BAPTISM, in matters of religion, the ceremony or sacrament by which a person is initiated into the Christian church. The word is drived from the Greek βαπτf j >, a frequentative form of βαπτω, to dip or wash. Baptism is known in ecclesiastical writers by divers other names and titles. Sometimes it is called palingenesia, or regeneration; sometimes salus, or life and salvation· sometimes signaculum Domini, and signaculum fidei, or the seal of faith; sometimes absolutely mysterium, and sacramentum; sometimes the sacramentoffaith; sometimes viaticum, from its being administered to departing persons; sometimes sacerdotium laici, or the lay priesthood, because allowed, in cases of necessity, to be conferred by laymen; sometimes it is called the great circumcision, because it was imagined to succeed in the room of circumcision, and to be a seal of the Christian covenant, as circumcision was the seal of the covenant made with Abraham. In respect that baptism had Christ for its author, and not man, it was anciently known by the name of δωgoν and γαpδμα Kυξ∣oυ, the gift of the Lord; sometimes it was simply called δωgov, without any other addition, by way of eminence, because it was both a gratuitous and singular gift of Christ. In reference to the making men complete members of Christ’s body, the church, it had the name of τfλi∕ωo ’ ∕i, and nλε∕η, the consecration and consummation, because it gave men the perfection of Christians, and a right to partake of to τελε∕ov, which was the Lords Supper. It had also the name of μυrβις, and μυσταγωγία, the irìu tiation, because it was the admittance of men to all the sacred rites and mysteries of the Christian religion.

Baptism has been supposed by many learned authors to have had its origin in the Jewish church, iñ which, as 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 admission; and this practice, according to some, obtains among them to this day, a person turning Jew being first circumcised, and, when healed, bathed or baptized in water, in presence of the rabbin, after which he is reputed a good Jew. 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. Of this opinion were Deylingius, J, G. Carpzovius, Boernerus, Werns-dorfius, Zeltnerus, Owen, Knatchbull, Jennings, Gill, and others.

Grotius is of opinion that the rite of baptism derives its origin from the time of the Deluge, immediately after which, he thinks, it was instituted in memory of the world having been purged by water. Some learned men think it was added to circumcision soon after the Samaritan schism, as a mark of distinction to the orthodox Jews. Spencer, who is fond of deriving the rites of the Jewish religion from the ceremonies of the Pagans, lays it down as a probable supposition, that the Jews received the baptism of proselytes from the neighbouring nations, who were wont to prepare candidates for the more sacred functions of their religion by a solemn ablution, that, by this affinity of sacred rites, they might draw the Gentiles to embrace their religion, and that the proselytes, in the gaining of whom they were extremely diligent, might the more easily comply with the transition from Gentilism to [7:4:353]Judaism. In confirmation of this opinion, he observes, first, that there is no divine precept for the baptism of proselytes, God having enjoined only the rite of circumcision for the admission of strangers into the Jewish religion; and secondly, he contends, that, among foreign nations, the Egyptians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, and others, it was customary for those who were to be initiated into their mysteries or sacred rites, to be first purified by dipping the whole body in water. The same learned writer adds, as a further confirmation of his opinion, that the cup of blessing, added to the paschal supper, seems likewise to have been derived from a pagan original; as the Greeks at their feasts had one cup called ποrng∕av αγα3ου δaιμovoς, the cup of the good demon or god·, which they drank at the conclusion of their entertainment when the table was removed. Since, then, a rite of Gentile origin was added to one of the Jewish sacraments, namely, the passover, there can be no absurdity, he thinks, in supposing that baptism, which was added to the other sacrament, namely circumcision, might be derived from the same source. In the last place, he observes, that Christ, in the institution of his sacraments, paid a peculiar regard to those rites which were borrowed from the Gentiles; for, rejecting circumcision and the paschal supper, he adopted into his religion baptism and the sacred cup; thus preparing the way for the conversion and reception of the Gentiles into his church.

