תמונות בעמוד
PDF
ePub

AUGUSTINS, a religious order, who

tures read in the church; but they | were not allowed to be present at the observed the rule of St. Augustine, preprayers. scribed them by pope Alexander IV. AUGSBURGH, or AUGUSTAN in 1256. This rule was to have all CONFESSION, a celebrated confes-things in common; the rich who enter sion of faith drawn up by Luther and Melancthon on behalf of themselves and other ancient reformers, and presented in 1550 to the emperor Charles V. at the diet of Augusta, or Augsburg, in the name of the evangelic body. This confession contains twenty-eight chap-but in their monastery, &c. ters, of which the greatest part is emAUSTERITY, a state of rigid morployed in representing with perspicuity tification. It is distinguished from seand truth the religious opinions of the verity and rigour thus: Austerity relates Protestants, and the rest in pointing out to the manner of living; severity to the the errors and abuses that occasioned manner of thinking; rigour to the mantheir separation from the church of ner of punishing. To austerity is opposed Rome. The leading doctrines of this effeminacy; to severity, relaxation; to confession are, the true and essential rigour, clemency. A hermit is austere divinity of the Son of God; his substituin his life: a casuist severe in his applition, and vicarious sacrifice; and the cation of religion or law; a judge rinecessity, freedom, and efficacy of Di-gorous in his sentences.

among them to sell their possessions, and give them to the poor; to employ the first part of the morning in labouring with their hands, and the rest in reading: when they go abroad, to go. always two in company; never to eat

vine grace. A civil war followed this AUTOCEPHALI BISHOPS. This diet that lasted upwards of twenty denomination was given to such bishops years, but which only spread the new in the primitive church as were exopinions, instead of extirpating them. Tempted from the jurisdiction of others.

B

BACKBITING. See DETRACTION || quences of this awful state are-loss of and SLANDER. character; loss of comfort; loss of useBACKSLIDING, the act of turningfulness; and, as long as any remain in from the path of duty. It may be con- this state, a loss of a well-grounded hope sidered as partial when applied to true of future happiness. To avoid this state, believers, who do not backslide with the or recover from it, we should beware whole bent of their will; as voluntary, of the first appearance of sin; be much when applied to those who, after pro- in prayer; attend the ordinances; and fessing to know the truth, wilfully turn unite with the people of God. We from it, and live in the practice of sin; should consider the awful instances of as final, when the mind is given up to apostacy, as Saul, Judas, Demas, &c. ; judicial hardness, as in the case of Judas. the many warnings we have of it, Matt. Partial backsliding must be distinguish- xxiv. 13. Heb. x. 38. Luke, ix. 62.; ed from hypocrisy, as the former may how it grieves the Holy Spirit; and how exist where there are gracious inten-wretched it makes us; above all things, tions on the whole; but the latter is a studied profession of appearing to be what we are not.

our dependence should be on God, that we may always be directed by his Spirit, and kept by his power. See APÓSTASY.

The causes of backsliding are-the cares of the world; improper conBANGORIAN CONTROVERSY, nexions; inattention to secret or closet so called from Bangor, or the bishop duties; self-conceit and dependence; thereof. Bishop Hoadley, the bishop of indulgence; listening to and parlying that diocess, preaching before George with temptations. A backsliding stute I. asserted the supreme authority of is manifested by indifference to prayer Christ, as king in his own kingdom; and self-examination; trifling or unpro-and that he had not delegated his power, fitable conversation; neglect of public ordinances; shunning the people of God; associating with the world; thinking lightly of sin; neglect of the Bible; and often by gross immorality. The conse

like temporal lawgivers during their absence from their kingdom, to any persons, as his vicegerents or deputies. This important sermon may be seen reprinted in the Liverpool Theological

Repository, vol 5. p. 301. In 1717, he also published his Preservative, in which he advanced some positions contrary to temporal and spiritual tyranny. || and in behalf of the civil and religious liberties of mankind: upon which he was violently opposed, accused, and persecuted, by the advocates for church power: but he was defended and supported by the civil powers, and his abilities and meekness gained him the|| plaudits of many.

BANIANS, a religious sect in the empire of the Mogul, who believe a Metempsychosis; and will therefore eat no living creature, nor kill even noxious animals, but endeavour to release them when in the hands of others. The name Banian is sometimes extended to all the idolaters of India, as contradistinguished from the Mahometans.

"

capable of appearing before God in the tabernacle or temple, till they were washed either by bathing or sprinkling.' Others, however insist, that the Jewish proselyte baptism is not by far so ancient: and that John the Baptist was the first administrator of baptism among the Jews.

