or made disciples; and that consequently, infants, who cannot be thus taught, are to be excluded. It does not appear, say they, that the apostles, in executing Christ's commission, ever baptized any but those who were first instructed in the Christian faith, and professed their belief of it. They contend that infants can receive no benefit from it, and are not capable of faith and repentance, which are to be considered as pre-requisites.

As to the mode.

are expressly commanded; that`if infant baptism had been a human invention, how would it have been so universal in the first 300 years, and yet no record left when it was introduced, nor any dispute or controversy about it? Some bring it to these two ideas: 1. That God did constitute in his church the membership of infants, and admitted them to it by a religious ordinance, Gen. xvii. Gal. íii. 14, 17.—2. That this right of infants to church membership was never taken away. This being the case, infants must be received, because God has instituted it; and since infants must be received, it must be either without baptism or with it; but none must be received without baptism, therefore infants must of necessity be baptized. Hence, it is clear, that, under the Gospel, infants are still continued exactly in the same relation to God and his church, in which they were originally placed under the former dispensation.

They observe that the meaning of the word BaTTI signifies immersion, or dipping only; that John baptized in -Jordan; that he chose a place where there was much water; that Jesus came up out of the water; that Philip and the eunuch went down both into the water. That the terms washing, purifying, burying in baptism, so often mentioned in Scripture, alludes to this mode; that immersion only was the practice of the apostles and the first Christians; and that it was only laid aside from the love of novelty, and the coldness of our climate. These positions, they think, are so clear from Scripture, and the history of the church, that they stand in need of but little argument to sup-1 Cor. vii. 14. port them. Farther, they also insist Though there are no express examthat all positive institutions depend en- ples in the New Testament of Christ tirely upon the will and declaration of and his apostles baptizing infants, yet the institutor, and that, therefore, rea- this is no proof that they were excluded. soning by analogy from previous abro-Jesus Christ actually blessed little chilgated rites, is to be rejected, and the express command of Christ respecting baptism ought to be our rule.

PÆDOBAPTISTS.

The Pedobaptists, however, are of a different opinion. As to the subject, they believe that qualified adults who have not been baptized before, are certainly proper subjects; but, then, they think also that infants are not to be excluded. They believe that, as the Abrahamic and the Christian covenants are the same, Gen. xvii. 7. Heb. viii. 12; that as children were admitted under the former; and that as baptism is now a seal, sign, or confirmation of this covenant, infants have as great a right to it as the children had a right to the seal of circumcision under the law, Acts ii. 39. Rom. iv. 11. That if children are not to be baptized because there is no positive command for it, for the same reason women should not come to the Lord's supper; we should not keep the first day of the week, nor attend public worship, for none of these

That infants are to be received into the church, and as such baptized, is also inferred from the following passages of Scripture: Gen. xvii. Is. xliv. 3. Matt. xix. 13. Luke ix. 47, 48. Mark ix. 14. Acts ii. 38, 39. Rom. xi. 17, 21.

dren; and it would be hard to believe that such received his blessing, and yet were not to be members of the Gospel church. If Christ received them, and would have us receive them in his name, how can it be reconciled to keep them out of the visible church? Besides, if children were not to be baptized, it would have been expressly forbidden. None of the Jews had any apprehension of the rejection of infants, which they must have had, if infants had been rejected. As whole households were baptized, it is probable there were children among them. From the year 400 to 1150, no society of men in all that period of 750 years, ever pretended to say it was unlawful to baptize infants; and still nearer the time of our Saviour there appears to have been scarcely any one that so much as advised the delay of infant baptism. Irenæus, who lived in the second century, and was well acquainted with Polycarp, who was John's disciple, declares expressly that the church learned from the apostles to baptize children. Origen, in the third century, affirmed that the custom

F

ble of baptism; but it is replied, if infants must not be baptized because something is said of baptism that does not agree to infants, Mark xvi. 16. then infants must not be saved, because something is said of salvation that does not agree to infants, Mark xvi. 16. As none but adults are capable of believing, so, by the argument of the Baptists, none but adults are capable of salvation: for he that believeth not shall be damned. But Christ, it is said, set an example of adult baptism. True; but he was baptized in honour to John's ministry, and to conform himself to what he appointed to his followers; for which last reason he drank of the sacramental cup: but this is rather an argument for the Pædobaptists than against them; since it plainly shows, as Doddridge observes, that baptism may be administered to those who are not capable of all the purposes for which it was designed; since Jesus Christ, not being a sinner, could not be capable of that faith and repentance which are said to be necessary to this ordinance.

of baptizing infants was received from baptism, it is observed, that cannot Christ and his apostles. Cyprian, and agree to infants: faith goes before bapa council of ministers (held about the tism; and, as none but adults are capayear 254) no less than sixty-six in num-ble of believing, so no others are capaber, unanimously agreed that children might be baptized as soon as they were born. Ambrose, who wrote about 274 years from the apostles, declares that the baptism of infants had been the practice of the apostles themselves, and of the church, till that time. The catholic church every where declared, says Chrysostom, in the fifth century, that infants should be baptized; and Augustin affirmed that he never heard nor read of any Christian, catholic, or sectarian, but who always held that infants were to be baptized. They farther believe, that there needed no mention in the New Testament of receiving infants into the church, as it had been once appointed, and never repealed. The dictates of nature, also, in parental feelings; the verdict of reason in favour of privileges; the evidence in favour of children being sharers of the seals of grace, in common with their parents, for the space of 4000 years; and especially the language of prophecy, in reference to the children of the Gospel church, make it very probable that they were not to be rejected. So far from confining it to adults, it must be remembered that there is not a single instance recorded in the New Testament in which the descendants of Christian parents were baptized in adult years.