The design of the Jewish baptism, if baptism was practised by them, is supposed to have been to import a regeneration, whereby the proselyte was rendered a new man, and from being a slave became free. The effect of it was, to cancel all former relations; so that those who were before akin to the person, after the ceremony ceased to be so. It is to this ceremony Christ is supposed to have alluded, in his expression to Nicoemus, that it was necessary that he should be born again, in order to become his disciple. The necessity of baptism to salvation is grounded on these two sayings of our Saviour, “He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved ;” and “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” The ancients did not generally think the mere want of baptism, where the procuring of it was impracticable, excluded men absolutely from the hopes of eternal salvation. Some few of them, indeed, are pretty severe upon infants dying without baptism; and others seem also, in general terms, to deny eternal life to adult persons dying unbaptized. But when they interpret themselves, and speak more distinctly, they make some allowances, and specially except several cases in which the want of baptism may be supplied by other means. Such is martyrdom, which commonly goes by the name of “second baptism in men’s own blood” in the writings of the ancients, because of the power and efficacy it was thought to have m saving men by the invisible baptism of the Spirit, without the external element of water. Faith and repentance were also esteemed a supplement to the want of baptism, in such catechumens as died whilst they were piously preparing themselves for baptism. Constantly communicating with, the church was also thought to supply the want of baptism to persons who had been admitted to communion on a presumption of their having been duly baptized, though the contrary afterwards appeared. For infants dying without baptism, the case was thought more dangerous; as here, no personal faith, repentance, or the 1 ke, could be pleaded, to supply the defect, and to wash away original sin. On this account, they who spoke most avourably of them, as Gregory Nazianzen, and Severus, ιshop of Antioch, only assigned them a middle state, neither in heaven nor hell. But the Latins, as St Augus- ιn , fulgentius, Marius Mercator, and others, who never admitted the opinion of a middle state, concluded, that, as they could not be received into heaven, they must go ' to hell. Pelagius and his followers, who denied original sin, asserted that they might be admitted to eternal life and salvation, although not to the kingdom of heaven; between which a distinction was made. Where the fault lay not on the side of the child, nor his parents, but on that of the minister, or where any unavoidable accident rendered baptism absolutely impossible, Hinemar and others made an exception, holding that the child might in that case be saved without baptism.

The receiving of baptism is not limited to any time, nor to any age of life. Some contend for its being administered like circumcision, precisely on the eighth day, as Gregory Nazianzen; while others would have it deferred till the child is three years of age, and able to hear the mystic words, and make answer thereto, though he do not understand them. In the canon law we find divers injunctions against deferring the baptism of infants beyond certain days, as the ninth, thirtieth, and thirty-seventh, some of them involving pecuniary forfeitures in case of disobedience.

Salmasius, and Suiccrus after him, deliver it as authentic history, that for the first two ages no one received baptism who was not first instructed in the faith and doctrine of Christ, so as to be able to answer for himself that he believed; and this by reason of the words, “He that believeth and is baptized which in effect is to say, that no infant, for the first two ages, was ever admitted to Christian baptism. They own, however, that paedobap-tism afterwards came in, upon the opinion that baptism was necessary to salvation. But Vossius, Dr Forbes, Dr Hammond, Mr Walker, and especially Mr Wall, who has exactly considered the testimony and authority of almost every ancient writer who has said any thing upon this subject, endeavour to evince that infants were baptized even in the apostolical age; and it is certain that Tertullian pleads strongly against giving baptism to infants; which at least shows that there was some such practice in his age, though he disapproved of it. But the ordinary subjects of this sacrament in the first ages were converts from Judaism and Gentilism, who, before they could be admitted to baptism, were obliged to spend some time in the state of catechumens, to qualify them for making their professions of faith and a Christian life, in their own persons; for, without such personal professions, there was ordinarily no admission of them to the privilege of baptism. Those baptized ’n their sick beds were called clinici, and held in some reproach, as not being reputed good Christians; and hence we meet with several censures of clinic baptism in councils and ecclesiastical writers. But this clinic baptism was not sufficient to qualify the person, in case of recovery, for ordination. Some had their baptism put off by way of punishment, when they fell into gross and scandalous crimes, which were only to be expiated by a long course of discipline and repentance. This sometimes included five, ten, twenty, or more years; in particular cases the whole of life to the very hour of death, when very flagrant crimes had been committed.

