THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
on earth; but his reason can not be clearly seen. The orthodox dogmaticians of the Reformed Church continued the thoughts of Calvin (cf. A. Schweizer, Die Glaubenslehre der evangclisch-reformirten Kirchc, ii, Zurich, 1S47; H. Heppe, Dogmatik der evangelisch-reformirten Kirchc, Elberfeld, 1861).
The age of pietism and rationalism showed no interest in baptism. Schleiermacher (Der christ-
liche Glaube, §§ 136-138) treats bap-
3. Modern tism as the solemn act of reception
Develop- into the " community of believers,"
ments. in which alone the individual can
attain real communion with Christ. Baptism of children, according to him, has no meaning unless Christian education follows, and it is only an " incomplete " baptism if it does not lead to a later act of confession of faith (confirmation). In the course of the nineteenth century the reawakened life of Lutheranism produced new, but on the whole not healthy tendencies in the doctrine of baptism. Scheel distinguishes three tendencies. The first is one which tries to give to the sacraments as a whole and to baptism especially a special import apart from the Word. Some small beginnings of this tendency may be noticed even in the old orthodoxy, especially in the teachings of Leonhard Hutter. In our modern time it is represented by Norwegian (Danish) and German Lutheran theologians, among the former especially by G. W Lyng and Krogh-Tonning, among the latter chiefly by the Erlangen theologians Hofling, Thomasius, and others. Baptism is here explained as a natural power of the spirit which by means of the body renovates and " regenerates " the whole man. Theosophical speculations on the relation of body and soul form the background of this theory. Quite different is the second tendency, which is represented especially by H. Cremer of Greifswald and P Althaus of Gottingen. In opposition to the former theory, the stress is here again laid upon the Word in the sacrament. Here also baptism is considered a bath of regeneration, but it is explained as neither natural nor " moral," but as purely religious or " soteriological." Baptism is a " transposition " into a new life, into the real life. It is assurance of grace, and as such salvation from the judgment and death which we have deserved. Its moral effects follow as a natural result of justification. Faith is produced in the degree in which man becomes conscious of what God has done for him and assured him in baptism. In the child baptism denotes exactly the same thing as in the adult. It is necessary because the Lord has instituted it and made the effects of grace dependent upon it. The third tendency is chiefly represented by A. von Oettingen (Dorpat) and takes a middle ground between the two other tendencies. Here baptism is thought of as not only " convincing " like the preaching of the Word, but in an especial manner as both " generating " through assurance of grace and also, through a " realistic " transformation of the nature of man, " regenerating." Emphasis is once more laid upon the thought of Luther that baptism, as distinguished from the general preaching of the gospel, assures the individual as such of his salvation.
It is true, in baptism it is the " Word " which produces all effects, but it produces them in a hidden and often mysterious manner.
Among recent works on baptism is that of Gottschick, who, impelled by certain events in Bremen, investigated the doctrine of the Reformers with a view to determining how far the Trinitarian formula is a constituent part of baptism. Scheel concludes his work also with a detailed dogmatic discussion. These writers, with M. Kahler (Die Sacramente als Gnadenmittel. Besteht ihre reformatorische Schatzung noch zu Recht t Leipsic, 1903), are nearly related to each other in their interpretation of baptism. They go back to the living intuition of Luther, who saw the whole Christ standing behind the order of baptism, thus considering it not merely as of legal authority. Scheel shows especially that the proper act or rite of baptism can not be fully appreciated dogmatically, but only from the standpoint of the psychology of religion. Dogmatically he considers baptism only as the presentation of the Word or gospel. All three regard baptism of children as an arbitrary, but blameless custom, which is removed alike from dogmatic justification and from dogmatic criticism; the empirical efficacy of the " Word," they say, is incalculable. F. Kattenbusch.
III. Liturgical Usage.— 1. General Development to the Reformation: The origin of Christian baptism seems closely connected with the Jewish custom of baptizing proselytes, which was based on the wide-spread idea of attaining ritual purity by ablutions, found in practically all the ancient religions. Whether Christian baptism be founded on a specific command of Christ or not (see above, I, 1), there is no doubt that it soon became a universal Christian custom. If there had 1. Original been no other reason, it would have Forms, seemed obviously fitting, in the interest both of the community and of the new converts, that their entrance should be marked by a special rite. As soon as definite sacramental ideas were connected with the rite — and this must have been very early — it spread throughout the Christian organizations. It is an attractive theory, supported by Cyprian's express statement (Epist., lxiii, 17), that the Jews and the Gentiles in the apostles' time had a different manner of baptizing; that among the Jewish Christians a single immersion was the rule, in the name of Christ alone, on the analogy of the Jewish proselyte baptism, while the threefold immersion in the threefold name, which had its counterpart in the heathen lustrations, was the rule among the Gentile Christians. It is uncertain whether the later rite with which Jewish proselyte baptism was performed (see Proselyte) was in existence at the foundation of the Christian Church; but if so, it is most likely that the Christian rite was a free adaptation of it. It is possible that the analogy of the reading of the commandments and the proselyte's promise to keep them suggested the similar vow on the part of the Christian catechumen (Clement, Horn., xiii, 10; Justin, / Apol., lxi; Tertullian, De spectaculis, iv), although, of course, it may have originated independently.
The early course of the development, made out of