The baptism of John, and that of our Saviour and his apostles, have been supposed to be the same; because they agree, it is said, in their subjects, form, and end. But it must be observed, that though there be an agreement in some particulars, yet there is not in all. The immediate institutor of John's baptism was God the Father, John i. 33; but the immediate institutor of the Christian baptism was Christ, Matt. xxviii. 19. John's baptism was a preparatory rite referring the subjects to Christ, who was about to confer on them spiritual blessings, Matt. iii. 11. John's baptism was confined to the Jews; but the Christian was common to Jews and Gentiles, Matt. iii. 5. 7. Matt. xxviii. 19. It does not appear that John had any formula of administration; but the Christian baptism has, viz. "In the name," &c. The baptism of John was the concluding scene of the legal dispensation, and in fact, part of it; and to be considered as one of those "divers washings" among the Jews; for he did not attempt to make any alteration in the Jewish religion, nor did the persons he baptized cease to be members of the Jewish church on the account of their baptism; but Christian baptism is the regular entrance into and is a part of, the evangelical dispensation, Gal. iii. 27. It does not appear from the inspired narrative (however probable from inferential reasoning) that any but John himself was engaged as operator in his baptism; whereas Christ himself baptized none; but his disci. ples by his authority, and in his name, John, iv. 2.

BAPTISM, the ceremony of washing, or the application of water to a person, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, by which he is initiated into the visible church. Baptism exhibits to us the blessings of par. don, salvation through Jesus Christ, union to and communion with him, the out-pouring of the Spirit, regeneration, and sanctification. From baptism, results the obligation of repentance, love to Christ, and perpetual devotedness to his praise. Baptism does not constitute a visible subject, but only recognizes one. Ministers only have a right to administer it; and have a negative It is voice in opposition to all claims an ordinance binding on all who have been given up to God in it; and to be perpetuated to the end of the world. It is not, however, essential to salvation; for mere participation of sacraments cannot qualify men for heaven: many have real grace, consequently in a salvable state, before they were baptized: besides to suppose it essential, is to put it in the place of that which it signifies. Baptism has been supposed by many learned persons to have had its origin Baptism has been the subject of long from the Jewish church; in which, they and sharp controversy, both as it remaintain, it was the practice, long be- spects the subject and the mode. To fore Christ's time, to baptize proselytes state all that has been said on both or converts to their faith, as part of the sides, would be impossible in a work of "It is this kind. An abstract, however, of ceremony of their admission. strange to me," says Dr. Doddridge, the chief arguments, I think it my duty "that any should doubt of this, when it to present to the reader, in order that is plain, from express passages in the he may judge for himself. Jewish law, that no Jew who had lived like a Gentile for one day could be restored to the communion of this church without it. Compare Num. xix. 19 and 20. and many other precepts relating to ceremonial pollutions, in which may be seen, that the Jews were rendered in

As to the subject.

The ANTIPÆDOBAPTISTS hold that believing adults only are proper subjects, because Christ's commission to baptize appears to them to restrict this ordinance to such only as are taught,

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.

They observe that the meaning of the word Barriga 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, allude 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 support them. Farther, they also insist that all positive institutions depend entirely upon the will and declaration of the institutor, and that, therefore, reasoning by analogy from previous abrogated rites, is to be ejected, 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 un der 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

are expressly commanded; that if infant baptism had been a human invention, how would it have been so universal in the first three hundred 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. iii. 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.

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. 1 Cor. vii. 14.

Though there are no express examples in the New Testament of Christ and his apostles baptizing infants, yet this is no proof that they were excluded. Jesus Christ actually blessed little children; 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

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 capable ber, unanimously agreed that children of baptism; but it is replied, if infants might be baptized as soon as they were must not be baptized because something born. Ambrose, who wrote about 274 is said of baptism that does not agree years from the apostles, declares that to infants, Mark xvi. 16. then infants the baptism of infants had been the must not be saved, because something practice of the apostles themselves, and is said of salvation that does not agree of the church, till that time. The ca- to infants, Mark xvi. 16. As none but tholic church every where declared, adults are capable of believing, so, by says, Chrysostom, in the fifth century, the argument of the Baptists, none but that infants should be baptized; and adults are capable of salvation: for he Augustin affirmed that he never heard that believeth not shall be damned. nor read of any Christian, catholic, or But Christ, it is said, set an example sectarian, but who always held that in- of adult baptism. True; but he was fants were to be baptized. They far- baptized in honour to John's ministry, ther believe, that there needed no men- and to conform himself to what he aption in the New Testament of receiving pointed to his followers; for which last infants into the church, as it had been reason he drank of the sacramental cup: once appointed, and never repealed. but this is rather an argument for the The dictates of nature, also, in parental Pædobaptists than against them; since feelings; the verdict of reason in favour it plainly shows, as Doddridge observes, of privileges; the evidence in favour of that baptism may be administered to children being sharers of the seals of those who are not capable of all the grace, in common with their parents, purposes for which it was designed ; for the space of 4000 years; and espe- since Jesus Christ, not being a sinner, cially the language of prophecy, in re- could not be capable of that faith and ference to the children of the Gospel repentance, which are said to be neces. church, make it very probable that theysary to this ordinance. 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.

As to the mode.