In the earliest ages of the church, there was no stated time or place for the reception of baptism. Afterwards, Easter, Whitsuntide, and Epiphany, became solemn seasons, out of which baptism was not administered, except in cases of necessity. The catechumens who were to receive it at these times were called competentes ; and it is to these that St Cyril addresses his catecheses. In the apostolical age, and some time after, before churches and baptisteries were generally erected, they baptized in any place where they had convenience; for example, John baptized in Jordan, Philip baptized the eunuch in the [7:4:354]wilderness, and Paul baptized the jailer in his own house. But in after-ages baptisteries were built adjoining to the churches; and then rules were made that baptism should ordinarily be administered nowhere except in these buildings. Justinian, in one of his novels, refers to ancient laws appointing that none of the sacred mysteries of the church should be celebrated in private houses.. Men might have private oratories for prayer in their own houses; but they were not to administer baptism or the eucharist in them, unless by a particular license from the bishop of the place. Such baptisms are frequently condemned in the ancient councils, under the name π ’ αgα∕3aπ ’ - τιSμaτα, baptisms in private conventicles.

As to the attendant ceremonies and manner of baptism in the ancient church, the person to be baptized, if an adult, was first examined by the bishop or officiating priest, who put some questions to him; as, first, whether he abjured the devil and all his works, and, secondly, whether he gave a firm assent to all the articles of the Christian faith; to each of which he answered in the affirmative. If the person to be baptized was an infant, these interrogatories were answered by his sponsores or godfathers. Whether the use of sponsors was as old as the days of the apostles is uncertain; the probability is it was not, since Justin Martyr, speaking of the method and form of baptism, says not a word of them. After the questions and answers, followed exorcism, the manner and end of which was this: The minister laid his hands on the person’s head, and breathed in his face, implying thereby the driving away or expelling of the devil, and preparing the convert for baptism, by which the good and holy spirit was to be conferred upon him. After exorcism followed baptism itself. And, first of all, the minister, by prayer, consecrated the water for that purpose. Tertullian says, “any waters may be applied to that use; but then God must be first invocated; on which the Holy Ghost presently comes down from heaven, and moves upon them, and sanctifies them.” The waters having been consecrated, the person was baptized “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ;” by which “dedication of him to the blessed Trinity, the person,” says Clemens Alexandrinus, “is delivered from that corrupt trinity, the devil, the world, and the flesh.” In performing the ceremony of baptism, the usual custom, except in clinical cases, or where there was scarcity of water, was to immerse the whole body. Thus St Barnabas, describing a baptized person, says, “We go down into the water full of sin and filth, but we ascend bearing fruit in our hearts.” And this practice of immersing the whole body was so general, that we find no exception made from respect either to the tenderness of infants or the bashfulness of the other sex, unless in case of sickness or disability. But, to prevent any indecency, men and women were baptized apart; to which end, either the baptisteries were divided into two apartments, one for the men, the other for the women, as Bingham has observed; or the men were baptized at one time and the women at another, as is shown by Vossius, from the Ordo Romanus, Gregory’s Sacramentarium i and other authorities. Add to this, that there was anciently an order of deaconesses, one part of whose business was to assist at the baptism of women. These precautions, however, rather indicate a scrupulous attention to delicacy, than imply any indecency in the circumstance of immersion itself. From the circumstance of candidates being immersed, however, there is no reason to infer that immersion was made in a state of nudity. The present Baptists never baptize naked, though they always immerse. After immersion followed the unction; by which, according to St Cyril, was signified that they were now cut off from the wild olive, and were ingrafted into Christ, the true olive tree; or else to show that they were now to be champions for the gospel, and were anointed thereto, as the old athletae were for their solemn games. With this anointing was joined the sign of the cross, made upon the forehead of the person baptized; which being done, he had a white garment given him, to denote his being washed from the defilements of sin, or in allusion to that of the apostle, “As many as are baptized in Christ have put on Christ.” From this custom the feast of Pentecost, which was one of the annual seasons of baptism, came to be called White-Sunday or Whitsunday. The garment in question was afterwards laid up in the church, that it might be an evidence against such persons as violated or denied that faith which they had owned in baptism. When the baptism was performed, the person baptized, according to Justin Martyr, “was received into the number of the faithful, who then sent up their public prayers to God for all men, for themselves, and for those who had been baptized.”

