Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 3.djvu/365

Rh it, and then supposes that John simply made use of this ordinary Jewish rite for the purpose of declaring symbolically that the whole Jewish nation were disfranchised, and had to be re-admitted into the spiritual Israel by means of the same ceremony which gave entrance to members of heathen nations. But the subject of the baptism of proselytes is one of the most hopelessly obscure in the whole round of Jewish antiquities, and can never be safely assumed in any argument ; and the general results of investigation seem to prove that the baptism of proselytes was not one of the Jewish ceremonies until long after the coming of Christ, while there is much to suggest that this Jewish rite owes its origin to Christian baptism. Others again, as Steitz, find the historical basis of baptism in the lustrations or sprinklings with water so often mentioned in the Old Testament, in such symbolical acts as Naaman s bathing in the Jordan, and in various prophecies where purification from sin is denoted by sprinkling, e.g., Ezek. xxxvi. 25-30, Zech. xiii. 1, (fee. ; but such anticipations can scarcely be called the historical origin of the rite. Many modern writers connect baptism with certain Pagan rites, and point to the lustrations in use in religious initiation among the Egyptians, Persians, and especially the Hindus, but very little can be made of such far-fetched analogies. Perhaps the most curious instance of this kind is to be found in the double baptism, the one Pagan and civil, and the other religious and Christian, which existed side by side with each other in Norway and Iceland. The Pagan rite was called &quot; ansa vatri,&quot; while the name for Christian baptism was &quot; skero.&quot; The Pagan rite was much older than the introduction of Christianity, and was connected with the savage custom of exposing infants who were not to be brought up. The newly-born infant was presented to the father, who was to decide whether the child was to be reared or not ; if he decided to rear it, then water was poured over the child and the father gave it a name ; if it was to be exposed, then the ceremony was not gone through. The point to be observed is that, if the child was exposed by any one after the ceremony had been gone through, it was a case of murder, whereas it was not thought a crime if the child was made away with before water had been poured over it and it had been named. The analogy lies in the use of water, the bestowal of the name, and the entrance into civil life through the rite.

II. The Doctrine of Baptism.—Among the Greek Fathers, for it is there we must look for the beginning of the doctrine, baptism was called by various names, all of which referred to the spiritual effects which were supposed to accompany the rite. For example, a common term for baptism was naXtyyerecrta, or regeneration for every Christian was supposed to be born again by the waters of baptism. &quot; We fishes,&quot; says Tertullian, &quot; are born in water, conformable to the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, l^Ovs.&quot; ( ITJCTOUS Xpicrros, QeoD Ytos, 2wT?yp = t^vs.) It was also called (^(j-tcr/xos, or illumination; mysterium; signaculum, or seal of the Lord ; character Dominicus ; /^a ^cris or /^uoraywyia, the initiation; e^oStov, or viaticum, from its being administered to departing persons; sacerdotium laid, or the lay priesthood, because allowed, in cases of necessity, to be conferred by laymen ; the great circumcision, because it was held to succeed in the room of circumcision ; o&pov and xdpi&amp;lt;rp.a xvpiov, the gift of the Lord, because it had Christ for its author, and not man ; sometimes by way of eminence simply Swpov; reAecWis and TeXcrrj, the consecration and consummation, because it gave men the perfection of Christians, and a right to partake of TO reXeiov, the Lord s Supper. In studying the statements made by the early Fathers upon baptism, we find not so much a distinct and definite doctrine as gropings toward a doctrine, and it is not until we come to St Augustine that we can find any 349 strict and scientific theory of the nature and effects of the sacrament. The earlier theologians sometimes make state ments which imply the most extreme view of the magical effects of the sacrament, and at other times explain its results in a purely ethical way. Thus, for example, Hermas says, &quot; Our life is sanctified by water ; &quot; while Tertullirm expressly declares, &quot; Anima non lavatione sed responsiona sancitur.&quot; It should never be forgotten that the abundant use of metaphorical language by the Greek Fathers, and the want of anything like a strictly theological terminology, prevent our finding anything like the precise doctrinal statements which became familiar in the Western Church ; while the prevalence of curious Greek physical speculations, which taught the creative power of water, mingled with and distorted the ideas about the effects of the water in baptism. It was St Augustine, the great theologian of the Western Church, who first gave expression to exact dogmatic statements about the nature and meaning of baptism. The real difficulty to be explained was the connection between the outward rite and the inward spiritual change; or to put it more precisely, the relation between the water used and the Holy Spirit who can alone regenerate. The Greek theologians had shirked rather than faced the difficulty, and used terms at one time exaggerating ths magical value of the element, at another insisting on the purely ethical and spiritual nature of the rite ; but they never attempted to show in what precise relation the external rite stood to the inward change of heart. It is true that one or two theologians had almost anticipated Augustine ; s view, but the anticipation was more apparent than real, for the theology of the Greek Church in this, as in most other doctrines, is greatly hampered by the mystical tendency to represent regeneration and kindred doctrines much more as a species of chemical change of nature than as a change in the relations of the will. Augustine insisted strongly on the distinction between the sacrament itself and what he called the &quot;res sacramenti,&quot; between the inward and spiritual and the outward and material, and by doing so Augustine became the founder of both the modern Roman Catholic and the modern orthodox Protestant views. Apart from certain modifying influences, it would not be difficult for the orthodox Protestant to subscribe to most of Augustine s views upon baptism, for he insists strongly on the uselessness of the external sign without the inward blessing of the Spirit. But in this doctrine, as in most others, Augustine s doctrine of the Church so inter fered as to make practically inoperative his more spiritual views of baptism. The Church, Augustine thought, was the body of Christ, and that in a peculiarly external and physical way, and just as the soul of man cannot, so far as we know, exert any influence save upon and through the body, so the Spirit of Christ dispenses His gracious and regenerating influences only through the body of Christ, i.e., the Church. But the Church, Augustine thought, was no invisible spiritual communion. It was the visible kingdom of God, the visible &quot; civitas Dei in peregrinationo per terras,&quot; and so entrance into the Church, and the right and possibility of participating in the spiritual benefits which members of the Church can alone enjoy was only possible by means of a visible entrance into this visible kingdom. Thus while Augustine in theory always laid greatest stress upon the work of the Holy Spirit and upon the spiritual side of baptism, he practically gave the impulse to that view of the sacrament which made the external rite of primary importance. It was the Holy Spirit who alone imparted spiritual gifts to the children of God. But the one way by which the benefits of this Spirit could be shared was in the first place through baptism. Baptism was thought to be necessary to salvation, and all who were unbaptized were unsaved. In this way Augustine, while