FANT.) The general practice of the Church, Ureek. Roman, and Reforined, has licen to bap- tize infants. Another controversy of long stand- ing has been that as to the mode of baptism, whether immersion alone constitutes valid bap- tism, or whether other forms may be used. Those wIk) favor immersion argue from the meaning of tlic word 'baptize,' from New Testament usage, from the symbolism of the doctrine, which they think has reference to the death, burial, and res- urrection of Christ (Romans vi. 3, 4), and from the acknowledged custom of the ancient and Oriental Church. Their opponents deny that the word 'baptize' is exactly and solely equivalent in the New Testament to the word inuncrse, dispute the deiiniteness of the testimony to the forms there referred to, restrict the symbolism to that of cleansing, and deny the whole cogency of the argument that apostolic example is, and was in- tended to be, binding upon the Church in purely formal matters. See Baptists.
In the primitive Church the ordinary mode of baptism was by immersion, for which purpose baplistcries (q.v. ) began to be erected in the Third, perhaps in the Second Century, and the sexes were usually baptized apart. But baptism was administered to sfek persons by sprinkling; although doubts as to the complete efficacy of this clinic (sick) baptism were evidently preva- lent in the time of Cyprian (middle of the Third Century). Baptism by sprinkling gradually be- came more prevalent ; but the dispute concerning the mode of baptism became one of the irrecon- cilable differences between the Eastern and West- ern churches, the former generally adhering to tile practice of immersion, wiiilst the latter adopted mere pouring of water on the liead, or sprinkling on the face, which practice has gen- erally prevailed since the Thirteenth Century, but not universally, for it was the ordinary prac- tice in England before the Reformation to im- merse infants, and the fonts (q.v.) in the churclies were made large enough for this pur- pose. This continued also to be the practice till the reign of Elizabeth; and the change which then took place is ascribed to the English di- vines 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 god- mothers "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 shall certify that the child is weak," that "it shall suffice to pour water upon it," which, however, or sprinkling, is now the or- dinary practice.
Baptism was accompanied, from an early pe- riod in the history of the Church, with various forms and ceremonies, besides the simple rite of Wiisliing with Avater, 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." These ceremonies are almost all re- tained in the Church of Rome, and also generally in the Oriental churches, but have been generally or almost entirely laid aside by Protestants. The Church of England retains the sign of the Cross made upon the forehead after baptism, but most of the other Protestant churches reject it. It was an ancient custom that the cafechumens, as candidates for baptism were called while re- ceiving instruction with a view to that sacra- ment, when they were to be bajjtized, publicly made a profession of their faith and a renuncia- tion of the devil and all his works. The pro- fession of faitii is still retained by Protestant churches as the formal giound of the administra- tion of baptism; the renunciation of the devil and his works is required by the Church of England of the person baptized, 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 par- ticularly for infants. The belief in the absolute necessity of baptism to salvation led even to bap- tism of the dead among the Montanists in Africa, in which sponsorship was also introduced. Pres- byterian and Independent churches generally re- ject all sponsorship, and regard the profession made by parents as simply a profession of their own faith, which entitles their infants to bap- tism. 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 Urine immersion) , or sprinkling three times, with reference to the tlircc ])ersons of the God- head; that of breathing upon the baptized per- .son, to signify the expulsion of the devil, and to .symbolize the gift of the Holy Spirit; that of anointing with oil (chrism, q.v.) to symbolize the same gift, or to indicate that the baptized person is ready, as a wrestler in the ancient games, to fight the good fight of faith; that of giving him milk and honey, in token of his spir- itual youth, and of his reception of spiritual gifts and graces; that of putting a little salt into his nioutli, to signify the wisdom and tuste for heav- enly things proper to a Christian; that of touch- ing 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 odor of truth and virtue, and that of clothing him after bap- tism with a white robe (the chri/some) , 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, however, is no essential part of the rite, but is a custom apparently derived from that of the .Tews in circumcision (Luke i. 59-63). The Church of Rome prefers the use of holy wa- ter (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 baptism was limited to the two great festivals of Easter and Whitsuntide. Whether baptism may be administered in pri- vate, 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 Scot- land in the first half of the Seventeenth Century; their opposition being gi-ounded, not only upon hostility to what they deemed usurpation of authority, but upon the danger of superstitious views of baptism. And apparently upon this latter ground, baptism in private houses is also discouraged, even while it is allowed, if there is 'great cause and necessity.' by the Church of England ; yet it has become very frequent both in the Church of England and among the Presbyterians of .Scotland, and also is not uncommon