The ordinary ministers, who had the right of administering this sacrament, that is, of applying the water to the body, and pronouncing the formula, were presbyters or bishops; but on extraordinary occasions laymen were admitted to perform the same.

The present form of administering baptism in the church of Rome is as follows :—When a child is to be baptized, the persons who bring it wait at the door of the church for the priest, who comes thither in his surplice and purple stole, attended by his clerks. He begins with questioning the godfathers, whether they promise, in the child’s name, to live and die in the true Catholic and Apostolic faith, and what name they would give the child. Then follows an exhortation to the sponsors; after which the priest, calling the child by its name, asks, “What dost thou demand of the church ?” The godfather answers, “Eternal life.” The priest proceeds: “If you are desirous of obtaining eternal life, keep God’s commandments, thou shalt love the Lord thy God,” &c.; after which he breathes three times in the child’s face, saying, “Come out of this child, thou evil spirit, and make room for the Holy Ghost.” Then he makes the sign of the cross on the child’s forehead and breast, saying, “Receive the sign of the cross on thy forehead and in thy heart;” upon which, taking off his cap, he repeats a short prayer, and laying his hand gently on the child’s head, repeats a second prayer; then he blesses some salt, and, putting a little of it into the child’s mouth, pronounces these words, “Receive the salt of wisdom.” All this is performed at the church door. The priest, with the godfathers and godmothers, coming into the church, and advancing towards the font, repeat the apostles’ creed and the Lord’s prayer. Arrived at the font, the priest exorcises the evil spirit again; and taking a little of his own spittle, with the thumb of his right hand rubs it on the child’s ears and nostrils, repeating, as he touches the right ear, the same word, Ephatha, be thou opened, which our Saviour made use of to the man born deaf and dumb. Lastly, they pull off its swaddling-clothes, or strip it below the shoulders, during which the priest prepares the oil. The sponsors then hold the child directly over the font, observing to turn it due east and west; whereupon the priest asks the child, “whether he renounces the devil and all his works ;” and the godfather having answered in the affirm- ∙ative, the priest anoints the child between the shoulders in the form of a cross; then taking some of the consecrated water, he pours part of it thrice on the child’s head, at each perfusion calling on one of the persons of the Holy Trinity. The priest concludes the ceremony of baptism with an exhortation. It may be added, that the Romish church allows midwives, in cases of danger, to baptizθ a [7:4:355]child before it comes entirely out of its mother’s womb; but it is to be observed, that as some part of the body of the child must appear before it can be baptized, it is baptized on that which first appears; if it be the head, it is not necessary to rebaptize the child; but if only a foot or hand appears, baptism must be repeated. A still-born child thus baptized may be buried in consecrated ground.

The Greek church differs from the Romish as to the rite of baptism, chiefly in performing it by immersion, or plunging the infant all over in the water.

The forms of administering baptism among us being too well known to require a particular description, we shall only mention one or two of the more material differences between the form as it stood in the first liturgy of King Edward, and that in the English Common Prayer Book at present. First, the form of consecrating the water did not make a part of the office in King Edward’s liturgy, as it does in the present, because the water in the font was changed and consecrated but once a month. The form itself likewise was something different from that now used, and was introduced with a short prayer, that Jesus Christ, upon whom (when he was baptized) the Holy Ghost came down in the likeness of a dove, would send down the same Holy Spirit, to sanctify the fountain of baptism; which prayer was afterwards left out at the second review. By King Edward’s first book the minister was required to dip the child in the water thrice; first, the right side; secondly, the left; and, lastly, the face toward the foot. This triple immersion was a very ancient practice in the Christian church, and used in honour of the Holy Trinity; though some later writers say that it was done to represent the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, together with his three days’ continuance in the grave. But afterwards, when the Arians made an improper use of it, persuading the people that it denoted a distinct substantiality of the three persons in the Trinity, the orthodox left it off and used only one single immersion.

