolic age to baptise the infants of Christians (cf. Acts, xvi. 15, 33; 1 Cor. i. 16). This again is as stoutly denied by others, who allege that infant baptism crept in along with other corruptions. For neither opinion can any positive historical proof be adduced, the arguments on both sides being mainly inferential.
The chief arguments in favour of infant baptism are based upon the proposition that the church is one throughout all changes of dispensation. From this it is argued that as infants were, so they still must be included, in the visible church. It is maintained that in all covenants which God has made with men, their children have been included; that the covenant with Abraham was a renewed revelation of the covenant of grace, the temporal promises made to him being connected with the greatest spiritual promises; that circumcision was a seal of the covenant with respect to these, in which the children of Christians have the same interest that Jewish children had; and that baptism is a seal of the covenant now as circumcision was, the things to which it has immediate reference being also blessings which children are capable of receiving. It is contended that the arguments in favour of infant salvation derive additional strength from that view of the place of infants in the church according to which they are entitled to baptism. The passages which connect baptism with faith are regarded as exclusively relating to adults, like the passages which connect salvation with faith and repentance. In reply to the argument that there is no express command for infant baptism, it is argued that the state of the case rather demands of those who oppose it the production of an express command against it, without which the general command must be held to include it; the words and actions of our Saviour (Mark, x. 14) with respect to children are quoted as confirming the opinion that the place of infants in the church is precisely what it was under the Jewish dispensation; and it is contended that it would have been a very great restriction of privilege in the new dispensation if infants had been excluded from a place which they held before, as entitled to a seal of the covenant, whereas it is evident that the new dispensation is characterised not by restriction but by enlargement of privilege (Acts, ii. 39). For the arguments on the other side, see BAPTISTS.
It is admitted, on all hands, that at an early period in the history of the church, baptism was administered to infants, although, even after it had been set forth as an apostolic institution, its introduction into the general practice of the church was slow. The earliest direct evidence claimed for the practice is a passage from Irenæus, who flourished in the 2d century. Tertullian, who came a little later, looked with disfavour on infant baptism; but it was regarded by Origen (circa 185-254) as an apostolic institution. As such it was acknowledged in the North African church and in the Alexandrian and Syro-Persian churches in the 3d century; though it was not until the 5th century that it became fully established as the general practice of the Christian church. This it has unquestionably continued to be from that period to the present day; feebly opposed by some of the sects of the middle ages, and more vigorously by some Protestants. See BAPTISTS.
Both the practice and the neglect of infant baptism in the early ages of the church were connected with particular views of religious doctrine, and of the nature and purpose of baptism itself. The prevalence of the Augustinian doctrine of Original Sin is generally regarded as a principal cause of the prevalence of infant baptism; whilst Pelagius, although opposing that doctrine, maintained the necessity of infant baptism. No little influence must be ascribed to the growing belief in the absolute necessity of baptism to salvation, and in a sort of mysterious efficacy in the rite itself. It is certain, on the other hand, that the belief in the forgiveness of sins in baptism led to a practice of deferring it as long as possible, in order that all sins might be blotted out at once. Thus the Emperor Constantine the Great was baptised only a short time before his death. The approach of a war or pestilence caused many to rush forward in haste to be baptised, who had previously delayed.
The Anglican and Lutheran churches, like the Roman Catholic, regard the baptism of infants as admitting them into the church, and making them members of Christ's body. Other Reformed churches hold that the children of Christians are included in the visible church from their birth, and therefore entitled to baptism.
