In fulfilment of this commission, the apostles went forth preaching, and baptizing, and teaching. With them preaching ever took the higher place ; they regarded themselves as sent not to baptize, but to preach the gospel (s Cor. i. 17) • it was by the proclamation of the glad tidings of salvation, and not by any mere ritual observance, that men were to be saved. But when men were so far moved by their preaching as to become willing to submit to their teaching, and to Christ as the author of their religion, they baptized men, and thenceforward treated them as disciples or learners in Christ's school.
The baptisms recorded in the N. T. are those of the multitude on the day of Pentecost (Acts B. of the multitude in Samaria, among whom was Simon Magus (Acts viii. 12, 13) ; of the Ethiopian Eunuch by Philip (Acts viii. 36, 38) ; of Saul by Ananias (Acts ix. 18, 22, s6) ; of Cornelius and his company by Peter (Acts x. 47, ; of Lydia and her household, and the Philippian jailor and his household, by Paul (Acts xvi. 14, ; 33, 34); of the twelve disciples of John by.Paul (Acts xix. 5) ; and of Crispus and Gaius, and the household of Stephanas, by Paul (1 Cor. i. 14, 16). These baptisms were generally performed for the name of Jesus Christ,' or simply ' for Christ,' because, in accepting Christ as their Lord and Teacher, men professed submission to all that constitutes Chris tianity.
As administered by the apostles, baptism had a clear and well understood significance, and their authority determined at once how and to whom it was to be administered. Since their day, however, much obscurity has gathered around these points, and much difference of opinion and keen discus sion has, in consequence, arisen in the Church.
Christians have entertained different views as to the design of Baptism. The principal are the following : 1. That it is a direct instyument of grace: the application of water to the person by a properly qualified functionary being regarded as the ap pointed vehicle by which God bestows regenerating grace upon men. This general view assumes dif ferent modifications when the question what is implied in this regenerating grace comes to be determined. With one school it means the actual infusion into the soul of moral goodness (see Con ed. Trident. Decreta, Sess. iv. c. 2 ; Catechs. Rom. 11. 2, 50 ; Bellarmin, De Baptismo, C. 12 ; Pusey, On Baptism; Tracts for the Times, No. 67) ; with another it means a capacity conferred, which, if rightly used, will lead to salvation (Wilberforce, Doctrine of Holy Baptism); with a third it means an actual goodness hypothetically imparted to all baptized persons, but really received only by those predestinated to salvation (Faber, Primitive Doc trine of Regeneration ; Mozley, Prim. Doct. of Baptismal Regeneration) ; and with a fourth it means simply a change of federal condition (Water land, Works., vol. vi. p. 343-362; Bethell, General VA-to of the Doctrine of Regeneration in Baptism, ch. 2).
2. That though not an instrument it is a seal of grace; divine blessings being thereby confirmed and obsignated to the individual. This is the doctrine of the Confessions of the majority of the Reformed Churches.
3. That it is neither an instrument nor a seal of grace, but simply a ceremony of initiation into Church membership. This is the Socinian view of the ordinance. See Racovian Catechism, Qu. 345.
4. That it is a token of regeneration; to be re ceived only by those who give evidence of being really regenerated. This is the view adopted by the Baptists.
5. That it is a symbol ofpurcation; the use of which simply announces that the religion of Christ is a purifying religion, and intimates that the party receiving the rite assumes the profession, and is to be instructed in the principles of that religion. This opinion is extensively entertained by the Con gregationalists of England. (See Halley's Lectures on the Sacraments; Godwin, On Baptism.) Which of these views is to be preferred, we do not here attempt to decide. No distinct enuncia tion is given in the New Testament on the subject, and from apostolic practice little can be inferred, inasmuch as, from the peculiar circumstances in which the apostles stood, several of the above named ends were usually combined together in each act of baptism. It was almost always in those days a form of profession, a sign of regene ration, and a symbolic announcement of the puri fying character of the Christian religion.
Differences of opinion have also been introduced respecting the proper Mode of baptism. Some con tend that it should be by immersion alone ; others, that it should be only by effusion or .sprinkling ; and others, that it matters not in which way it be done, the only thing required being the ritual application of water to the person. The first class appeal to the use of fintrritco by the classical authors, with whom they affirm it is always used in the sense of dipping or immersing; to the use of the prepositions ev and cis in the N. T. in con struction with this verb ; and to such expressions as being buried with Christ in baptism,' etc., where they understand an allusion to a typical burial, by submersion in water. The second class rely upon the usage of by the sacred writers, who, they allege, employ it frequently where immersion is not to be supposed as when they speak of baptism with fire,' and 'baptism with the spirit ;' upon the alleged impossibility of immersing such multitudes as, we learn, were bap tized at once in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost ; upon the supposed improbability of an Eastern female, like Lydia, allowing herself to be publicly immersed by a man whom she had never seen before ; upon the language used by Paul at Phi lippi, when he commanded water to be brought into the room, that he might baptize the jailor and his family, language which, it is said, cannot be understood of such a quantity of water as would be required to immerse in succession a whole house hold ; and upon the use of the term baptism, to designate what is elsewhere spoken of as the out pouring of the Spirit. The third class maintain, that, according to universal usage, ticuirsqw sig nifies simply to wet, and that the following prepo sition determines whether it is to be taken in the sense of wetting by immersion or not; they contend that by signifies 'I wet with,' whilst gar sic means properly ' I wet by putting into ;' they urge especially that the word as used in the N. T. possesses so much of a technical character, that it is not possible from it to deduce any correct inference as to the mode of baptizing ; and they adduce historical evidence to shew that baptism was performed indifferently by immersion or affu lion as convenience dictated. (Wall, History of Infant Baptism with Reply to Gale; Ewing, Essay on Baptism, 2d ed.; Carson, Baptism in its Mode and its Subjects ; Halley, On the Sacraments ; Moses Stuart, On parr ; Beecher, On ditto ; Godwin, On Baptism.) In fine, differences of opinion have arisen re specting the proper subjects of baptism.