By the first common prayer of King Edward, after the child was baptized, the godfathers and godmothers were to lay their hands upon it, and the minister was to put on him the white vestment, commonly called the chrysome, and to say, “Take this white vesture as a token of the innocency which, by God’s grace, in this holy sacrament of baptism, is given unto thee, and for a sign whereby thou art admonished, so long as thou livest, to give thyself to innocence of living, that after this transitory life thou mayest be partaker of the life everlasting.” As soon as he had pronounced these words he was to anoint the infant on the head, saying, “Almighty God, the father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath regenerated thee by water and the Holy Ghost, and hath given unto thee remission of all thy sins, may he vouchsafe to anoint thee with the unction of his Holy Spirit, and bring thee to the inheritance of everlasting life.”

The custom of sprinkling children instead of dipping them in the font, which at first was allowed in case of the weakness or sickness of the infant, has so far prevailed that immersion is now quite excluded. What principally tended to confirm the practice of affusion or sprinkling was, that several of our Protestant divines flying into Germany and Switzerland during the bloody reign of Queen Mary, and returning home when Queen Elizabeth came to the crown, brought back with them a great zeal for the Protestant churches beyond sea where they had been sheltered and received; and having observed that at Geneva and other places baptism was administered by sprinkling, they thought they could not do the church of England a greater piece of service than by introducing a practice dictated by so great an authority as Calvin. This, together with the coldness of our northern climate, was what contributed to banish entirely the practice of immersing infants in the font.

The different notions which have been entertained concerning the effects of baptism, it would be endless to enumerate. The Remonstrants and Socinians reduce baptism to a mere sign of divine grace. The Romanists, on the contrary, exalt its power, holding, that thereby all sin is entirely taken away by it; that it absolutely confers justification, and consequently grace ex opere operato. Some also speak of an indelible character impressed on the soul by it, called character dominicus, and character regius; but others hold this a mere chimera, maintaining that the spiritual character conferred in regeneration may easily be effaced by mortal sins. Dodwell contends that it is by baptism that the soul is made immortal, and that those who die without it cannot rise again; but he limits this effect to episcopal baptism alone. From the effects ordinarily ascribed to baptism, even by ancient writers, it would seem that the ceremony is as much of heathen as Jewish origin, since Christians do not restrain the use of it, like the Jews, to the admission of new members into the church, but hold, with the heathens, that it contains a virtue for remitting and washing away sins. The Brahmins are still said to baptize with this latter view at certain seasons in the river Ganges, to the waters of which they ascribe a cleansing or sanctifying quality; and hence it is that people flock from all parts, even of Tartary, in expectation of being thus eased of their load of sins. But in this point many Christians seem to have gone beyond the folly of the heathens. It was only the smaller sins of infirmity which these latter held to be expiable by washing; for crimes of a blacker dye, they allowed, no water could efface, no purgation discharge them. The Christian doctrine of a total remission of sins by baptism could not fail, therefore, to scandalize many amongst the heathen, and furnished the apostate Julian with an occasion for ridiculing Christianity itself: “Whoever,” says he, “is guilty of rapes, murders, sacrilege, or any abominable crime, let him be washed with water, and he will become pure and holy.”

In the ancient church, baptism was frequently conferred on Jews by violence; but the church itself never seems to have allowed of force on this occasion. By a canon of the fourth council of Toledo, it is expressly forbidden to baptize any one against his or her will. That which looks most like force in this case is to be found in two orders of Justinian; one of which appoints the heathen, and the other the Samaritans, to be baptized, with their wives and children and servants, under pain of confiscation. By the ancient laws, baptism was not to be conferred on imagemakers, stage-players, gladiators, aurigae or public drivers, magicians, or even strolling beggars, until they quitted such professions. Slaves were not allowed the privilege of baptism without the testimony and consent of their masters; excepting the slaves of Jews, heathens, and heretics, who were not only admitted to baptism, but, in consequence of the rite, had their freedom conferred on them.