Two modes of baptism are practised: by immersion or dipping, and by aspersion or sprinkling, concerning which there has been much controversy in the early period of the church's history, as well as in recent times. Affusion or pouring, the common practice of the Church of Rome, may be regarded as essentially one with sprinkling. The advocates of sprinkling universally admit the validity of baptism administered in the other mode, but the advocates of dipping generally refuse to acknowledge that baptism by sprinkling can be true Christian baptism. The opponents of infant baptism, almost without exception, insist upon immersion; whilst aspersion or affusion of water is general, except in the Eastern churches, wherever the baptism of infants prevails. The argument upon which Baptists depend most of all is that from the word baptism and the verb baptizo, which, in classic Greek, signifies to immerse. On the other side, it is contended that a strict limitation to this sense does not well accord with its character as a 'frequentative' form of bapto; and instances are adduced from the New Testament itself in which this signification cannot easily be attached either to the noun or to the verb, as 1 Cor. x. 2, where Paul says that the Israelites were 'baptised into Moses in the cloud and in the sea;' and Heb. ix. 10, Mark, vii. 4, and Luke, xi. 38, where both verb and noun are employed concerning the washings of the Jews, and the noun, even of their washing of 'cups, and pots, brazen vessels, and of tables.'—To the argument in favour of immersion derived from the phrases employed when baptism is mentioned in Scripture—as when we are told that John the Baptist baptised 'in Jordan' (Matt. iii. 6), that our Lord after his baptism 'went up out of the water' (Matt. iii. 16), that Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch 'went down both into the water' (Acts, viii. 38)—it is replied that all the passages of this description, even if their meaning were certainly as precise and full as Baptists suppose it to be, are insufficient to sustain the weight of the conclusion as to the necessity of a particular mode of baptism; that, on the contrary, it is far from being clear that these passages must be interpreted, or the meaning of the Greek prepositions so strictly defined, as the argument requires; and further, that there are instances mentioned in Scripture which afford a presumptive argument in favour of another mode of baptism, as when we are told of great numbers being added to the church in one day, whilst there is no intimation of the converts being led to any pool or river to be baptised. To the argument drawn from the language of Paul in Rom. vi. 4, Col. ii. 12 (see BAPTISTS), it is replied that it depends upon a fanciful interpretation of these texts. According to the advocates of baptism by sprinkling, their opponents commit the great error of attaching too much importance to the question of the mode of baptism.
It is, however, indisputable that at a very early period the ordinary mode of baptism was by immersion, in order whereto Baptisteries (q.v.) began to be erected in the 3d, perhaps in the 2d century, and the sexes were usually baptised apart. But baptism was administered to sick persons by sprinkling; although doubts as to the complete efficacy of this clinical baptism were evidently prevalent in the time of Cyprian (middle of 3d century). Baptism by sprinkling gradually became more prevalent; and a dispute concerning the mode of baptism became one of the irreconcilable differences between the Eastern and Western churches, the former generally adhering to the practice of immersion, whilst the latter adopted mere pouring of water on the head, or sprinkling on the face. This practice, although generally adopted in the West from the 13th century, was not universal, for it was the ordinary practice in England before the Reformation to immerse infants, and the Fonts (q.v.) in the churches were made large enough for this purpose. It continued to be the practice even till the reign of Elizabeth; and the change which then took place is ascribed to the English divines who had sought refuge in Geneva and other places on the Continent during the reign of Mary. To this day the rubric of the Church of England requires that, if the godfathers and godmothers 'shall certify him that the child may well endure it,' the officiating priest 'shall dip it in the water discreetly and warily;' and it is only 'if they certify that the child is weak,' that 'it shall suffice to pour water upon it;' although the latter, or sprinkling, is now the ordinary practice.
Besides the simple rite of washing with water, and the pronouncing of the formula which declares it to be 'in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,' baptism was accompanied, from an early period in the history of the church, with various forms and ceremonies. These ceremonies are almost all retained in the Church of Rome, and also generally in the oriental churches, but have been almost entirely laid aside by Protestants. The Church of England retains the sign of the cross made upon the forehead after baptism, but the other Protestant churches in Britain reject it. It was an ancient custom that the catechumens, as candidates for baptism were called while receiving instruction with a view to that sacrament, when they were to be baptised, publicly made a profession of their faith and a renunciation of the devil and all his works. The profession of faith is still retained by Protestant churches as the formal ground of the administration of baptism; the renunciation of the devil and his works is required by the Church of England of the person baptised, if an adult, or of the sponsors or 'sureties' of a child.—Sponsors (q.v.) were early admitted to answer for those who could not answer for themselves, and particularly for infants. The belief in the absolute necessity of baptism to salvation led even to baptism of the dead among the Montanists in Africa, in which sponsorship was also introduced. Presbyterian and Independent churches generally reject all sponsorship, and regard the profession made by parents as simply a profession of their own faith, which entitles their infants to baptism. The ancient practice of Exorcism (q.v.) immediately before baptism, has been rejected as superstitious by almost all Protestant churches; as have also that of immersing three times (trine immersion), or sprinkling three times, with reference to the three Persons of the Godhead—that of breathing upon the baptised person, 'to signify the expulsion of the devil,' and to symbolise the gift of the Holy Spirit—that of anointing with oil (Chrism, q.v.), to symbolise the same gift, or to indicate that the baptised person is ready, like a wrestler in the ancient games, to fight the good fight of faith—that of giving him milk and honey, in token of his spiritual youth, and of his reception of spiritual gifts and graces—that of putting a little salt into his mouth, to signify the wisdom and taste for heavenly things proper to a Christian—that of touching his nostrils and ears with spittle, to signify that his ears are to be ever open to truth, and that he should ever feel the sweet odour of truth and virtue—and that of clothing him after baptism with a white robe (the chrysome), in token of the innocence of soul which by baptism he was supposed to have acquired. The white robe and the anointing with oil were retained in the Church of England for a short time after the Reformation.—The giving of a name in baptism (see the article NAMES) is no essential part of it, but is a custom apparently derived from that of the Jews in circumcision (Luke, i. 59-63).—The Church of Rome prefers the use of Holy-water (q.v.) in baptism, but regards any water as fit for the purpose in case of necessity.—According to an ancient usage long obsolete, the ordinary administration of the rite (solemn baptism) was limited to the two great festivals of Easter and Whitsuntide.—Whether baptism may be administered in private has been much debated, both in ancient and modern times. The administration of baptism in private houses, and not in the presence of a congregation, was one of the things earnestly contended against by the Presbyterians in Scotland in the first half of the 17th century; though it is now very usual in some denominations. And apparently upon this latter ground, baptism in private houses is also discouraged by the Church of England, even while it is allowed if there is 'great cause and necessity.'