They believe that the word BаTTO. signifies to dip or to plunge; but that the term Barriga, which is only a derivative of Barr, and consequently must That infants are not proper subjects be somewhat less in its signification, for baptism, because they cannot profess should be invariably used in the New faith and repentance, they deny. This Testament to express plunging, is not objection falls with as much weight so clear. It is therefore doubted wheupon the institution of circumcision as ther dipping be the only meaning, and infant baptism; since they are as capa- whether Christ absolutely enjoined imble, or are as fit subjects for the one as mersion, and that it is his positive will the other. It is generally acknowledg- that no other should be used. As the ed, that, if infants die (and a great part word Barrig is used for the various abof the human race do die in infancy,) lutions among the Jews, such as sprinkthey are saved: if this be the case, ling, pouring, &c. Heb. ix. 10; for the then, why refuse them the sign in in- custom of washing before meals, and fancy, if they are capable of enjoying the washing of household furniture, the thing signified? Why," says Dr. pots, &c; it is evident from hence that Owen, "is it the will of God that un-it does not express the manner of doing, believers 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

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 dip, 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 circum

of his being immersed, as the Greek term an often signifies from; for instance, "Who hath warned you to flee

Again: it is said that Philip and the eunuch went down both into the water. To this it is answered, that here is no proof of immersion; for if the expression of their going down into the water necessarily includes dipping, then Philip was dipped as well as the eunuch. The preposition (c) translated into, often signifies no more than to or unto. See Matt. xv. 23. Rom. x. 10. Acts xxviii. 14. Matt. xvii. 27. Matt. iii. 11. So that, from all these circumstances, it cannot be concluded that there was a single person of all the baptized who went into the water ankle deep. As to the apostle's expression, "buried with him in baptism," they think it has no force; and that it does not allude to any custom of dipping, any more than our baptismal crucifixion and death has any such reference. It is not the sign but the thing signified that is here alluded to. As Christ was buried and rose again to a heavenly life, so we by baptism signifying that we are cut off from the life of sin, that we may rise again to a new life of faith and love.

stances not accounted essential by any party of Christians. As to the Hebrew word Tabal, it is considered as a generic term; that its radical, primary, androm, not out of, the wrath to come," proper meaning is, to tinge, to die, to with many others which might be menwet, or the like; which primary design tioned. is effected by different modes of application. If in baptism also there is an expressive emblem of the descending influence of the Spirit, pouring must be the mode of administration; for that is the scriptural term most commonly and properly used for the communication of divine influences. There is no object whatever in all the New Testament so frequently and so explicitly signified by baptism as these divine influences. Matt. iii. 11. Mark i. 8. 10. Luke iii. 16 to 22. John i. 33. Acts i 5. Acts ii. 38, 39. Acts viii. 12. 17. Acts xi. 15, 16. The term sprinkling, also, is made use of in reference to the act of purifying, Is. lii. 15. Heb. ix. 13, 14. Ezek. xxxvi. 25, and therefore cannot be inapplicable to baptismal purifica tion. But it is observed, that John bap tized in Jordan: to this it is replied, to infer always a plunging of the whole body in water from this word, would, in many instances, be false and absurd: the same Greek preposition is used when it is said they should be baptized with fire; while few will assert that they should be plunged into it. The apostle, speaking of Christ, says, he came not () by water only, but () by water and blood. There the same word is translated by, and with justice and propriety, for we know no good sense in which we could say he came in water. It has been remarked, that is more than a hundred times in the New Testament, rendered "at," and in a hundred and fifty others it is translated with. If it be rendered so here, "John baptized at Jordan," or with the water of Jordan, there is no proof from thence that he plunged his disciples in it.

It is urged that John's choosing a place where there was much water is a certain proof of immersion. To which it is answered, that as there went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, that by choosing a place where there were many streams or rivulets, it would be much more expeditiously performed by pouring; and that it seems in the nature of things highly improbable that John should have baptized this vast multitude by immersion, to say nothing of the indecency of both sexes being baptized together.

Jesus, it is said, came up out of the water: but this is said to be no proof

To conclude this article, it is observed against the mode of immersion, that, as it carries with it too much of the appearance of a burdensome rite for the Gospel dispensation; that as it is too indecent for so solemn an ordinance; as it has a tendency to agitate the spirits, often rendering the subject unfit for the exercise of proper thoughts and affections, and indeed utterly incapable of them; as in many cases the immersion of the body would in all probability be instant death; as in other situations it would be impracticable for want of a sufficient quantity of water, it cannot be considered as necessary to the ordinance of baptism.

See Gale, Robinson, Stennett, Gill, and Booth, on Antipedobaptism; and Wall, Henry, Bradbury, Bostwick, Towgood, Addington, Williams, Edwards, Miller, Evans, &c. on the other side.

BAPTISM OF THE DEAD, a custom which anciently prevailed among some people in Africa, of giving baptism to the dead. The third council of Carthage speaks of it as a thing that ignorant Christians were fond of: Gregory Nazianzen also takes notice of the same superstitious opinion. The practice seems to be grounded on a vain

« הקודםהמשך »