Baptism by Fire, spoken of by John the Baptist, has given rise to much conjecture. The generality of the fathers held that believers, before they enter paradise, must pass through a certain fire, which is to purify them from all pollutions remaining unexpiated. But some, with St Basil, understand it of the fire of hell; others, of that of tribulation and temptation; while a few, with St Chrysostom, will have it to denote an abundance of graces. Some suppose it to mean the descent of the Holy Ghost on the apostles, in the form of fiery tongues; others maintain, that the word fire here is an interpolation, and that we are only to read the text, “He that shall come after me will baptize you with the Holy Ghost.” [7:4:356] The ancient Selucians and Hermians, understanding the ' passage literally, maintained that material fire was necessary in the administration of baptism. But we do not find how or to what part of the body they applied it, or whether they were satisfied with obliging the person baptized to pass through the fire. Valentinus rebaptized all who had received water-baptism, and conferred on them the baptism of fire.^[1. Bis docuit tingi, transducto corpore flamma. (Tertull. Cαrrn. contr. Marc. lib. i.) ] Heracleon, cited by Clemens Alexandrinus, says that some applied a red-hot iron to the ears of the person baptized, as if to impress some mark upon him.

Baptism of the Dead, a custom which anciently prevailed among some people in Africa, of giving baptism to the dead. The third council of Carthage speak of it as a thing which ignorant Christians were fond of. Gregory Nazianzen also takes notice of the same superstitious opinion prevailing among some who delayed to be baptized. In his address to this kind of men, he asks, whether they stayed to be baptized after death. Philastrius also notices it as the general error of the Montanists or Cataphrygians, that they baptized men after death. The practice seems to have been grounded on a vain opinion, that when men had neglected to receive baptism in their life-time, some compensation might be made for this default by receiving it after death.

Baptism of the dead was also a sort of vicarious baptism, formerly in use, when, in the case of a person dying without baptism, another was baptized in his stead. This, St Chrysostom tells us, was practised among the Marcionites with a great deal of ridiculous ceremony. When a catechumen happened to die, they hid a living man under the bed of the deceased: then coming to the dead man, they asked him whether he would receive baptism; and he making no reply, the other answered for him, and said he would be baptized in his stead; and so they baptized the living for the dead. Epiphanius assures us the like was also practised amongst the Corinthians. This practice they pretended to found on the Apostle’s authority, alleging that text of St Paul for it, “If the dead rise not at all, what shall they do who are baptized for the dead ?” a text which has given occasion to a great variety of different systems and explications. Vossius enumerates no less than nine different opinions among learned divines concerning the sense of the phrase, being “baptized for the dead.”

Hypothetical Baptism was that formerly administered in certain doubtful cases, with the formula, “If thou art baptized, I do not rebaptize; if thou art not, I baptize thee in the name of the Father,” &c. This sort of baptism, enjoined by some ancient constitutions of the English church, has now fallen into disuse.

Solemn Baptism was that conferred at stated seasons. Such, in the ancient church, were the paschal baptism, and that at Whitsuntide. This is sometimes also called general baptism.

Lay Baptism we find to have been permitted both by the common prayer-book of King Edward and by that of Queen Elizabeth, when an infant is in immediate danger of death, and a lawful minister cannot be had. This was founded upon the mistaken notion of the impossibility of salvation without the sacrament of baptism; but afterwards, when they came to have clearer notions of the sacraments, it was unanimously resolved, in a convocation held in the year 1575, that even private baptism, in a case of necessity, was only to be administered by a lawful minister.

Baptism is also applied abusively to certain ceremonies used in giving names to things inanimate. The an cients knew nothing of the custom of giving baptism to inanimate things, as bells, ships, and the like, by a superstitious consecration of them. The first notice we have of this is in the capitulars of Charles the Great,, where it is mentioned with censure; but afterwards it crept by degrees into the Roman offices. Baronius carries its antiquity no higher than the year 968, when the great bell of the church of Lateran was christened by Pope John III, At last it grew to such superstitious height as to form a ground of complaint in the Centum Gravamina of the German nation, drawn up in the public diet of the empire held at Nuremberg in the year 1581; where, after describing the ceremony of baptizing a bell, with godfathers, who made responses as in baptism, and gave it a name, and clothed it with a new garment as Christians were used to be clothed withal, and all this to make it capable of driving away tempests and devils, they conclude against it as not only a superstitious practice, but contrary to the Christian religion, and a mere seduction of the simple people.