'Baptism for the dead,' alluded to by St Paul (1 Cor. xv. 29), seems to imply that a living man was baptised for a dead and unbaptised Christian, on whom thereby the privileges flowing from baptism were conferred; this baptism is practised by Mormons. (For other questions on baptism, see CIRCUMCISION, GORHAM, GREEK CHURCH, ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH, and especially SACRAMENT.) The opinions early became prevalent that forgiveness of sins is obtained and spiritual life begun in baptism, and that it is indispensably necessary to salvation—the only exception made, if any was made at all, being in the case of adult believers, who, desiring baptism, were prevented from receiving the rite, and particularly of those who suffered martyrdom, which was generally held to be equivalent to baptism. The Church of Rome still owns, as supplying the place of baptism by water, these two—baptism by desire, and baptism by blood, i.e. martyrdom.—According to the general doctrine of the Protestant churches, baptism is 'a sign and seal' of the covenant of grace, representing as a sign the blessings of the covenant, and as a seal, confirming the covenant. As a sign, it is generally held to represent in its rite of washing, the removal both of guilt and corruption, by the blood and by the Spirit of Christ, and so to relate equally to pardon and regeneration, although some have limited its symbolic reference to regeneration alone. One of the most important points disputed concerning baptism, is that of baptismal regeneration (see REGENERATION).
Some early Christian sects appear to have rejected baptism, on grounds somewhat similar to those on which it is rejected by Quakers (q.v.) at the present day, who explain the passages relating to it symbolically, and insist that a spiritual baptism is the only real baptism of Christians.
There has been much controversy concerning Lay Baptism. Wherever there is a recognised ministry in the church, there is a general agreement in confining the ordinary administration of baptism to those who hold this office. It might be expected that the more strongly the necessity of the transmission of holy orders by apostolical succession is asserted, the more strongly also would exclusiveness be manifested with regard to the right of the clergy to administer baptism. But this tendency is counteracted by the belief in the necessity of baptism, or at least of its great importance to the salvation of infants; so that from an early period lay baptism was allowed, although not without opposition, in cases of apprehended danger; and in the Church of Rome this principle is logically carried out to the fullest extent, so that even women are authorised to administer baptism in cases of necessity. On the same ground, lay baptism was at first permitted in the Protestant Church of England; but the prevalence of other views led to a formal restriction of the right of administering it to 'lawful ministers,' although in practice the validity of lay baptism is still generally recognised.
Another question much agitated in the church from early times was that concerning the validity of baptism by heretics. The opinion ultimately prevailed, that baptism by heretics is valid, except in the case of those who do not baptise in the name of the three Persons of the Godhead. This continues to be the almost universal opinion. The Church of Rome, however, employs a form of 'conditional baptism' in admitting a Protestant convert to its communion.
The baptism of bells, ships, &c. is a custom supposed to have been introduced about the 10th century, and still retained in the Church of Rome. The term benediction is sometimes substituted for that of baptism, but the rite itself is very similar to that of baptism, and is accompanied with many similar ceremonies—'a sort of exorcism,' sprinkling with holy-water, anointing 'with the oil of catechumens' and 'with chrism,' a formula of consecration 'in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,' and sometimes also, if not always, the giving of a name to the bell consecrated, and even a kind of sponsorship as by godfathers and godmothers in baptism.
Bingham's Ecclesiastical Antiquities; Godwin, Christian Baptism (1845); Ingham (Baptist), A Handbook of Christian Baptism (1865); Christian Baptism: its Subjects (1871); Hall, Infant Baptism; Hodges, Baptism tested by Scripture and History (1875); Pusey, Facts for the Times, No. 67; and the article in Dean Stanley's Christian Institutions (1882).