That infants are not proper subjects for baptism, because they cannot profess faith and repentance, they deny. This objection falls with as much weight upon the institution of circumcision as infant baptism; since they are as capable, or are as fit subjects for the one as the other. It is generally acknowledged, that, if infants die (and a great part of the human race do die in infancy,) they are saved: if this be the case, then, why refuse them the sign in infancy, if they are capable of enjoying the thing signified? "Why," says Dr. Owen, "is it the will of God that unbelievers should not be baptized? It is because, not granting them the grace, he will not grant them the sign. If God, therefore, denies the sign to the infant seed of believers, it must be because he denies them the grace of it; and then all the children of believing parents (upon these principles) dying in their infancy, must, without hope, be eternally damned. I do not say that all must be so who are not baptized; but all must be so whom God would not have baptized." Something is said of

As to the mode.

They believe that the word BUTTO signifies to dip or to plunge; but that the term Barriga, which is only derivative of Barro, and consequently must be somewhat less in its signification, should be invariably used in the New Testament to express plunging, is not so clear. It is therefore doubted whether dipping be the only meaning, and whether Christ absolutely enjoined immersion, and that it is his positive will that no other should be used. As the word Bag is used for the various ablutions among the Jews, such as sprinkling, pouring, &c. Heb. ix. 10; for the custom of washing before meals, and the washing of household furniture, pots, &c.; it is evident from hence that it does not express the manner of doing, whether by immersion or affusion, but only the thing done; that is, washing, or the application of water in one form or other. Dr. Owen observes, that it no where signifies to dif, but as denoting a mode of, and in order to washing or cleansing: and, according to others, the mode of use is only the ceremonial part of a positive institute; just as in the supper of the Lord, the time of the day, the number and posture of communicants, the quality and quantity of bread and wine, are circumstances

idea, 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.

sufferings of Christ, Matt. xx. 22; and to so much of the Gospel as John the Baptist taught his disciples, Acts xviii.

25.

BAPTISTS, a denomination of Christians who maintain that baptism is to be administered by immersion, and not by sprinkling. See BAPTISM.

Although there were several Baptists among the Albigenses, Waldenses, and the followers of Wickliffe, it does not appear that they were formed into any stability until the time of Menno, about the year 1536. See ANABAPTISTS and MENNONITES. About 1644 they began to make a considerable figure in England, and spread themselves into several separate congregations. They separated from the Independents about the year 1638, and set up for themselves under the pastoral care of Mr. Jesse; and, having renounced their former baptism, they sent over one of their number to be immersed by one of the Dutch Anabaptists of Amsterdam, that he might be qualified to baptize his friends in England after the same manner.

BAPTISM FOR THE DEAD, a practice formerly in use, when a person dying without baptism, another was baptized in his stead; thus supposing that God would accept the baptism of the proxy, as though it had been administered to the principal. Chrysostom says, this was practised among the Marcionites with a great deal of ridiculous ceremony, which he thus describes-After any catechumen was dead, 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 answer, the other answered for him, and said he would be baptized in his stead; and so they baptized the living for the dead. If it can be proved (as some think it can) that this practice was as early as the days of the apostle Paul, it might probably form a solution of those remarkable words in 1 Cor. xv. 29: "If the dead rise not at all, what shall they do who are baptized The Baptists subsist under two denofor the dead?" The allusion of the minations, viz. the Particular or Calapostle to this practice, however, is re- vinistical, and the General or Armijected by some, and especially by Dr. nian. Their modes of church governDoddridge, who thinks it too early: he ment and worship are the same as the thus paraphrases the passage: "Such Independents; in the exercise of which are our views and hopes as Christians; they are protected, in common with else, if it were not so, what should they other dissenters, by the act of tolerado who are baptized in token of their tion. Some of both denominations allow embracing the Christian faith, in the of mixed communion; by which it is room of the dead, who are just fallen understood that those who have not in the cause of Christ, but are yet sup-been baptized by immersion, on the proported by a succession of new converts, who immediately offer themselves to fill up their places, as ranks of soldiers that advance to the combat in the rooms of their companions who have just been slain in their sight?"

Lay baptism we find to have been permitted by both the common prayer books of king Edward and queen Elizabeth, when an infant was in immediate danger of death, and a lawful minister could not be had. This was founded on a 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 1575, that even private baptism in a case of necessity was only to be administered by a lawful minister.

BAPTISM METAPHORICAL. In Scripture the term Baptism is used as referring to the work of the Spirit on the heart, Matt. iii. 11; also to the

fession of their faith, may sit down at the Lord's table with those who have been thus baptized. Others, however, disallow it, supposing that such have not been actually baptized at all. See FREE COMMUNION.

Some of them observe the seventh

day of the week as the Sabbath, apprehending the law that enjoined it not to have been repealed by Christ.

Some of the General Baptists have, it is said, gone into Socinianism, or Arianism; on account of which, several of their ministers and churches who disapprove of these principles, have within the last forty years formed themselves into a distinct connexion, called the New Association. The churches in this union keep up a friendly acquaintance, in some outward things, with those from whom they have separated; but in things more essential disclaim any connexion with them, particularly as to changing ministers, and the admission of members. The General Baptists have,

in some of their churches, three distinct || from a copy of father Hugh Menaed, a orders separately ordained, viz.-mes- monk. Vossius published it, in 1656, sengers, elders, and deacons. Their ge- with the epistles of Ignatius, The Gosneral assembly is held annually in Wor-pel of Barnabas is another apocryphal ship Street, London, on the Tuesday in work ascribed to Barnabas, wherein the Whitsun week. the history of Jesus Christ is given in a different manner from that of the evangelists.